Why does the atheist movement (meeting in Melbourne next week) look so much like the religious organisations they seek to annihilate.
- promotes only one way to understand and enjoy life
- shows great zeal to deal with the unbelief of non believers
- concerned about the blindness of those who follow other paths
- concerned about the lack of blessedness accompanying false paths
- sees unbelievers as irrational and therefore a threat to rational thought itself.
- Threatens damnation and morbidity (DVD "Root of all Evil")
- Offers salvation through a complete, "wholistic approach"
The advocates of a revival of secularism may be over selling themselves: Evidence of their fanaticsm is interpreted by outsiders as suggestive of a redoubling of effort when one has lost sight of the aim. http://politicaceleste.blogspot.com
Thinking people may be a little more interested in the old cave dwellers ( Plato) IF they:
- had dealt with public fears and lack of interest in science more effectively( where has ABCTV been with the growth of fearmongering and politicization of science over the last decade?)
- played fair on the hustings-not using so much of our taxes to promote their own worldview - ad infinitum ABCTV.
- written some good rousing songs, especially for young people
- had some more practicing scientists at their gatherings (AFA are saying "science and truth are at stake" )
- started some schools other than the ones they have usurped for the preaching of some old pedantic comfort word lessons in misplaced concreteness at their new curriculum schools of mere description.

You get all types, but I can only speak for myself when I say my concern towards religion boils down to:

-Unwelcome input of religious principals into government (abortion, Euthanasia, contraceptives, Tony Abbot in general).
Or for that matter, any policies inspired by theological teachings instead of logic (although this is more of an absence of direct democracy as far as Australia goes in which nobody else gets a say).

-Strangely gigantic concessions given to the Pope and Catholic pilgrims over the rights of Sydney-siders on WYD_08 (although this isn't quite 'religions' fault entirely- although I can't think of any other reason our pollies were so fast to roll out the welcome mat (and kick out the locals)- but still, admittedly also a democratic shortcoming of Australia.

-Taxes and legal concessions given to clerics and churches.

-Fundi Muslims, their hostility to anything unlike themselves and
insistance that we must live under a stone-age theocracy.

Anyway, the "rise" of Atheism tends to boil down to an increasing amount of people who don't believe God, etc are real.
Pretty simple.

more correctly the rise of afictionalism.

I once met a family who had no fiction in the house. No doubt they would have been annoyed by people perpetually telling them they were missing out on star trek, the latest crap on telly, etc. Otherwise grown adults who talk about nothing else.

One would be annoyed at someone who constantly tries to interpret everything through the stained glass of Gene Roddenberry, discounting the views of those who don't and constantly overstating the importance of those who do. Annoying lecturers with "prime directive" as if it held the weight of real law. Using any possible means to subvert the political process.....

The afictionalists might just get sick of public policy based on fictionalist assumptions, and start clubs, having meetings, just to hear about other stuff as well as complain about what a noisy place Kakrafoon had suddenly become.

Rusty

What is the problem if atheists would get organised and have their media as well as believers are organised around their places of worship and their believers’ media? This is free country and everyone has right for free speech. There is space for clubs of interest for everyone. Let's not to pretend that any opinion could be taken as the ultimate true in the universe. That all matter if belief and trust.

Tatiana - I didn't make the point about ABC and the media lightly. State supported secularism.
Any government organisation can be affected by a world view filter and ABCTV is very religious about their's. http://abcchurch.blogspot.com . Note how many ABC's choristers will be at the conference. Yet if they published on line , or out in the real commercial world of ideas - how many people would read their stuff? How often do you learn something new on "current affairs"?. What drives their comedy push, and is it working - why or why not?
Ask George Negus or even Phillip Adams about the worldview there and whether its developed some diversity over the last 20years .

Our forefathers in the media in Australia were passionate about NOT having state support for any religious view - such as it is now - secularism and determinism.
I don't know how old you are, but I am also concerned about the lack of choice offered for young people -are you like them inspired , or just cynical by what you see in others on the TV ( eg Where is the reporting of young people -the old format of woosy RageRage ? ) ? Where was the coverage of Obama and the sort of great diversity that's on SBS. Will ABC 3 report what teenagers are doing and thinking , or just sameold sameold -what presenters want us to move on to , or never move off of .

Hanrahan,

I don't see any example of atheists offering salvation, nor threatening damnation, nor being concerned with anyone's blessedness. Your attempt to draw parallels with major religions is somewhat feeble.

Their only faith is that faith is irrelevant, and that reason is the only help that man can rely on as he paddles his own boat. The reason that the atheists are having a convention is that for so long they have almost had to apologize for not being spiritual.

However, a tax exempt status would be welcome

the god deniers pathetic attempts to explain origins shows what blind faith people they really are. With numerous posts on the topic of evolution the best they can come up with is a big bang. These ego driven men and women that meet in the name of atheism are no different from the numerous other times in history where arrogant self righteous men wave puny fists at their Maker. Soon they will be no longer and our Creator will still be on His throne. Their religion continues to produce false prophecies and has recently been shown to be corrupt yet again. Why should we be surprised?

It's not a rise in atheism, it's just a relative decline in superstition due to the recognition of it's negative effects on humanity.

I have to quote you runner ..."the god deniers pathetic attempts to explain origins shows what blind faith people they really are."

I would have thought that exactly fits the description afforded to those who believe in some spurious man-made interpretation of our origins. There is absolutely no evidence at all of any supernatural deity unless you believe a book that was written nearly two thousand years ago by ignorant men who said Jesus was the Son of God. People who believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe rationalised their ideas and wrote down their beliefs based on these assumptions.

Of course the Big Bang theory is just that, but it is at least based on science and could well be proved in the course of time. I wonder how many of the things we take for granted now such as Television had been postulated as conceivable even 150 years ago or a flight to the moon. They would have been laughed at. Scientists search for truth. Religious people who believe in something divine accept truth from mythology and superstition. But of course they "know" they are right because their individual god speaks to them.

As I have asked before on OLO, who do the devout pray to and what for ? I wonder how many people in Haiti prayed to their interventionist god.

"a tax exempt status would be welcome" Democritis
Funny man! We can't have every unbeliever getting a tax exemption - there would be no official believers left, and no taxes . Faith is a fickle thing at the best of times.
On the question of the "rise" I tend to agree with King Hazza that it may be that , in Australia more and more people are cynical about God and any power HSe may have.But does this coorelate with cynicism in general though ?
Numbers mean what -esp in such large and diverse congregations ? Historically religions grow in persecution, or by reaction - maybe thats what the numbers mean?
Numbers mean little . How much do you discount the fact ( and multiply the basic stats) to adjust for the fact that prominent atheists now often get free membership and a free meal ticket to sell , wheras the others ( despite the tax breaks for leaders ) have to rely on other taxed already types who give 10% (often less) of their income year after year to keep the leadership and the institutions going. Stats to test commitment? or is the plate a good test?
Never forget that our first media magnate and many of our Labor forefathers were fearlesly opposed to following the anglican, european and other traditions into state aid - we should celebrate such sound freedom of expression traditions together and root out rorts for one group or another; Let alone unfair advantages to sit and stand where they like, making as much noise as they like and telling the visitors when to "move on " .

Hanrahan..as your name suggests, you are worried that we'll all be rooned.

I doubt it.

Have a look at the ABC interview with AC Grayling last night:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2833713.htm

Hardly a 'religious' cry from this character, one of the major speakers at the convention. He sounded quite rational, and sympathetic to those who wish to believe. Hardly an intolerant person who is determined to fill the world with overthrowing governments and driving out demons, unlike this mob of cutsnakes:
http://www.truthout.org/prayer-warriors-and-palin-organizing-spiritual-warfare-take-over-america57276

You also are a bit loose with the word 'secular' I feel.

Australia really needs to be a 'secular' nation if Christians hope to co-exist with other faiths, those who Christians actually believe are liars, Satanists and wrong.

Christians need a secular Australia to prevent AC Grayling and Richard Dawkins, and the 2500 seat holders at the convention from banning religion from the Australian community.

In fact, we all need Australia to be 'secular' in order to co-exist.

As for blaming the ABC....oh dear.

The alternative world view is best seen in that dirge of rubbish every morning, hosted by MelonKoshie. Gasping 'WOW' at every factoid presented on the program, these two clowns represent the pinnacle of non-ABC TV, that which so influences the Hansonite world of renewalist Christians.

Personally, I think the title of the convention is ill-advised, but then again, when we are bombarded with utter nonsense from religions of all hues, and under threat of having either the 'right hand of God', Tony Abbott, or the 'Left hand of God', Kevin Rudd fill our lives with politicised religious claptrap from now til whenever, I see the humour in thrusting the 'rise of atheism' under the noses of these equally horrible goons.

Unfortunately, he High Court has already decided that there really is no 'wall of separation' here between church and state.

We all need that 'wall' to be built as quickly as possible.

Snake

Excellent points in your post.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke

Our communications system and as you say television and other technologies would appear to be magic by those who wrote the bible.

As for "the rise of atheism", atheists have simply decided 'enough is enough' when faced with Ku Klux Klan, 9/11, suicide bombings, subjugation of women, the denial of rational thought (teaching creationism in schools), indoctrination of children, tax breaks. To name a few.

About time atheists started to speak out.

Hanrahan,
atheism is not a doctrine and it has no creed. It need not even have a political voice. It might keep quiet and not disclose itself. We don't generally shout our other personal feelings from soap boxes--unless they're denied or repressed!
Atheism has to speak up in a society that continues to foist theism, both tacitly and ex-cathedra--also via television advertising, button-holing the media, seducing children and other innocents, door to door, mail box delivery and accosting rabidly from street corners!
Atheists have no pact with the devil (to them he's another silly fiction) and no dark existential theology--they prefer the light. They are just as capable of experiencing and appreciating wonder, beauty, love, compassion, good will towards others etc. Indeed more so! But you can add a few more things to the archetypal atheist's list of virtues: humility (jovial acceptance of mortality and an insignificant place in the universe), Equality (no one is saved), reason, love of learning, and experiencing life without cringing before a vengeful God--that is, primitive superstition.
Again, love of "LEARNING" and "EXPERIENCING LIFE"; as opposed to getting it secondhand.
Atheists question the unreasonable, traditional and all too often primitive, prejudiced and pietistic, constructions forced, or imposed by stealth, upon THEIR experience! The archetypal atheist uses his brain, his senses and his experience of the world FOR HIM/HERSELF. The atheist tastes life to the full, accross the whole range of the palate! Whereas the (dogmatic) theist tastes only old parchment and dreams of the next world.
If light prevailed over darkness, freedom over psychological tyranny, in this world, the atheist would keep to himself.

Blue Cross and Democritus,
You are correct: the parallels I am making are not always obvious , otherwise this discussion would be , like too many on OLO, just over categories and "the obvious". Platos point about the cave is a bit about forms , shadows and what they mean - so am I . All rhetoric is confined by words and form. Some would prefer to still do what the greeks did, but I prefer to speculate and test - Call it leaping. If we are going to talk rationally about questions of purpose ( as Grayling did) and science ( very important ) I think it is also helpful to use the paradigm of modern psychology which basically says "we all have a religion of sorts" . Start another thread if you disagree, but not here ?
Denial of this framework confinement doesn't help the case of atheists ----if they want to destroy the framework.
While we are still with appearances , Grayling was even tempered on the TV. But below that, the thrust of the conference is clearly threatening doom and gloom - "the end of the enlightenment ". "The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science ".
I don't disagree that "some of these things are under threat" but to blame just one congregation is too simple : Like polys we see things going wrong - but beware of too quickly labelling the cause . especially when , in truth you may be part of the congregation. There are other words in my list that i think you will find apply to describe( in part )what happens in such meetings !
A bit of market and plate survey between the back and front rows is always helpful for getting closer to the truth about whose thinking and whose sleeping etc .Whether its all nooding or nodding off and so on
I wonder if even being in church maybe just a little too comfortable for some next week?

There is no such thing as "the rise of atheism".

There is only an increase in the number of people questioning long held beliefs not based on evidence and this has generally been confined to Western democracies (not as high in the US). There have been no reports of growing atheism in the Middle East nor in Asia that I am aware of.

The fastest growing religion is Islam according to some reports and some increased interest in Buddhism in the West.

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

Snake you ask

'As I have asked before on OLO, who do the devout pray to and what for ? I wonder how many people in Haiti prayed to their interventionist god.'

Might not of occurred to you that some people have got enough manners and are grateful to their Creator for giving them life, food, clothing, water despite their own unworthiness. Not everyone is a selfish wretch who take take take without gratitude. Maybe many are thankful also that God's mercy has been poured out upon them day after day instead of receiving what they deserve (judgement). You are certainly a good example of God's mercy despite your obvious arrogance.

No, no no, Runner.

You are supposed to turn the other cheek, not descend into sniping and name calling.

The people in Haiti may have prayed for intervention Snake... but God works in mysterious ways, as we all know, and instead of not dropping all the buildings He crushed innocent people under them and then he sent some child-looters from the Baptist church to help out in his most-gracious and merciful plan.

But never mind.... He's busy organising a tsunami here, a 'quake there, overthrowing demons and witches all over Africa and guiding Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott on their one-true-path, so He cannot get everything right all the time, surely?

Now Haiti is in even worse shape than before, also part of His merciful plan of course, that the Archbishops-of-the-World have demanded the national debt be absolved, so all will be right shortly, and the locals can get back to rebuilding the hocus-pocus emporiums to thank Him for sparing them and taking their 'loved ones' instead...and getting back to their constant tithing duties to pay for the hocus-pocus emporiums and their endless lines of staff.

If the two fastest growing world views are atheism and Islam then we can expect World War 3 as both believe it is legitimate to destroy unbelievers of their world view. The USSR tried to enforce atheism and where has it led, more Christian theists than ever. Thousands murdered by the KGB for teaching their children belief in God. The Taliban tried to enforce shari'ah laws upon Afganistani people where has it led to thousands being put to death for violation of the laws. The fact is man's heart is basically evil and neither view deals with the evil heart of mankind.

No world view based on a negative view of others inspires man to higher ideals and a better society, as both self distruct from suspicion.

Try a world view that teaches, "Love your enemy, do good those those that hate and despise you." A wholesome society must demonstrate compassion and concern for all persons no matter their beliefs.

Oddly enough, I think the bible has the answer.

'Give to "god" [belief] what belongs to same and to Caesar that which is Caesars'

What ever floats you boat is fine with me, fairies at the bottom of the garden, spirit in the sky etc providing what ever it is your *private* view.

Zealotic proselytizing or extremes are the same, no matter what the flavour, be that either religious or atheism.

The infamous bus ads should reflect *religion has no part in government or science*. NOT imply religion's wrong. The latter is just aggressive and confrontatious and subjective i.e. my belief is better than yours.

Logically, neither can be proved or disproved it's only their *misapplication* that can be shown to be at faulted. Therefore, it is the MISAPPLICATION that is intrinsically in wrong.

It's a bit painting one's baby with house paint to protect it from UV rays . Clearly paint technology protects from UV rays but it's the where and how it's applied, that is wrong, not the paint as such.

As ususal, Philo, you carefully ignore the blood spilt by Christians over the years under the exact same banner, that "it is legitimate to destroy unbelievers of their world view."

It's still happening today, nearly a a thousand years on from the Crusades.

http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=3046

"This kind of violent aggression, apparently motivated by sectarian hatred, surely highlights once more a deep problem in our society,"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8067198.stm

As the widow said, "It was all to do with religion, and I'm not even a Catholic. I am a Protestant, it's a mixed marriage, but they just seem to hate us so much."

It is strange that you missed this part of the puzzle, Philo, as you have the only possible cure, well and truly sorted.

>>Try a world view that teaches, "Love your enemy, do good those those that hate and despise you." A wholesome society must demonstrate compassion and concern for all persons no matter their beliefs.<<

Sadly, history teaches us that we will never reach this point through religion. In fact, as long as religion exists, there will inevitably be religious conflict.

Pericles... from your articles came this, "They have said their main line of inquiry into Mr McDaid's murder is a "sectarian motive". "

That should read 'It was clearly the merciful love of God that motivated these Proddies to kill the Catholic Mr. McDaid'.

Of course, the Six Counties were fed and fueled with donations from the Christians of Boston and elsewhere in the USA for years, another link in the international funding chain of terror that this great 'Christian nation' is still engaged in today, in other parts of the world.

"You're either with us or against us", which translates into 'either Christian or unbeliever' as readily as it does from 'the other side' of the Crusade warzone.

I am inclined to agree with examinator's comments concerning the bus. The original atheist bus plan came about in response to the Anglican's publicity for their 'evangelist courses' plastered all over public transport, making the atheist campaign there more relevant. That context does not exist here, as far as I am aware, so the message should be adapted to suit the environment, and a comment on s.116 would be far more useful than a stick into the eye of 'believers'.

As for Philo's 'we all be rooned' attempt to equate atheism to Stalinism, good try, but that sounds very 'John Anderson' from a few years ago when he declared that 'secularism has gone too far' as he called for a return to the Dark Ages where the Church ran every last detail of our lives, and we were all bowing and scraping to thank them for it.

People sometimes forget why 'secularism' arose in the first place, and then confuse it with atheism.

In the Talibanised world Rudd and Abbott say they hanker for, there would be no OLO discussion of religion at all.

I like Examinator’s point that some separation between sacred and secular is a practical way to keep the dialogue open.
His point reminded me of the big tension that occurs across the congregations of all parties over this . The right of the right, and even Mr Costello( wherever he fits ), just like many in the left ,and many on this blog , just want the church to “ stay out of politics ‘.
If they are talking undue influence, I agree absolutely; but this is in prcatice now very rare – a long shot if ever I’ve heard one.
The most special thing about this great Australian tradition is that our most influential founders were very determined to make a break from the stultifying effects of state aid/control by any religion of any kind . This includes the first media magnate whose religious views were well known and whose ideas on this eternal debate are still very relevant today .
All religions must survive on their own merit and rhetoric. That’s what we believe ! And that’s why I maintain ABCTV ,in particular are often out of order.
The Blue Cross thinks I’m too hard on ABCTV in this regard – but I’d be interested in what others think –You can read my thought ‘s elsewhere. http:/abcchurch.blogspot.com . Which media machine would get the public award for consistently running a seriously cynical worldview, for example?

Pericles,
You continually try to equate me as a murderer, when the only answer is love your enemy. Those that murder innocent people are not following Christ's teaching.

Philo.... "Those that murder innocent people are not following Christ's teaching."

I've heard that so many times about people who do things in God's name... but who are not being 'real Christians'.

One wonders where these 'real Christians' do live, since they certainly do not inhabit any political leadership teams anywhere in the world, nor the business world, nor much else as far as can be seen, and certainly they are hard to find within churches and church bodies.

Funnily enough, the God Squad always insist that everyone with any vague social conscience based on humanitarian thinking rather than being inspired by god/s MUST be exactly the same as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc and that there is no difference between 'atheists' and 'Nazis' even though Hitler was a good Catholic who enjoyed the support of the German and Roman churches and vast tracts of God fearing German, and other, people.

Just as the US is full of God fearing Christians who sound, look and behave very much like Satan on steroids.

So, just where does one find people who do follow Christ's teachings?

I think you may protest too much, Philo.

>>Pericles, You continually try to equate me as a murderer<<

Not at all, Philo. Although I am starting to detect an uneasy conscience... why else would you consider a short, generalized history lesson to be a personal accusation? Creepy.

>>the only answer is love your enemy<<

On that basis, all those poor deluded saps who went to fight the Saracens believing that God was on their side, were not Christians. That would have been a bit of a surprise to the Popes and Kings who blessed them on their way, eh?

>>Those that murder innocent people are not following Christ's teaching<<

"Murder" is an interesting, and somewhat flexible concept, wouldn't you agree? It tends to be bandied around whenever abortion comes into the conversation, but disappears the moment you ask about civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Had you noticed that?

I can't understand people who claim
to be "pro-life," yet they support
the death penalty...

Or who claim to be religious -
yet they preach hatred...

And what's wrong with being an atheist anyway?
As far as I know - "atheism is the acceptance that
there is no credible scientific or factually reliable
evidence for the existence of a god, gods, or the
supernatural." (As given on the Australian Atheist
Foundation's website).

Live and let live - is not a bad ethos - as long as
you're not hurting anyone. What you believe is your
own business - a private matter. Religion should be kept
out of politics in a secular country like Australia.

Quite right Foxy... "Religion should be kept out of politics in a secular country like Australia", but sadly, Australia is not a secular country.

It is true that people generally believe it is, but look at the monies that flow to prop religion up, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, even more than the Rudd dole-out that Abbott is upset about.

The High Court has already decided that Australia is not secular but we don't see Abbott or Rudd complaining do we?

In fact, they both fall over their feet to ensure Australia gets less secular by the bucket-load of dosh hurled at religions...and the state premiers are not far behind.

But none of the states have a constitution that requires anything faintly resembling a 'wall of separation', so they are allowed to buy religion off as much as they want- see the NSW ALP buying it's mate from the Vatican a few days at the races in 2008, and Victoria shovelling tax monies at the world parliament of churches, but not paying a cracker to the atheist do next week.

Not a very 'secular' world view at all.

Hanrahan,
I take it as a compliment that you don't deign to engage with my post, directed directly to your initial polemic. You appear to be a dancer, dear chap, glancing dextrously off arguments you can't contend with. But since you initiated this confrontation, your role is not to choriograph, but to defend the position you've taken. I await your devastating rejoinder with reverential awe.

Dear TBC,

What I was actually referring to was the
fact that Australians are free to follow any
religion they choose so long as its practices
don't break any Australian law. That we're also
free not to follow a religion. That we do have a
secular government and no official or state
religion. That relgious laws have no legal
status in Australia. That religious or cultural
practices, such as bigamy for example, are
illegal and so forth.

Funding of schools is a separate issue. All schools
receive Government funding.

Foxy and TBC

Foxy, we both agree with the live and let live philosophy while being different about our personal beliefs. Clearly I'm correct and you're well....less correct :-) (joke)

The problem I have with the back and forth with TBC is that both you are aguing extreme ends of the continuoum.
Australia doesn't have a national religion i.e. Eire and Israel,Iran et al. neither is Australia totally secular, free of religious interference, for the examples given.

I would suggest we are neither fish nor fowl. Hence in my earlier post, which few read.

The flaw in the Atheist mantra/definition is it assumes (superiority?). Yet they can't prove (to their standard) that god doesn't exist.( one can't prove something doesn't absolutely exist, merely that with current understanding it seems unlikely.)

Therefore, to make the next leap to proselytize their views vigorously, as they have done, they are trying to explain the unknowable, the realms of faith. Consequently, I describe(d) them as just another zealotic proselytizers (quasi religion)
i.e. my religion is better than your's. Same syndrome (superiority lack of tolerance) different label syndrome.

The non combative (tolerant) conclusion is inevitably "live and let live" and focus on the misapplications in government.

I further posit should should be as near logical, objective as *humanly possible* (my humanist "escape clause")

Ok too late in the day for this.......(sigh) I'll go to my corner, hands on head.

Foxy, OK, your definition of secular is a limited one.

But you must delve into the history books to see how this statement misses the point about Australia being a secular nation, "Funding of schools is a separate issue. All schools receive Government funding."

Yes, and the DOGS case is the reason why, and why we are not secular anymore, as well as the more recent decision to fund religion directly into public/private schools via chaplains.

You seem to accept the state funding religious schools as a 'commonsense' move.

It is not at all, but it is very Australian.

It would never happen in the secular US, from whence our s.116 wording was drawn.

Odd, examinator, that you did not list the UK as a non secular nation. And since we have a UK queen here who can only be an Anglican, we are tainted by the same slops bucket spills.

Were Australia ever to drag itself into republican status, the first 'hit' would have to be the end of all funding to religion... something that the Rudd's and Turnbull's would never dare to do... thus exposing their sham republican credentials.

Dear TBC,

The Government funds all schools for the education
of Australian children.

The National School Chaplaincy Program is a voluntary
program - not all schools choose to participate in it.
It is also not compulsory for students to participate.
Only 2,700 schools were granted funding in 2007.
The grant is $20,000 per annum for schools that applied.
And, during 2010 the Government will be examining
options for the future through a broad and detailed
consultation process.

As for our PM's qualifications concerning Republicanism -
I'm in no position to judge the man on that issue.
We'll have to wait and see. We all know where the previous
PM stood - and I can only hazard a guess where Mr Abbott
stands.

Foxy,
>>Australians are free to follow any religion they choose…(or) not to follow a religion.”
Well put, indeed. There is tolerance and its sibling empathy, as in Jeremy Riffkin’s “The Empathic Civilisation”. I have not read the book, but I would agree with most in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/empathic-civilization-whe_b_478552.html (I think the author places empathy too much in opposition to reason and spirituality in that of religion).

>>"atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable
evidence for the existence of a god, gods, or the supernatural." (… Australian Atheist Foundation's website). <<

Thanks for quoting here a “definition” that - I presume - most, if not all atheists, agree with, though “belief” instead of “acceptance” would make more sense to me. However, I accept (pun not intended) that “belief” is a tabu for some atheists. I put “definition” in quotation marks, because it relies on other a priori undefined terms, like evidence - a subjective, or at least culture and context dependent concept - or existence (apparently meaning objective, observer-independent).

As to “evidence”, to my knowledge, none of the languages I am familiar with has an equivalent of “evidence” (you have only proof, testimony etc). As to its English usage, e.g. a photo of the accused about to stab the victim was unheard of in a court 200 years ago, would be accepted as convincing evidence some 70 years ago, and is practically worthless since Adobe Photoshop .

See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82573 as to e.g. my defense of the working scientist’s tacit assumption of the existence of an objective (physical) reality, an existence questioned by some contemporary philosophers. As the sarcasm goes, soon after some philosophers started to doubt the existence of the Creator some of them came to doubt the objective existence even of His creation.

My alternative position (with a similar built-in ambiguity): “the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the reducibility of ALL reality to phenomena of physical reality perceived by our senses and investigated by (natural) science“.

I think we should be able to treat both positions as legitimate.

Foxy

Perhaps you work for DEEWR, so perfect is your recitation of their fib sheet.

Rudd is extending and continuing the NSCP scheme, he has already told his chums at the ACL that, and remember, this is an election year, and Abbott has promised to entrench it forever, so Rudd is competing for the votes and he will not back down even when faced with the damage he is causing to secular schooling.

Gillard has not got a clue what actually happens in schools, and is simply fed the appropriate words to blurt out for the TV news, so she will not oppose Rudd's extension of evangelising either.

The 'consultation' process is nowhere in sight, and will not be an honest process anyway.

The scheme is far from voluntary, and it is not policed either by state or Commonwealth governments.

The scheme allows a particularly pernicious form of Christianity to be peddled in schools to a captive audience, aimed at 'unchurched' students.

DEEWR know this and ignore it.

The same sort of crew who brought young women the Mercy Mission wheeze is given free access to students to deliver sexist gendered nonsense during school time, with offers of more-and-better after school at various churches.

Maybe you do not have children in a state school to learn all this first hand?

Dear TBC,

You seem to have missed the point.

I did say this is a voluntary program for
schools and students in the schools who want
to participate. It is not mandatory for any
one. People have a choice.

I don't understand what your problem is.

As far as my children are concerned they started
in private schools, and finished in state schools.
They also finished university. So I fully understand
all sides of the bigger picture.

Dear Examinator,

I read everything you post with great interest -
and of course you're always challenging.
Which I enjoy very much!

Dear George,

Thank You for your post.
And as always for generating some more points
for lateral thinking.

Foxy... "I did say this is a voluntary program for schools and students in the schools who want to participate".

Sadly not, chaplains are given free access to all students, and impose themselves on all sorts of important school activities.

The idea of an 'inclusive' public school has been thoroughly undermined.

People who do not want any contact with these evangelising 'chaplains' have to withdraw from school activities.

Their school experience is being altered to avoid these interlopers.

Chaplains also use their position to evangelise and proselytise for Jesus.

This is not hidden, but openly proclaimed in various documents in schools, newspapers and on the web.

Public schools should not be a market place for one, or any, religion to spruik the wares to a captive audience.

If your children have already finished uni' then it is doubtful that you have experienced first hand the effects of DEEWRs NSCP evangelising operators, who have only been in schools for a couple of years.

Dear TBC,

According to the Government's own website -
the Chaplaincy Program is a voluntary one -
and students don't have to participate.

And, although my children were not involved
in the program, my neighbour's children go to a
nearby school that has it - and her
children are not forced to participate. Neither
is anything rammed down their throats as you
suggest.

If your children are being forced into something
that you disapprove of - then I would suggest you
speak to the Principal about the matter - because
it sounds to me that the school is at fault here -
not the actual program - which is not mandatory -
and should definitely not be forced on anyone.

TBC,
You still seem to be arguing cross purposes and confusing facts with emotional hyperbole.
>"Were Australia …... republican status, the first 'hit' would have to be the end of all funding to religion [why?]... Rudd's and Turnbull …. exposing their sham republican credentials” [how?].

I chose my options carefully Eire (Sthn. Ireland) is a republic * and* they have a state religion.

>"Odd, examinator, that you did not list the UK as a non secular nation." < [why would I?] guilt by association? That ignores our constitution as a separate country.( a *constitutional* monarchy)

Both are wrong in fact.

Your argument is confused, as previously stated you are using specific examples (misapplication of religion) to define the totality (absolute= extreme).
By the laws of distribution extremes only sensibly define less than 1.5% at either end.
The same law dictates that there are sensibly 97% of all possibilities in between either extreme. Therefore, it makes no appreciable sense to argue by absolutes in a human world that is dominated by shades of grey.

Even George's extended definition of Atheism still falls short of absolute proof that god(s) don't exist . One can't prove something doesn't *absolutely* exist. That is a logical nonsense.

To me most political philosophy fails because they deal in with binary (absolutist) reasoning, more likely "one side fits nobody".

The over arching point is defining absolutes with regards to the human condition is NONsense, therefore discussions are/should be about shades of grey.
Even in science faith belief has it's part or else nothing would ever happen. It just shouldn't dictate. Likewise faith/religion shouldn't be dictated to by science some humans need religion. Both those two are widely separated (90%) Society the separation is less so (70%). Government without some spiritual sense becomes cold and non human. (80%).

Foxy
challenging heh? That's what I say about my neighbours :-\ .....brilliant, sheer genius :-) ok, errt, opaque, off your bean is more helpful :-|

The role of a chaplain in a school is certainly not religious education to a class; but it is giving individual counsel to a student or parent with a problem that is not linked directly to the child's education or curriculum. The problem may be an attitude, a relationship or a conflict or an emotional trauma.

The Church I attend supplies a Chaplain in the local primary school she is a trained teacher and professional counsellor.

Thanks for some very interesting and challenging contributions -esp recently. Appreciated the links, George. Rifkin’s punchy piece, if nothing else, highlights the importance of this discussion between the congregations .
Before I forget, I am concerned that Tony Jones (Qanda on Monday night ) will NOT get to the heart of much angst over the sudden resurgence of religious rhetoric in the media ( they sit on it, as though it doesn’t exist -so what do they expect when it breaks out ?). To what extent is fear driving irrational and overly controlled debate – in our communities and our media ?
If Dawkins focused on the concerns in Europe over the growth of Islam , I think it might help form a more objective view of why there is genuine fear there and, more importantly, what the fear is actually about .
Its seems to me the generalized and widespread “godtalk worry” that is about , is not so much in practice about ongoing localized concern about teaching of“creationism” in schools, for example. I share AFA’s concern about shallow science talk: of “being able to prove things” but I also reject “only what’s natural is good” talk. Aren’t we talking here ,not just about facts, but beliefs about the value of those facts . Godtalk is good talk, if it drags us deeper - to put value on words– that’s rational too eh?
It seems to me that dismissing “the other god” too , is too easy .If we are being rational here , we have the option to go behind the image and unpic the substance (fib sheet if you must -TBC) There is a lot of value in a genuine dialogue about what we believe and especially what we see as unhelpful or unrealistic in each another’s ideas and faith systems .
I share with Dawkins a concern about why science is not the seen to be the awesome career it is. I just happen to have very different reasons about why the degradation is happening, and what specific ideas have got us to this point .

Dear Examinator,

You are challenging!

I meant that in the nicest possible way -
in that you always look at things from
various aspects. You challenge all of us
to suspend judgement and do a bit more
analysis of given situations.

You, David F, George, Pericles, CJ, and
many others, are the life-blood of this
Forum - and hopefully you'll continue
posting for many years.

Examinator... there is no explaining the Irish is there, apart from noting that they have been put upon for hundreds of years by the Vatican, and that has corroded their ability to understand too much?

It is not possible to be a democratic liberal democracy and have a state religion like Christianity.

Listen to the people here in parliament that align themselves with their churches.

They say they serve the people in a democratic parliament and that the people are supreme, and able to show this by electing their own representatives.

But then they go further and say that actually, God established parliament and He is the one true power to answer to.

So, in fact they are saying that God controls parliament, and we should all be grateful for that.

Hence my comment that if we are to have a true republic here, not like the sham one of Eire, then we must dispense with any imagined links between gods and the state.

And neither Turnbull nor Rudd, as fake republicans, would agree to denying that their God was in charge upstairs.

Foxy, I know very well what the DEEWR website says, but they fail to police what goes on and the rabid evangelists have taken control of school duties where ever they are able to and now impose themselves on all, without any checks.

Philo, finding a chaplain with qualifications outside Victroia is a rarity. DEEWR does not allow chaplains to counsel students unless they have the appropriate qualifications. When the scam was set up, Howard and Bishop made it very clear that chaplains were being put into state schools to teach religious views.

Do google the early statements to see what was threatened, and the more recent stories that clearly show they evangelise and proselytise.

Agreed, your local one may not, but that would be very rare

TBC,

You continue to confuse opinion with fact.
>"apart from noting that they have been put upon for hundreds of years by the Vatican, and that has corroded their ability to understand too much?"< that is absolute hogwash blind prejudice!

>"It is not possible to be a democratic liberal democracy and have a state religion like Christianity"<. Why not? Just because the country doesn't allow abortions, the pill. That's a bit extreme as a statement don't you think?

I don't see them becoming boat people.What I do hear is objections to specific perhaps misapplications of Catholicism.

Need I point out that they have had two females as president one a famed peace envoy. And from a Catholic country too. tsk tsk ;-)

Catholicism is no longer the definition of Christianity, not that it ever really was...consider The Orthodox churches, The Copts, and a plethora of Middle eastern 'Christian' churches that predate and have always existed with Catholicism.

Do I point out that Bishop Tutu was a recipient of a Nobel peace prize.

The two highlighted statements just don't hold fact or reason.

I would argue that a totally secular state can't exist. Even the USSR and Nth Korea have a 'beliefs' be that perverted communism or 'beloved leader'.
People aren't automatons, they're all different and have varying genetic/psychological/conditioned capacities to cope with unknowns. They NEED varying degrees spiritual and religiosity.

Ergo my secular Humanist stance for an imperfect world......live and let live.
Oh yes, keep an angry computer to savage the odd emotionally, excessive, repressive dogma. Not to mention the occasional opinion masquerading as fact.

NO! you've had breakfast SIT! Down! that's a good boy, No! Siiit! good boy. :-)

Dear TBC,

Perhaps instead of being concerned about a
voluntary program in schools like the
Chaplaincy program it would be better to
look at why our schools are failing in their
academic responsibilities?

Scores on Standard Achievement Tests and other
measures have declined over the past years.
Standards of reading and writing have sagged.
Many students are unable to complete job
application forms or balance a checkbook.

Surveys show that incoming students into tertiary
education have less academic knowledge than their
predessors had two decades ago, and their lecturers
consider them less prepared for the experience of
tertary education.

Why have our educational standards declined?

That would make an excellent new thread to start.
Especially since Australia is a "credential society,"
one in which there is overwhelming importance attached
to educational qualifications of various kinds.

Examinator... you do not make sense, at all, I am afraid.

I see no link between what I have said and Eire having two female presidents, nor the relevance of Tutu's prize to this.

The granting of that peace prize is a purely political exercise, and I am not sure that winning one is such a big deal, otherwise that great Irish man O'Bama wouldn't have earned one two weeks into his first term. It just means that you have played a role in someone else's powerplay and in order to shore up the impression of 'doing good' a Nobel is doled out. This is how Kissinger was given one in 1973 after his carpet bombing game... very peaceful, eh?

Yes, the Vatican imposes its limited view on women, and men for that matter, as far as all contraception goes, and that certainly has had a detrimental effect, probably more in years past than today, in that, and other, countries across the world.

And what on Earth is the reference to Nth Korea and the old USSR for? Are you confusing 'atheist' with 'secular' perhaps?

The US is a secular state, as is France, and Turkey and Indonesia, all of which have religion running rampant at the personal level. And all of them not 'perfect' but at least with a clearer idea of not having the state supporting religion with financial assistance.

Now, I could be wrong, and Indonesia and Turkey may well provide some support, but in general, unlike here in Australia, they do recognise the need for a split between church and state.

America is full of debate on this all the time, and of course its political leaders are not very good at keeping their religious views private, so it certainly looks and sounds as if it were a raging nation of evangelical fruitcakes..(oh, it is isn't it?) but at least they have a debate about what it means, and we do not.

Foxy...yes, that is another thread altogether.

As far as you insisting the NSCP scam is voluntary, we'll just have to keep disagreeing.

Dear TBC,

Thank You for this robust discussion.

See you on another thread.

Squeers,
Have been meaning to get back to you for some time.
I am sure many readers would prefer a more detailed point by point critique. As you say correctly, I prefer playing the violin on the roof ; I avoid going into too much detail simply because I want to highlight the low level of intellectual and philosophical depth in the rhetoric pond below.
Thankfully other correspondents have helped us to keep balancing on the roof Thanks - Examinator and George. I also want to avoid getting involved in the word warfare wastage that will come from those whose aim is just to try and score points.
Will try and answer some of your points tommorrow though - just not up to it now.

On another matter,I did think of a tune hearing TBC's great first line ..which i identify with.
<<there is no explaining the Irish>>
Possible 2nd line
<< There is no understanding much >> ,
<<there is no explaining the Irish>> ,
<<Me thinks they worry too much >>
Pleasant company y'all .

examinator,
>>Even George's extended definition of Atheism still falls short of absolute proof that god(s) don't exist . One can't prove something doesn't *absolutely* exist. That is a logical nonsense.<<

Foxy, not I, brought up a definition of atheism that she found on the Australian Atheist Foundation's website. I just commented on it and rephrased it into a definition expressing the, in fact, OPPOSITE “acceptance”, i.e. belief, namely that not everything that exists is reducible - i.e. part of - physical reality that can be investigated by science. I did not define the verb “exist” but neither did our Australian Atheist friends. The same for “credible scientific or factually reliable evidence”.

This is not how I would formulate the starting point of my word-view (and I would say of most world-views that cannot be called atheist). I just performed this verbal acrobatics in order to make more explicit my contention, expressed in the last sentence, that world-views based on BOTH of these beliefs (about the nature of reality) are legitimate. For political and social implications of this see e.g. http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html. For my formulation of the alternative position see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883.

Also, you do not “prove” the fundamental pre-suppositions (axioms) of your world-view, and certainly no definition, nor axiom, can contain any proofs, not even in mathematics. So whatever you mean by the statement “god(s) don‘t exist” you can - not to prove it, there you‘re right - provide evidence supporting it, or supporting its negation, convincing to some, unconvincing to others, thus explaining why you chose the Australian Atheist Foundation's position or my position. However, even such explanation will make sense only to those who agree with your understanding of the terms “god(s)” and “exist”.

The meaning of (objective) “existence“ is not simple, not even in the context of phenomena studied by science, as I tried to argue in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82793.

Squeers
By resisting the risk of indoctrination you are expressing something that is deeply felt by many. Why should we believe what our parents and priests sought to instil in us from an early age. Its a very good question -is it just baggage we can’t easily ditch because we heard it so early in our lives? – very reasonable indeed.
I too question why I follow my own parents in this regard .- seeking to teach . Bottom line. I do resist children’s propensity to call themselves God and to not think about whoever created us and how they might think about what we are doing ; will They one day hold us to account ?. If it was all from fear or pushed in overtly authoritarian manner , I think I might find myself closer to where you are . Maybe that means you have to catch a vision of God is love before you can come close to the idea that he’s tough – but not unfair.
What’s the alternative here? Saying HSe’s “just not there “leaves the world open to everyone doing what they like and justifying what they like .That’s a real reason to fear. That’s a world to be afraid of !

Perhaps we must look past the ignorance of our parents as they stumbled to represent what’s greater, bigger and better than just doing your own thing ;To see them trying to make us see our own feeble reasoning patterns as “not up to the task” .
Have we have got something in common here? – a desire for good? What happens to that desire for good ?
If we thought our parents were paranoid about evil , at least those of us that are now older know that they were partly reasonable to be so . That’s the good part of the incentive ,it seems to me, for the meeting in Melbourne next week . Evil and good ; at least we are talking about it . We still haven’t got to dogma, and why that’s absolutely necessary – later

This discussion misses one sad point. We are completely governed today on atheist principles. We made a deal with The Queen of England about 110 years ago, to establish a Commonwealth in Australia. Instead we have an atheist republic, and our government has become a good replica of Stalin’s Russia. The feature of Stalin’s Russia, that was most evident was the abolition of local government and its replacement with central planning.

Christianity of the Protestant variety was the very foundation of democracy. The systems engineer we call Almighty God inspired the free thinking Roman Catholics of England to reject the atheist concept of an absolute monarch, living in Rome, with absolute monarchs as delegates in every state in Europe.

To make us all atheists the Parliament of the United Kingdom after the lawyers were allowed back in after 1870, started to dismantle the Christian system, and replace it with an absolute sovereign in the form of an elected Parliament, with organized gangs in it called political parties. The problem with atheism is that in Australia we have nine of these so called sovereign parliaments, all pumping out laws, all owned to a greater or lesser degree by one or other of two Atheist political parties.

We have an apologist Federal Supreme Court called the High Court that is the home of the Exclusive Atheist Brethren, stacked with graduates of the Atheist Seminaries, called University Law Schools. We have an atheist Federal Court of Australia stacked full of the same brainwashed cartel members, and a ruling elite that is not answerable to anyone at all.

However as we are all compulsory atheists, there is almost no risk today that you will find a committed Christian, in any position of real power. As the Book says, you will know the tree by its fruit. In nearly two and a quarter years, we have yet to see the supposed moral strength of a Churchgoing Prime Minister, introduce any real reform to a bumbling and vindictive legal system, introduced by a Jewish Gangster so he could run his brothels and gambling dens with impunity

Heh. George once complained because I described his sophistry as "mental gymnastics", but it seems he has no compunction in using "verbal acrobatics" in order to obfuscate the issue.

If George's convoluted reasoning is "verbal acrobatics", what does that make Peter Loquacious' interminable babble - textual calisthenics?

Organised crime flourishes under atheism. The answer to organized crime was an absolute separate Sovereign, totally independent of an elected Parliament in whose name all laws had to be made. That separate Sovereign, was governed by an Oath that had to be taken before the Office was filled. You may find a copy here, on this website. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=456

You will see that in order to become Sovereign, Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second was obliged to agree to uphold the Gospels, and to deliver law and justice in mercy in all Her judgments. The Governor General represents Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second and all Judges and Magistrates in Australia should be Her delegates. Currently there is scant mercy anywhere in Australia, and the media brays for blood, and even more oppression, whenever they whip up a crime wave.

Under S 22 of the Australian Courts Act 1828 all Acts were supposed to be submitted to a Supreme Court for enrollment. The so called Sovereign Parliament in the United Kingdom abolished that requirement in about 1875, and the Sovereign was brought into hatred and contempt, because Her power derived from Almighty God under the Constitution of England, was curtailed. Queen Victoria was only an 18 year old slip of a girl when She became Queen. Her Consort, Albert was dearly beloved by Her, and He as Her Consort, vetted all laws before the Royal Assent was given. A Royal Identifier was affixed to every Legitimate Act, and one was affixed to the Royal Deed that established the Commonwealth in Australia.

Albert was a problem for atheists. Their scheme to take over the Empire was thwarted by his interference so he died suddenly in 1865. In the next twenty years, the Queen was in mourning, so Parliament really went wild, and virtually abolished the Christian system of government, establishing a tyranny of Parliamentary Supremacy, that was no better than government from Rome, abandoned so many years earlier.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an English Act that established a democracy in Australia in which all Christians were equal. Criminals hate it

Hanrahan

Spare us from this over-repeated line "Maybe that means you have to catch a vision of God is love before you can come close to the idea that he’s tough – but not unfair."

The song 'why don't bees go to heaven?' covers the source of all gods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzXYYmBMst8

So, 'who is the Creator?' being settled, there seems little left to consider except for what motivates people.

As far as I see, there is no guarantee that those who 'believe' do act in the 'moral' ways they say Jesus, or whoever they follow, might have behaved, assuming their moral hero always acted and spoke in only 'loving' ways.... further causing some of us to be confirmed in the view that 'human behaviour' is behind most acts, good or bad.

As for 'our parents', my mother lived in a Catholic convent during WW2 and learned how easily 'evil' surfaces within the Catholic system of coercive dogma and cruelty, all for Jesus and God's 'tough mercy'.

Given the recent revelations of 'bestial' behaviour from the Pope's Soldiers in Eire, never mind elsewhere, it seems she was hardly alone in the world...no doubt this is passed off as 'tough love'?, but most people would recognise the gross child abuse and cruelty.

'Believers' seem to suggest that anyone who does not share their precise views is incapable of doing anything remotely decent with themselves, or within the community they live in.

Such arrogance feeds the Orientalism Said wrote of, and perpetuates not only 'the other' but also the constant need for there to be an 'other'.

Was it 'evil' that prompted Greg Hunt to declare that public schools were 'anti-religious', and for Julie Bishop to insist they were 'moral vacuums' just so they could impose an army of Christian evangelists into public schools, to boost Howard's electoral chances?

Kevin Rudd is doing exactly the same now, but that does not make it any less 'evil' to those of us who can live without the props of Vatican 'bestiality' and evangelical bullying and coercion.

George,

I didn't address you deliberately, like you, I was making a point to a third party not criticising, challenging your linguistic gymnastics or your superior literary expression.

To attempt that would be absurdly ambitious on my part. I am, if nothing else, painfully aware of my limitations, particularly when it relates to expression but I do try.
_____________________________________
TBC

Catholicism isn't known for it's acceptance of women in leadership roles. But Eire it doesn't seem to apply.
Your intent was that the Irish were conditioned by Christianity/Catholicism. Mary Robertson, current pres disproves that.

Bishop Tutu non catholic shows that other denominations are also liberal democratic in their out look.
Obama's, Gore's were aberrations, Tutu clearly deserved his.

The over arching point was that you tend to argue by unsupportable assumptions and extreme case examples. You appear off topic and arguing application of religion.

I am well aware of the difference between secular and atheist... the topic is the rise of atheism.

Neither USSR or Korea are Atheistic by definition they created their own 'religion'.

No society can exist without some believe in some greater organization purpose power and articles of faith (individually unsupportable) note....by definition they can't aren't atheist.

Secular is different. My version thereof means, I don't have some supernatural belief or explanation but I do tolerate others who do.
Arguably atheism isn't passive it seeks to REPLACE one world view with another. I don't.

Beyond that my skills of explanation fail.

TBC
so you don’t want to talk about the glass half full options – would that be a typical mood? I‘ve got a hunch that cynicism will be the mood of the conference- maybe it’s the mood behind the growth of atheism?
My point in responding largely to Squeers rather negative impression of God was to point to the alternative. Please do the same. Most of us have plenty of good reasons to doubt whether God is fair dinkum, let alone loving, but in the absence of any certainty here, let’s talk alternatives, and what happens when we assume “no God present”.
<<Saying HSe’s “just not there “leaves the world open to everyone doing what they like and justifying what they like.>> If Dostoevsky is right, there is little point in making points about whose right or wrong; No God means no right and wrong and even murder makes “sense” ( Brothers Karamazov)
Before we all go mad on this merry go round of rhetoric and blame game , can I encourage you to have a good weekend, and if you haven’t seen it , watch “ Bruce Almighty “ .
The fascinating thing about this film is the way it allows us to consider how God might feel about our situation. See what you think ? Art (rather more than rhetoric ? ) can seem to help us all keep our perspective on this huge subject – what in the world do we know about how we got here ? and what does it all mean ?

examinator, thanks for your explanations.

I suspect that Eire has become a little more secular in its outlook over recent years, as it moved from a very poor and almost peasant economy with a massive diaspora of exiled workers, from the days I used to have family holidays over there in the 1960s, when condoms were searched for as we went through Customs, to today as part of economic Europe, which might help to explain their female leaders.

I am not sure that her election represents a new paradigm yet, any more than Thatcher's election in Britain meant they were no longer as misogynist as ever in relation to women in significant positions.

I see you don't mention Kissinger... interesting twist.

We disagree on what makes a democracy. I regard it as something that 'people' control, with no gods running it from above.

To me, 'gods above' is not a democratic model. I have no need for monarchs, or their representatives being an extension of God to reign over me.

I'll take the parliamentary process, and have the PM report direct to the people, thanks. In fact, there's no reason to have a president either, especially one that is there to take the place of a representative of a god.

"No society can exist without some believe in some greater organization purpose power and articles of faith"... umm, where is that writ?

That is your belief, but I do not share it. I see plenty to consider as reason-for-living without making anything up.

I'm sorry examinator, but the Dawkins-Grayling Axis of Evil simply does not hit the ground. But when one looks at 'the religious' there seem to be plenty of examples of world domination plots going on.

Just tap into the Salt Shakers, Catch The Fire, and the ACL to see real madness at work, (never mind Rome and Canterbury), and all supported via the ATO too, a fifth column white-anting Australia with the tacit support of the government

Dear Hanrahan,

I've seen "Bruce Almighty," and enjoyed it very much.
It did raise a few interesting questions.

As far as religion goes - although it's a universal
institution, it takes a multitude of forms.
Believers may worship gods, ancestors, or totems;
they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rituals,
or solemn prayer. Many religions don't recognise a
supreme being, and a number don't believe in gods at all.
And, obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of
the Western religious tradition alone.

To me, religion is a system of communally shared beliefs and
rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural
realm.

Emile Durkheim was one of the first sociologists who
believed that the origins of religion were social, not
supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever their source,
the rituals enacted in any religion enhanced the solidarity
of the community as well as its faith. Religious rituals
such as - Baptism, Bar MItzvah, Weddings, Sabbath Services,
Christmas Mass, Easter Mass, Funerals.

These rituals serve to bring people together, to remind them
of their common group membership, to re-affirm traditional
values, to offer comfort in times of crisis (funerals) and,
in general to help transmit the cultural heritage from one
generation to the next.

Many people today may no longer deeply believe in traditional
religion, but they've found no satisfying substitute.

Hanrahan "I‘ve got a hunch that cynicism will be the mood of the conference- maybe it’s the mood behind the growth of atheism?"

Indeed, maybe cynicism will be there at the convention, and why not when there is so much to be cynical about as far as 'religion' goes?

But I still have a doubt about there being anything like a 'growth' of atheism in the sense that people are being evangelised and proselytsied to and 'converting' to atheism.

There do appear to be declining numbers of people on census forms in NZ and Aus' declaring any allegiance to any 'faith', but that might be from a change in what people are prepared to tolerate being told these days, and a reaction to the domination of 'spin', rather than any march towards a nation of 'activist atheists'.

This imagined 'rise of atheism' is certainly fueled by a very noisy and bullying evangelical rightwing in politics...an equal and opposite force perhaps, except of course, that 'atheists' hardly bother to regard themselves as a discrete group, so are very poor at organising themselves, because they really have no reason to.

"No God means no right and wrong and even murder makes “sense”", well, I just don't buy that at all I'm afraid, and I regard that sort of thinking as being just a little lazy and selling ourselves short.

It does, of course, provide a sand-like foundation for snake oil sellers to spruik from.

I'm a very poor film watcher, having only just caught up with the Dam Busters, Easy Rider and Life of Brian, but your film sounds a bit like 'Evan Almighty' which is enough to keep me a zillion miles from it.

Besides, we could only imagine how God might feel about us, if we had invented God and his feelings in our image. I assume the script was, like all holy writings, written by a human?

Maybe that could be a Dawkins project... to create a film from God's perspective.

A mercifully short one I imagine.

cont'd ...

I should add that of course there are people
who have found a satisfying substitute - be it
atheism or something else.

Ian Robertson points out in his book,
"Sociology," that:

"For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for the
mysteries of the universe, religion would have less
and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition."

But there are still gaps in our understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the
nature of morality - science is utterly silent, and by
its very nature, always will be.

Few people of modern societies would utterly deny the
possibility of some higher power in the universe, some
supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this
fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay.

Hanrahan,
thanks for replying, though what have you said? "Tradition"; you've confronted my position with conservatism, the burden of history, the saws of our fathers (not mothers mind you, that's just latter-day pc). Not only do you defend ancient logic (logic is an ignorant whore btw--to use a suitably chauvinist metaphor), but you offer it up as though it's served us well hitherto. As much as I loath organised religion, I loath conservatism more--from Edmund Burke's to Kipling's (both of whom at least were learned) to the neo-conservatism of the economic/religious right (they're bedfellows), conservatives are the most hateful breed on the planet--propagators of ignorance and viciousness, I despise them to the dregs.
My apologies; I try to maintain a certain bearing, but there are times to let it fall. Conservatism stands for nothing but the status quo it presides over, its traditions are its whores and its members are its pimps (disguised in waste-coats and fob watches). One can sympathise with the Reign of Terror (whose brash notoriety among a history of conservative carnage and debauch speaks volumes about historians!).
My father was conservative, a great admirer of Enoch Powell and all the self-serving dogma he stood for in Britain's long tradition; but unlike you, I never had the least inclination to follow my parent; what he stood for stunk to high heaven even in my childish nostrils. I don't defend the strawman atheism you try to prop up (pop-hedonism), but a humble atheism that know's only its own insignificance and ignorance, and mistrusts the monumental hubris of those who use their God as a rubber stamp on whatever evils they care to excuse.
And please don't invoke poor Dostoevsky from his troubled slumber as though he was a confederate; he would castigate you far more passionately than I do!
"Whose would be a man must be a non-conformist" (Emerson).

Careful Squeers, lest you be accused of being another 'glass half full' type of character.

Now, 'a great admirer of Enoch Powell', ah yes, I remember him well. He was admired by the Brum skin heads who wreaked havoc every time Aston Villa beat Brum City, and vice versa.

An early runner for that other great conservative, Joan of Hanson, and John of Howard but to be fair, also of that sad party of 'democratic conservatives' led by Rudd and Gillard.

Now I'm going off topic, so will stop, but yes, be careful of being 'half full' or you'll wear an earfull.

CJ Morgan,
Please look up in your dictionary the difference between “mental” and “verbal”: I used the latter when referring to the artificial REWORDING of my position in order to explicitly counterpose it to that of the Australian Atheists’, while arguing that the two positions can - or should be able to - tolerate each other. As I wrote, it was not my choice of words.

You are probably not the only one here who sees (philosophical) reasoning beyond the level of e.g. runner (and his counterparts on the atheist side) as sophistry or mental gymnastics that obfuscates the issue.

examinator,
Sorry if I upset you by addressing you with my comment/correction on what you wrote, while you were addressing a third party. I did the same with Foxy, and she did not seem to mind. We all should be “painfully aware of our limitations”, except for probably those I am referring to in the last paragraph addressed to CJ, and I do not see you as being one of them.

Foxy,
>>religion is a system of communally shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural realm<<
What a beautiful (and concise) definition of religion, mentioning - without explicitly assuming its “objective existence“ - Reality (the Numinous, c.f. Rudolf Otto) that is not reducible to the physical, that I was referring to, and without a priori personalizing it into God. Thus it should be acceptable as a definition (not conviction) to those who share the belief expressed on Australian Atheists‘ webside as well as to those who don’t.

By this definition no atheist could be called religious, though in the light of the classical Geertz’s (anthropological) definition - see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645 - some might.

I think what you refer to as “traditional religion” is built much on outdated models of that Reality. Like there are also outdated models (theories) of physical reality, one difference being that people find it much more difficult to rid themselves of the former than of the latter, because they are more intrinsically connected with what we perceive ourselves to be.

I should start a new thread, I could call it "Shooting Baskets; the subtleties of faith and atheism".

George,
you rationalise (sorry, "formulate") your world-view beautifully, above and elsewhere, such that I think there's little difference between your rationale and mine--up to a point, that is up to your "first step". Like you, I suspect there's something rather than nothing, based on my own "experiences", which I can't explain--a source of endless speculation that I stop short of reifying. There's the first point of difference, you give your "religious" experience the form that you're comfortable with, giving due credit to, "the cultural environment I grew up in, so my communication with God depends on that, which in my case is Christianity"; further: "it is binding for me to accept the image of Him as He revealed Himself to the cultural tradition and environment that determines what I am, how I view existence". This sounds a lot like constructivism, whereas I'm prepared to entertain the notion that I "can" think critically about formative influences and institutions.
The "cultural tradition" you seem so eager to be subject to has a long history of unspeakable horrors behind it, manifest in the present; if it was initially inspired by God, it has been utterly corrupted by Man. To subscribe to such an institution by default--inevitably, uncritically--is, for me, pure selfishness, the essence of conservatism. A waste of intellect which could be a force for positive change in the world.
My archetypal atheist doesn't say no to the possibility of a God, she doesn't close her mind to any possibility, but she can think critically and is ever alert to the lure of her own predilections.

The Emerson quote above should, of course, have begun "whoso".

Squeers

Thank you for summarising my view on the subject of formal religion/atheism.

Have had the inexplicable experience or two or three or more myself. None of them indicated a god of any stripe, simply that there is a lot we have yet to learn.

Therefore, I pay close attention to identify the B/S (and will 'out' it it whenever I can) but am mentally and spiritually prepared for anything.

If the definition of "God" in atheism is a supervising spatial being in the universe somewhere, then unbelief in that view of God is valid.

However God is not the spirit of our angry father whom we rebelled against in our teenage years, who chided us constantly for our foolish decisions and behaviour. One's poor view of God mostly comes from one's childhood view of a controlling or negative father.

I have explained on other threads that God is the pure and wholesome spirit who expresses love, forgivness, mercy and justice. God is most expressed in character. That is why ancient religion is linked to laws and punishments of bad behaviour. Jesus taught true religion is the expression of positice and constructive attitudes in relationships. Foxy is right to express God as the purpose and unity of commonly held beliefs and the admiration of the supreme creative power of all reality and the purity of character that gives all things honourable being.
She said, "To me, religion is a system of communally shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural realm".

Squeers,
You are reacting to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883 and the sequel. Please note that this was written to answer AJ Philips’s question asking me what I actually believed God to be. It was certainly not meant to persuade anybody or to use my world-view orientation to denigrade others. Obviously some understood or liked it, some did neither, and I am not surprised that you are among the latter.

I could not describe my model of the unknowable Numinous without referring to the cultural and intellectual environment that formed my mind or without using a language I am familiar with. As I said in a post to you, “man (his genes and memes ) created God” and “God created man” are two sides of the same coin, and warned that in the case of “scientific truths” - that my post to you was mostly about - observer-dependent and independent “truths” don’t play such symmetric roles. The constructivist approach to philosophy of science overemphasizes the cultural (observer-dependent) component. However I have never heard the use of a particular traditional religion to model the otherwise unapproachable Numinous called constructivism.

I accept that you do not like Christianity also because of its “long history of unspeakable horrors” as seen from a 21st century perspective (both by atheists and Christians). Pity that among their medieval contemporaries there was nobody with a mind of a 21st century atheist to enlighten them, so that it would not have to take them centuries of evolution before they figured it out for themselves, albeit through adversaries grown from their own cultural environment.

On the other hand, twentieth century atrocities perpetrated by Nazis and Communists (I personally experienced only the latter) were not done in the name of Christianity, and there were many contemporaries - Christians or others - who could have civilised them, and eventually did within decades.

I think not many people would agree that “pure selfishness (is) the essence of conservatism“. Otherwise I can only congratulate you to your ability to “think critically and be ever alert to the lure of your own predilections“.

George

Please read Philo's post - apparently he knows the numinous and can speak for it as well.

George,
I didn't mind in the least. I merely stated what I reasoned to be true. No need for apologies. I meant what I said literally, about comparative *specific* skill levels.

This doesn't mean, that I don't understand what you say nor necessarily agree.
BTW there are several others on this site I wouldn't presume to take on *in specific areas either*

Again thanks for the contributions .Lots of stimulating responses and further questions.
TBC –
I like your idea of the AFA working on a film.
And take a risk mate .. Bruce Almighty wasn’t written by someone with an hidden propaganda agenda (AFAIK), so there is little risk you will be tricked by some super spiritual mental gymnastics in the imagery. Thankfully you also have us ere “words used well wishers ”to help straighten you out, should you be persuaded unreasonably to a move away from the half empty view of the possibilities .
As for the unbelievable element being unbelievable – strange but true .What arrogance for a man to believe that a god, any god should care !.If this sort of god is man’s invention only , it’s a pretty long lasting one and if it creates a positive vibe without drugs, is it not worthy of more than conspiracy and hocus pocus dismissals ?
Any psychology majors in the audience ? .
TBC Surely, it won’t hurt you to explore the optimists territory for a change? After all, while young people are keen to buy records about heaven eg “heaven must be there “ , I think the question of whether bees go to heaven is not going to generate another thread – here or elsewhere . AFA will need more than a great rhythm to get the people to dance.
One problem I have with AFA’s overly rationalistic commitment to rhetoric is it seems to limit you to exploring the shadows and jumping at them (a fair bit of that going on here; irrational conspiracies about small groups and people )
Do any other readers know of , and like some Art ( picture film and music) on this big picture subject ?.
Back the important question of creed sometime too! Thanks Squeers – for clarifying concerns ; concerns that I think are widely shared concerns amongst us about the eternal danger of institutional violence – what happens to good ideas when groups take them over ? As for non-conformists-I'm with you on that!

Severin,
I'm glad my view is congenial to some.

George,
sorry to be taking you to task again so soon. I followed the links to other threads you put up on the topic--so wasn't cherry-picking. Some time, when you're in the mood, you'll have to elaborate your coin metaphor; that is show how the trope "Man created God and God created Man" is a demonstrable or symmetrical model of faith, rather than a purely rhetorical device.
Constructivism is very much at home in cultural theory, elaborated by, among others, Judith Butler and Stanley Fish. What else is using "a particular traditional religion to model the otherwise unapproachable Numinous called", other than "constructivism"? Especially since your rather clinical description of "modelling" the numinous etc., hardly tallies as a belief system based on faith. In fact, if you are consciously "modelling" the oceanic feeling along Christian lines, then surely you've already deconstructed your faith? Wherefore then your subscription to institutional religion, but convention? Yet if you say that the numinous is "unapproachable" other than via such cultural traditions, does that not put you rather closer to the extreme of "epistemological relativism" than myself?
My problem with Christianity, as with monarchy, is more their hegemonic function in society than their being obsolete.
And I stand by my partial definition of conservatism; if we wilfully persist in something when we know it to be pernicious, as conservatives do (capitalism, climate change, rampant inequity, institutionalised paedophilia, even faith as a culpable diversion from such realities), holding to traditions come what may, that is the epitome of selfishness for me.
For conservatism to be ethical, we'd have to live in an Earthly paradise.
Until we do, reform and change should be our watchwords.

Hanrahan... "Surely, it won’t hurt you to explore the optimists territory for a change?".

But just where is this territory, and who are the 'optimists' you refer to?

It seems to be 'not here' but 'over there, after death', which hardly sounds the least bit optimistic to me.

And the idea of this being an 'optimists' view strikes me as very odd.

I'd have thought a true optimist might be thinking that it was possible to create something modestly more positive in the 'here and now' rather than something quite fantastic in the totally unknown future, and that is not a reference to a world of Stalinist concrete any more than it is to a world of joyous capitalism.

One might as well crave for a pre-birth form of 'heaven' as a post life one.

As for the Bruce film...I took the plunge and got as far as a few reviews of it. Underwhelming, and American, and overly loud, and crass...were the stand-out lines, which was pretty well what I thought just from the title.

I've never watched a film with this actor, or any of the others named, so have no idea what his work is like, but the story line, even had it not been suggested I watch it, would not have inspired any interest at all.

I cannot bring myself to watch it, but not because I fear conversion, just puking-on-the-cork. Although you are probably right about the non-hidden agenda. These films are just made for money, and maybe to keep bad actors in work so others can feed off them a little longer.

I'll stick with Brian and leave Bruce to the Wiggles fan base thanks.

I've read Rhichard Dawkins "The God Delusion"and I think it explains all about religion and it's nasties.I believe that mans development over the millenia has been severely hamstrung
by religion and it's gobbeldygook.After all it's only another form of control over the masses
by those in power,particularly the right wing of politics and powerful and influential individuals.It's often used as an excuse to justify conflict and death by the fundamentalists of all faiths.To explain natural disasters as an act of god or godswill is totally irrational in all forms of thought.

Sqeers,
Thank you for “taking me to task” thus helping me to make the basic tenets of my world-view better understood also by myself. [A PhD students of mine ones asked me to help him with a problem. He came, spoke and wrote for half an hour and finished with a “thank you, it is clear now” without me having had to open my mouth. I acted just as a catalyst.]

I think metaphors cannot be “demonstrated”, they indeed are usually just rhetorical devices trying to convey a deeper meaning that cannot be grasped directly, at least not in a few words. Nevertheless, let me try to elaborate.

My position here is based on analogy with my life-long experience that a mathematician both DISCOVERS facts and at the same time CREATES new ones. The “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” (E. Wigner) refers to the fact that the most “fruitful“ of these artificial constructs end up referring to something in physical reality (can be made parts of physical models of reality). This is accepted by practically all mathematical physicists.

On the other hand, not everybody believes that the cultural constructs called religions, refer to a Reality existing independent of these constructs, modeling this Reality through mythologies, sacred texts, theology or philosophical interpretations (“mental gymnastics”).

As I already said somewhere, I believe that
(a) there are many different “fingers pointing to the same moon“ (sorry, again a metaphor), and on top of that I also believe
(b) that the finger I am most familiar with (Christianity) is the best “pointer”, its models are at present “closest to truth” that we can‘t know “as it is” for principal reasons. Of course, others will prefer another “pointer” as the “closest to truth” (or none at all, if they do not see at all that the fingers point) for similar subjective as well as objective reasons. (ctd)

(ctd)
There is no point in comparing the subjective reasons, only the objective. This is somewhat similar to models (theories) of physical reality in mathematical physics, except that the number of competitors is much smaller and less varied than in case of religions. And unlike in case of religions, there arises sooner or later a consensus among specialists on the (relative) adequacy of this or that theory/model, because here the subjective component is negligible.

You can share the first belief but not the second, which would make you into an “epistemological relativist”, while denying the very existence of the “moon” (“objective reality“ in marxist parlance) could perhaps be called “ontological relativism”, but these are just my personal constructs (pun intended).

In practice, people treat “religious constructs” -Trinity, saints, etc - as if they were part of the unknowable “supernatural” Reality, and only the most sophisticated believers are explicitly aware of the difference. Like a mathematical physicist works with pseudo-Riemannian spaces (a mathematical construct) as if that was the space-time, although well aware that the former is just a model of the latter provided by Einstein’s theory.

Another imperfect metaphor for the subject/object duality is when we consider our loving relationship to another person: the “subjective” part of that is given by what we feel, the “objective” parts is given by how everybody else sees that person. Again, sometimes very hard to make a clear distinction.

Excuse me if I do not comment further on your dislike of Christianity or conservatism (political? the Leo Strauss or Michael Oakshott versions?). I think it is unrelated to what you asked me to elaborate on, and beside, there have been books written in support of your position as well as books supporting the opposite interpretation of history or politics.

I am still not sure whether this elaboration explained anything, but I have to stop. Hopefully you will read it, though I am not sure who else would be interested in such long posts.

Thanks for your patience, George, and I hung on every word.
My position is simply that questing after these truths is a luxury that ought to be indulged once the practicalities of our existence are taken care of; not merely our own comfort, but its "equitable sustainability", its "ethical economy". I don't, like some vulgar rationalist, deny the existence of the moon (it's a balloon, I've read), but neither can I let it distract me inordinately from terrestrial problems.
I agree with Oakshot only in that radical reform always takes us into uncharted waters which might be worse than those we left. Strauss seems, from what little I know of his philosophy, the more complex thinker, resting his conservative stasis in philosophical dilemmas over the nature of (political) reality (somewhat similar to your bifocalism?). I agree with his caution that any world order to come is likely to degenerate into tyranny; at least I agree that preventing this is the greatest challenge to establishing an ethical world. In the West, if we were governed by the Christian ethics (another purely rhetorical device, it seems) we ostensibly esteem, their burden would have forced us to reform. Certainly Christ was no conservative!
My "dislike" of Christianity is more a dislike of its conservatism; its betrayal of its own tenets, its popularised modern (postmodernised?) modality, dispensed like ice-cream, and most importantly, its irresponsible sublimation of corporeal ills and material reality. Christianity is pure indulgence and diversion. Otherwise, I actually have quite a fondness for it; I hate the institution its become, but I love the fabric of the church, its music and some of the wonderful eccentrics its produced, mostly in my imagination, a few I've known.
I hope I don't sound "holier than thou", I realise we were discussing the moon at my request.
We're such transients here on Earth, but we should aspire, first and foremost, to leave the place better than we found it.
Oops, look at the time. I'm off to matins!

In Melbourne this week a blow will struck at last by a registered solicitor and barrister against the rise and rise of Atheism in Australia. These poor individuals, ( Atheists) got Paul Keating’s ear, and between the 7th January 1991 and the 21st January 1991, installed Atheism as the Official State Religion of Australia.

They did this by taking these words used from the first Act in 1901, until the Act no 7 of 1991, off Act no 8. The words are: Be it enacted by the Queens Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Representatives and the Senate assembled: They have replaced these formal enacting words, with the words, The Parliament of Australia enacts. OOPs, there have been no Acts made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth since 1991 that are legally binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.

Even though we are not Muslims, who must have everything in writing, because their God is not obliged to keep his word, we are entitled by Our Constitution to have every enactment made by any Parliament treated as a Deed. As a Deed it must have formal enacting words, or it cannot be given full faith and credit throughout the Commonwealth. In other words to be binding on any member of the Commonwealth the proper procedure to give credit to Our Protestant Christian Queen, as representative of Almighty God must be followed. All State Governments have abandoned the Commonwealth too.

KR promised to be a Constitutional Prime Minister. I head him say it and I voted for him, because JH was not. Perhaps he is a closet Muslim, and because it was not a core promise, he does not feel obliged to honor that commitment. His jolly little jaunt to Copenhagen to worship the Planet, and attempt to sell out the Commonwealth to a world order, was not the work of a Constitutional Prime Minister. The top 65% of Australians are entitled to Christian Government, and we want it now

Atheists, because they are not Christians, can accept that a society can have, like the Romans in Israel, a multifarious plethora of Gods, and every tree rock, or image can be a God. The Christian religion I know believes we are all created in God’s image, but that no one of us is able to rise to sit with unchallengable authority in judgment on another human being. They can and do in China and did in Communist Russia, but no Christian can be a Judge. The word Judge comes out of the Old Testament. It was and remains a recipe for disaster. Even Almighty God had to admit that fact.

Being the Greatest Systems Engineer of all time, Almighty God decided to send his trusted Son, to show us the error of our ways. The Old Testament is full of prophesies that tell us He was coming. When Jesus Christ started his ministry after becoming a Rabbi, and plying his trade as a carpenter, he was thirty years old. He established a system of government that within 300 years had replaced the Roman System of multifarious God’s with a system with only one God, a Trinitarian God, the Father Son and Holy Spirit. He also established an inclusive religion, that was not racist as the Old Testament was, and the Roman Catholic English adopted this as their Constitution.

That became law in 1297. They took the Gospel of Matthew 18:15-20 and enacted it as the Magna Carta. The Pope was furious, because it made twelve ordinary people the judges of the English common law. The English then went further, they took the land owned by the Roman Catholic Church in England and gave it to the English Peasants. No wonder the English have not lost a war since 1297. People fight furiously for their own land. They loved their King, as their protector from Rome. So rise up all you Aussie battlers. The Queen still represents Almighty God. Your freedom and freehold property is dependant on maintaining the integrity of the law, and tell these atheist thieves to sod off

It may be thought from some of my posts that I am anti the Roman Catholic Church. That is not true. The Roman Catholics in Australia no doubt after a lot of prayer and reflection, decided to support the formation of a Commonwealth in Australia. Lots of them were Scots or Irish, and had no trust for a Protestant Christian Queen, and would not vote in the first referendum to establish this pioneering Nation.

The Commonwealth of Australia established the Queen of England as a universal apostolic catholic Sovereign, in both England and Australia, because the Act binds the English too. It not only binds them, but the English accepted that it cannot be repealed or modified except by a referendum, under very controlled conditions. It is unique, and if it was not for Atheist Lawyers, who have tried since 1900 to subvert and undermine it, it should be a model for every country that wants to receive the blessings of Almighty God.

Ungrateful sods, these Atheists; After 100,000 Australian lives were lost defending the British Empire, the English, with their so called Sovereign Parliament turned their south sea brothers and sisters into aliens. Think of the Australian Constitution as a universal declaration of the Rule of Law, extended without discrimination, to each and every member of society and you have got it right.

For the above reason, I am bitterly disappointed that an Anglican PM has seen fit not to deliver on his promise to govern under the Constitution. I think it will be no surprise to many if a Roman Catholic with strong convictions, promises to govern under the Constitution, that he could become the man.

We have Barnaby Joyce in St George battling floods, Tony has been out back, and the green fiasco pushed upon us, and rorted mercilessly, has claimed one Minister, and could make KR the twenty first century Scullin. Perhaps Kevin will see the light, and realize that he was elected as a Christian. He still has time to deliver on that one core promise, and if he don’t, then the other fella should

Peter.... can you elaborate on this opening line, "In Melbourne this week a blow will struck at last by a registered solicitor and barrister against the rise and rise of Atheism in Australia. These poor individuals, ( Atheists) got Paul Keating’s ear, and between the 7th January 1991 and the 21st January 1991, installed Atheism as the Official State Religion of Australia"?

I've read your three postings, but you don't say what these two people, the barrister and solicitor, are going to do next week.

By the way, when the Pope lost his lands, they were not so much 'given' to the peasants of England as sold, or given, to the power brokers by Henry, and land was indeed sold off to help create the middle calsses that came later.

Although, as a child, I was delighted to read of the demise of the monastery in my home town, torn down by the locals who then used the stones to build their own houses, most of which, well many anyway, still remain as fine examples of housing of that era.

Sad to say, on the other hand, of course, that future generations were denied the delights of looking at, studying and learning about a fine building on an equal to Wells Cathedral, so the history books and plans tell us.

Blue Cross,

It is vainglorious statements like these that leads to the rise of atheism. The reasonable man looks at this and says to himself:

"If this is religion, I want no part of it."

Jeffhosk...are you referring to Peter the Believer's comments, or the others who seem to 'believe' without question, or all of them?

The Weekend Oz magazine has a snippet of an interview, p.7, with Peter Singer, covering aspects of this thread.

I see he too is a speaker at the convention.

Having just read this, watched AC Grayling the other night on Lateline, and recently watched Dawkins interviewed by Denton, and when he shot Fran down the other morning on RN, it is hard to reconcile these thoughtful, fairly docile, characters with the charge that they lead 'aggressive atheism/secularism/humanism' or whatever, and are trying to create an 'atheist revolution' to ban religion forever.

On the other team, mind you, we have Catch The Fire, Salt Shakers, ACL, Pell, Jensen, Hillsong, Scripture Union.... the list is too long to complete here, plus of course all those fruitcakes in the USA in the Teabag outfit, the GOP, and Dawkins old mate Ted Haggard and his God fearing mates to wonder about.

I think I'll take my chances with the likes of Grayling, Singer and Dawkins above the others, who do sound like a serious threat to the thoughtful underpinnings of our national community... to say nothing of the rest of the world.

The blow that will be struck this week, will be an application for an injunction in an appropriate court, not the High Court but another exercising federal jurisdiction, to prevent the tidal wave of illegal and unconscionable repossessions by a bank of a loan given during the throw money at people period, that led to the GFC. The appointment by Westpac of 600 bank managers has happened because Westpac saw this coming.

These lawyers may chicken out, but I don’t think they will, and the court they go into may not grant the injunction immediately, but it will eventually. Today I went up to the Monash Library in Clayton Melbourne and photocopied the exact enactment of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Act the Banks and politicians have been denying since 1981, and this legal team will be able to prove it in a way that no Judge and Magistrate can refuse to recognize.

Atheist thieves have not been adhering to the Constitution. They have been using State Laws to circumvent the provisions of the Constitution, and we trusted KR when he said he was a Christian, to fix this problem. Instead he has crawled up the recti of State Premiers, with disastrous, results for the general population. These Atheists are just thieves in disguise. They say a man with a gun can only take what you have on you, but a lawyer in a suit will take everything. Land Tax is illegal but returns $2 billion dollars in New South Wales alone, because there are no courts in New South Wales that are working. The Sheriff is an agent of atheism.

Christians in the Bible believe that those who are planted in the house of the Lord will flourish in the courts of our God. Psalm 92:13. The courts of Our God, is the same court in S 79 Constitution. It has judges, and a panel of 12 judges will start to make the truth heard. The money honestly earned will be directed to keeping the promise to end homelessness in Australia: With Kevin07 or not

Squeers,
I liked the quip about the balloon vs moon. One could continue with the metaphor by saying that this is what e.g. Dawkins et al think, namely that what I see as the moon they think is just a balloon that they can shoot down so that the fingers will indeed point to nowhere. Well we - or rather those who come after us - shall see if they succeed.

Although much of your standard criticism of Christian institutions is justified, I think one has to distinguish between Christianity as an idea and its particular application in history up to the present. After all, it was both this idea as well as its applications - many going counter the original idea - that brought us where we are: There is no alternative civilisation that would have arrived from Antiquity to Enlightenment and (post)modernity through bypassing e.g. the period of medieval Christendom.

Now I see I have already promised not to comment on this, since there are many books interpreting Christian history and praxis overall positively, as well as those interpreting it overall negatively, and I am not a historian.

>>I love the fabric of the church, its music<<
See my story (again a metaphor) about the three little pigs in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2909#66836.

As to conservatism, a car needs an accelerator as well as brakes (sorry, again a metaphor). Applying only the former (rebellion or revolution) will probably lead to a crash, applying only the latter (rigid conservatism) will not get you going. I think reform that you mention, is the right way to go: reasonable conservatism curbing emotionalised rebellious thinking, or even acting.

George,
"The Moon's a Balloon" is the title of David Niven's delightful autobiography, but it's an apt metaphor.
I too am highly suspicious of the Dawkins/Hitchins line, especially the note of positivist triumphalism, though to be fair to them I think the religions they're gunning for are the extremist ones that are wreaking so much havoc in the world--not just the terrorists but the fundamentalists of every stripe and their proselytising missions.
I like the three pigs parable! And there's excellent sense of course in the other things you say.
To a large extent the human condition doesn't seem to admit of solutions, and yet the world inevitably changes, one way or another. Who knows how many more dark ages will benight the human race, or if we'll ever emerge.
Anyhow I look forward to other debates in the not too distant :-)

Thanks George and Squeers. I too greatly enjoyed the small pigs story and the moon's a balloon. Such a relief --I'm back on the ground somewhere... I hope !
Squeers

I think you are right to resist groups who take up good ideas. the earthly paradise and all that. Perhaps though , you and this forum could be a bit more open to the cutting edge of those who first put the ideas on the agenda though. Most people who let their faith be tested are well aware of how lonely and serious a struggle our mentors all have against such groups or once they have become deified ( how inadequate our language is)how hard it is to see what they really said /meant.
Perhaps you and George have moved up a level or 2 on this with your high fallutin deconstruction chatter .We simpler country folks might appreciate if you let us in again sometime.
Point of order too - this discussion is not about people, but ideas and symbols; there are too many examples of unthinking amongst all the weirdos who believe in motherhood, or whatever . The discussion is about the sustainability of the nogodidea and how many legs its developed/getting
For example , I hope someone on AFA forums gets to ask the leadership whether they are worried about whose sitting in the back pews, clapping . Who wants growth for growths sake?
Again its not about whose in the congregation, but whether your creed and dogma is broad enough for them to vote you out. ( one of your earlier concerns Squeers was whether they need a creed -they need one!)
Again if nogodism has no creed, its open ( on the basis that its a religion of sorts) to fanaticism .( hicks interpretation is "jumping at shadows")
Similiarly, without a creed there is no excommunication and every faith has to have a policy on that ?.

TONIGHT ON QANDA How much fanatical reactionary stuff, how much jumping at shadows, will we see in the congregation tonight on qanda? Why no word about Islam - either here or there, (perhaps) . Will it be the elephant in the room ? Will it be invited , or just arrive unannounced?
Suplise like like peter sellers ?

On the flowers
Around the pigs houses there are flowers of many different colours- nothing better on a long weekend than to smell and taste the fruits of sustainability.
Yesterday, I was reminded that that ultimate hunter down of religious false gods made a point about epistemological relativism at the end of a passage that would have been read at thousands of weddings across the country in the last few days. Symbolic consensus , if not well understood.
We are hear to try and understand it eh?
A Starting point . “Good things, but we see dimly”, that’s what its says . Is that what we need to be able to say to each other now ? . The last bit of Paul’s statement , though is not obvious or self revelatory ; it is impossible to imagine rationally ;
Maybe it grows only from the soil of humility, or what?
It is likely/ clear that we don’t fully know who or what God really is like – but is also possible that if God exists and he created , that we maybe fully known .That’s the scary bit . More amazing than I can handle with my little shovel. Have a good day and …..what do you say

Hanrahan

It is hard to follow what you write, (you sound as if you are in a tunnel) your style jumps all over the place and it is not all that clear what point you are really trying to make.

"Again if nogodism has no creed, its open (on the basis that its a religion of sorts)"... there is an irritating propensity for 'believers' to keep insisting that those who see no value in gods must hold those views as if they were as much 'a religion' as the one that the believer follows.

Not so, or at least, not here anyway.

Any more than, to borrow a well worn line from Harris and many others, a 'non belief' in fairies by yourself (now here I am guessing) constitutes any sort of 'non-fairy religion'.

As for Q&A, you are right, there do indeed seem to be the usual apologists for religion being a 'needed' force for 'good' in the world. (But why don't you raise whatever it is you want to about 'Islam'?).

A bit like the comments from Angela Shanahan in the Oz this weekend, who once again lays claim to Christians 'ending' slavery, whilst conveniently forgetting that it was also Christians (and others from other religions) who created the slave markets in the first place.

Wait for Shanahan's next fantasy claim, that the Vatican solved AIDS by insisting on no condoms, an equally silly proposition to that that says slavery ended due to Christianity... after all, what about all those US Baptists who rip off children in their adoption scams, which is very close to a form of modern slavery?

To say nothing of the Christians who invest in shonky businesses that run factories in third-world countries and gain financially from their plight...or who oversee banking wheezes, or who squeeze insurance companies out of covering flood victims and other disasters, while still proclaiming their integrity, and so on.

Hanrahan,
I don't know what you're on about either, except that you seem determined to paint yourself as a diplomat when you're obviously partisan. Atheism is simply a rejection of the world view that's been foisted on us for millennia, which has fostered unquantifiable ignorance, prejudice and misery, however many enlightened souls there are whose lives have been enriched by it. I would hazard the guess that the ratio is very poor. For me, a crash course in philosophy would do the devout a world of good--it teaches humilty, sanity and balance far more effectively than any dogma.
I also don't think the subject matter has been above anyone's head. I often read difficult posts several times (your last few posts are cases in point), and do secondary research, if necessary, in order to interpret the meaning and sense intended by the poster. I'm often out of my league on OLO, but I don't begrudge anyone their area of expertise, and I'm not afraid to have my two cents worth.
There is no numerical rise of atheism; there are those, and I'm one of them, who want to see the bar raised on ontological discourses. Whatever world view any of us care to adopt, it is fraught with difficulties. This is the first thing to acknowledge--we can't make sense of life in any neat little package, and we should be particularly wary of those that flatter or suit us best.
There is a worrying rise of fundamentalism, which has no subtlety whatsoever, and that's what we should be concerned about!

Tunnel
I think you might have helpful point there gentlemen ; too many words crammed in , and too many paragraphs left out. esp above
I 'll try and be more clear and on topic , but if you have some questions about the missing pargaraphs in the hasty postings above, I'll be glad to address them . Symbols,words,ideas and consequences.

As far as diplomat goes , I hope so, because the dialogue we are having seems to me far more useful than the highly reactionary move to try and deal with a poorly named threat that Dawkins seems to be tapping into. What did we think of the way the panel talked to the words used ?
And yes, I do have a simple faith and if you think feeding me to the lions works , well ,,have a go ......its a free country.

What did others think of last nights QANDA ( suggestions for some framing of ideas above)? How much was it a discussion about the value and meaning of the words used ( better ontology) , and how much was it like some 2nd century theatre ? Have we really moved on in dealing with issues of fear and faith as Dawkins has suggested?- the evidence !

Time for others to speak

Q&A is a soft feather to its panelists, protecting them from any harsh glare.

Julie Bishop showed up her empty rhetoric, Fielding was back-peddling his own beliefs and those of his AoG crew, the Rabbi sounded as if she was not at all sure what she believed in or why, and Burke is well named.

ID and Creationism is taught all over the nation, and is supported still in Qld by the QTU, QCPCA, EQ, QSA and of course, the churches who sit on the QSA and help design (not very intelligently according to our school results) the entire curriculum fior the state public and private schools.

I felt sorry for the Oz of the Year fellow, who clearly wanted to be able to talk about his area.

We were well served though by Fielding 'outing' Rudd as a loony Creationist, which most people seem not to know, even though Rudd was very clear in 2008, telling radio listeners he was both a Creationist and a believer in ID.

All very well for Dawkins to lambast Fielding for his Creationism, but he must have missed the point about Rudd being a loonytune too.

Bishop should know that she installed more ID and Creationist evangelising adherents into public schools than anyone else has been able to, via her NSCP proselytising scam....why did Tony Jones not quizz her on that I wonder?

ABC Mark Scott's heavy fundie hand perhaps?

It was all rather like a bad dinner party, then, HOW RUDE, Dawkins stated the bleeding obvious about Jesus, said he had no desire to believe that, and they all got 'hurt' because he was not 'tolerant' of their 'views'.

Gawd help us, such fragile shells these people live in. And such double standards too.

They demand 'tolerance' from others but impose themselves and their faiths on everyone they can, while being 'offended' when Dawkins view is put...how 'tolerant' is that?

I got the distinct impression that not one panelist, beyond Dawkins, had thought very much at all about their own 'faith' and what it really meant/provided/offered to them, or anyone else.

TBC

Rudd believes in creationism?

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse.

Severin

Try this for a start:

http://www.gnomon.com.au/20080901/13/Kevin_Rudd_advocates_Intelligent_Design.shtml

And here is the SMH version:

http://news.smh.com.au/national/cosmos-order-proves-god-exists-rudd-20080829-45b6.html

The Oz ran the story but it has 'been disappeared' from the site.

Too bad there are so few signs of an intelligent mind at work anywhere in Canberra.

Too bad I never thought to send that lot in to hear what Dawkins might have said.

But of course, Blair, Bush, the Taliban, Rudd.... it's all the same really, isn't it?

TBC

Because Rudd sees in order in what little he knows about the universe, there HAS to be a singular intelligent mind that caused it. Why does it have to be singular? Maybe it was a committee? Maybe it just happened.

Yeah. And he "respects" non-believers too - isn't that magnanimous of him, looking down from his lofty position (not unlike the god he believes in) and tells us he respects us, even next morning.

We need more Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris'seses (sic) and more people like us who can make decisions (right or wrong) because we think about them, we apply reason, a sense of conscience and we don't refer to a book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of superstitious tribesmen.

Severin...you've blown your chances of a Xmas card from MHR Mr. Burke.

Yes, and Rudd is the 'smart one' in Canberra.

Just wonder at what a dullard would be like!

Of course, none of the political parties, beyond the Secular Party, actually believe in a 'secular nation state'...not even the Greens have the courage to say they are a 'secular political movement' seeking a secular nation.

Funny really, that Brown should be happily openly gay, and take on major companies for the good of us all at great personal cost, yet still manages to squib the task when it comes to stating openly, via clear policy, that the Greens support, endorse, promote, believe in...and so on, Australia being a secular nation.

Too many crystal gazers, Catholics and mystics in their ranks to think straight.

TBC

Yeah, I have wondered about Bob Brown. I am sure he is an atheist. However, Australia appears to have gone the way of the US, where no pollie dares 'out' themselves as having no religion - in the 21st Century no less, when scientific knowledge and education is more prolific than at any time in human history.

We'll know we have made real progress towards enlightenment when world leaders can be atheists too.

... and Kevin IS smart, what does that make T. Abbott?

Abbott? Probably less of a sham than Rudd and Bishop, a real believer unlike Howard, a 'convicted' person like Beazley was, and as much a sinner as anyone else is/can be.

His ideology finds a prop within the Vatican, and that in turn justifies his actions, even though as a Liberal he seems very unVatican-like in his (dis)regard of the working classes.

Obviously, many find him and his brand of toxic politics attractive, even many from the working class who like to 'cringe before the rich man's frown' and undermine their own standing along with others.

Not much sign of the 'Love of Jesus' flowing from this political animal, from where I sit.

And reason is replaced by a religious fervour which is infiltrating our education system and our understanding of the world around us.

In the New York Times:

"The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

Yet they are also capitalizing on rising public resistance in some quarters to accepting the science of global warming, particularly among political conservatives who oppose efforts to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases.

In South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature this week.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”...

... " For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it. Yet many conservative evangelical Christians assert that both are examples of scientists’ overstepping their bounds. "

"“Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” he said, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?em

Where are the brave secular politicians?

Incredible stuff...

"Where are the brave secular politicians?"... there are none in Canberra or the states/territories, none at all that are prepared to do or say anything to challenge the hegemony of Rudd, and his new chums in the 'faith' robes.

But where specifically are they?

At the Australian Prayer Network meetings, at Hillsong, in the Cathedrals, poncing around outside churches if there is a camera to be seen, and bowing their heads, not in shame, but in the parliamentary prayer sessions, boosting the nonsense about chaplains, hobnobbing with Cardinals and Bishops, and hiding from and denying the existence of about 30% of the Australian population, and growing.

All the while, they collectively fail to demonstrate a single act of compassion or connection to any understanding of, say, such tales as The Good Samaritan, or the 'tipping of the tables', preferring instead to bolster their own expenses, super, hand-outs and after-politics-jobs while supporting the tax rorters, dodgers and the unbridled greed of the 'free marketeers'.

The show on Monday night QANDA
So we know what you three think . How about some others?
I had hoped someone might have focused in on a few onotological bits .

Like when the grand promoter of reasonableness refused to answer the Muslims big and sound question about the value of words without a sense of God in the picture . Even Tony Jones had to reign in the diatribe of verbosity that came forth as a response.
Jones making the simple but important point that " sacrifice" is noble - isn't it? Your word is bigger and more nasty than my word?
Come on you others in the background --what are we talking about here, when we dig below the surface?
The elephants in the room don't agree that Dawkins can so easily dismiss the people who sit in the pews and clap (clearly atheistic worldview leaders in our century)
Squeers, I don't accept that aetheists believe in nothing in particular and that gives them freedom to believe in whatever they choose ( where 's our psych person to comment ) - to suggest so means thay may rank lower than Flanders in the woosy and unthinking stakes .

TBC

sorry to drag you back a bit but the interview on 4BC, it could have meant meant a multitude of variations on a theme.
It doesn't mean that Rudd is any more a standard pejorative 'creationist' (i.e. that he want to install 'intelligent design'(sic).

Words take on new meanings in the context of this topic(atheist is another) and need clear definition defining.

Rudd clearly believes that somewhere way back before the "big bang", believes in a God. That doesn't mean he doesn't accept the current science. And as stated earlier, if that's what floats his canoe, that's fine, that's his personal view.
A bit like he supports the Lions...I don't so what.
I fail to see how this matters a squidley hop to politics etc.

Religion isn't the cause of problem, any more than a gun is violent. It's the intelligence of the brain at the trigger end, that makes the difference i.e. it would be churlish/arrogant of me to criticise my 85yo mum who is a fundy. It keeps her happy and she does no one harm,
nor she doesn't expect or want the laws to reflect her beliefs.

There are a multitude of degrees/options, before Rudd reaches Fielding or Abbott's confusion of religion and politics.

The problem I have with your arguing style(in fact most peoples arguments), is that you argue by extremes, you are either a deluded fundy or you are atheist, there seems no sense of proportion, an exceedingly dubious premise.

IMO Dawkins is at the extreme far end of the spectrum with his views of religion. He confuses religion as the cause, not maybe just correlation or a sort.
I would argue that his isn't a true scientist because he presupposes an absolute conclusion without definitive proof. I agree the evidence stack up in his favour but he can't prove god emphatically doesn't exist therefore it's simply his version of faith that makes up the difference.

Hanrahan
I'd love to contribute to OLO more but it already exacts too much time that I ought to be spending on other things.
I only watched Q&A yesterday and was, frankly, embarrassed for most of the panellists; I shouldn't have been a bit surprised if Dawkins had walked out.
You must appreciate that one doesn't just blurt out throw away lines on subjects like ontology; my position is that religious/mystical naval-gazing is narcissistic at worst and escapist at best. We live in a material world with real and enormous problems that God's not going to fix! Indeed the God fixation sublimates human energy away from these dire material concerns, effectively cocooning the believer in a personalised fantasy far removed from the real conditions of his her life. There seems to be no limit to the human capacity for self-deception and my atheism is simply unsubscription to any belief system that "embroiders" idly on the mystery of our given ontology. And that's what religion is: embroidery. I'm as fascinated with the mystery of life as anyone else, but I'm more concerned with the here and now. I don't believe we need religion as a moral guide either; fairy tales to live our lives by and rationalise every unspeakable act; that's the history of religion. It seems to me that what we need are ethical standards that are actually observed, first by governments as exemplars and then by society, and this is never going to work in a laissez faire world.
Religion should not be patronised in any way shape or form by government; there should be a clear separation between church and state, including fiscally--no tax-payer funding for religion.
And just as political advertising should be banned, along with alcohol and junk food, so should religious advertising. We have to start taking responsibility for our real impact in a real world. People should take their religion, in moderation, during their private time, once the work of keeping their house in order is done.
The only hope for the human race, in my view, is a rise of ethical atheism!

Examinator,

I haven’t read this entire thread, so forgive me if I’ve missed something here.

<<Religion isn't the cause of problem, any more than a gun is violent.>>

Which problem(s) do you mean? I can think of a lot of problems that religion is the root cause of.

There are a lot of otherwise decent people there who do some awful things that they normally wouldn’t have done had it not been for their religious convictions.

To argue that there may just be some correlation is naive in the extreme when one considers that many problems occur because of religious people who make no effort to hide the fact that religion is the driving force behind what they do.

<<It's the intelligence of the brain at the trigger end, that makes the difference i.e. it would be churlish/arrogant of me to criticise my 85yo mum who is a fundy. It keeps her happy and she does no one harm, nor she doesn't expect or want the laws to reflect her beliefs.>>

That’s good to hear. My parents are so moderate in their religious beliefs that they don’t even deny AGW.

But no matter how benign a Theist is, the fact remains that without the passive support of the moderates, the real loonies would either be gone or wouldn’t have the powerbase to influence politics.

There is nothing churlish or arrogant about pointing this out. Nor is pointing this out arguing by extremes and implying that people are either are either “deluded fundies” or “atheists”.

<<I would argue that [Dawkins] isn't a true scientist because he presupposes an absolute conclusion without definitive proof.>>

I’m guessing you haven’t read The God Delusion or seen too many of his speeches then, because even he admits that it would be unscientific to speak in absolutes and thus refuses to do so - instead speaking in probabilities.

I grow really tired of people misrepresenting the outspoken Atheists like Dawkins et al. I can understand Theists wanting to doing this, but as to why an Atheist like yourself would feel the need to just baffles me.

Examinator.... you are either pregnant, or not.... no half measures.

Christians, and all others, either believe the holy books are real or they don't.

Any half measures amounts to cherry picking, as Dawkins talks about.

If it is all metaphor/allegory/whatever, rather than dead accurate fact, that's fine, I can understand that, but then what do all the hangers on, and the buildings, and the dogma and all else attached to promoting a single world view have to do with it?

And if it's not metaphor/allegory/whatever, then we really are in trouble, because there are so many versions of The Truth that it is not likely they can all be correct.

Your mother is not a PM, so in the scheme of things, she is not relevant to this.

Rudd is, and how he uses his language is very important.

He chose not to say that he was 'a Christian', but that he believed in creation, and that he believed that meant an intelligent designer.

We cannot see how he spoke those words, only hear them. If they were capitalised words, with a big C and ID, then what he says has a different meaning.

A trick that Howard was very good at, saying one thing to all his publics at once, meaning different things to each, as they each interpret what they want.

It's called 'dog whistling', and Rudd is as good at that as Howard is.

I agree with you if you are saying that all Christians are creationists and all believe in an intelligent designer, but some are believers in Creationism and Intelligent Design, which is a bit different.

Given Senator Fielding's comments about how Rudd evangelised to him from his top pocket Bible, I think he might be a big C and a big IDer too... or he could be pretending to be that, to capture the ACL votes he so desires... and buys at our expense.

We'll just have to disagree on Rudd miring himself in religion, like Hanson and the flag.

I see it, you don't, but many others here can see it too.

AJPhillips,

Experience shows me that most, extremists have a psychology that is susceptible to rigidity in their thinking, about abstract concepts. i.e. they tend to think in terms of absolutes, right or wrong. Their way of reassuring themselves of their identity via the efficacy of the group. It reaffirms that they are important not some set of genes in an indifferent, pointless system.

If it wasn't religion, it would be some other substitute, spiritualism etc.

Not everyone in the world has the capacity to survive without it.

I have dealt with enough murderers to know that the gun was the means not the cause.

You are very wrong about my knowledge of Dawkins I have most of his books and in Biology he's brilliant.

However as someone who understands the human condition he sucks. He epitomizes the difference between hard science and the humanities.
A variation on a theme of nature V nurture. Perhaps I should have explained that IMO that he is not scientific in his approach to humanities OR at the extreme edge of cosmology.

NB neither side can prove absolutely that their perspective is the only view much less that the other side is absolutely wrong.

I did say earlier, that the best that can be said is at the current stage of our understanding is that god(s) appear to be unlikely.

NB I am decidedly secular in my personal views.

Notwithstanding I believe in a qualified live and let live. i.e.
religion has no part in education or government.
Providing the religion breaches no laws and harms no one it is merely another private opinion.

As a matter of fact I object to proselytizing on private matters from either side.

IMO Dawkins tends to want to stamp out the human element and as such his version of atheism is a quasi religion/cult by definition.

I'm not interested in a debate on what Dawkins or others say as I believe that pointless. I discussing the principals.

From examinator <<
Words take on new meanings in the context of this topic and need clear definition >>
An excellent point amongst many- adjudicators on words we need. In the absence of one recently, let suggest a great point of confusion.
The panelists on QANDA , like us, tend to use evolution as a process and evolution as an answer to everything as though they are the same thing . They are not. One is a word with some action potential in cells/science , the other is a way of trying to see how far the stimulus might extend. Both views, to my mind, are useful to talk to.
Scientific words have a lot of power , but they are not always morally neutral . Maybe we do have a choice? ( consider adrenalin)
Do we not ALL bring words of value into our own worldview to give it passion power –
And we all multiply our favourite values with additional words that have perceived to have some value too- george and squeers might adjust me here .

A suggestion ONLY :examples ONLY
High value words If you move them too far to the right they become god like in their power – passion.

Word/value -- Reality in science --World view
Evolution -- DNA changes /adaption(EP)--Evolutionary Determinism (ED )
Adaption--Cell knowledge -- GUYA?
Aggression--adrenalin--Pacifist or Tyrant
Non agression --nor adrenalin -- Pacifist / Doormat/ woose
Love --cooperation-- Monotheism / ?
Competition--territory --Capitalist/ Materialist
Science--structure and function -- Scientology/ atheist?
Disorder-- DNA / environment --Nihilism / ED/ Tyranny

Notice that making any valuable word/ reality into the main thing doesn’t make it right – All I am suggesting is this is what we tend do and its value is in exploring reality . All of us . We make symbols and others watching us are afraid of the power of those symbols ( whatever they are ) see May in Power and Innocence
None of the above categories , are all complete !
Enjoying your contributions

I watched "Q And A," on the ABC, Monday night
with great eagerness. I thought that I would
see Dawkins (the Lion) roar.

Unfortunately, Dawkins was not equally matched,
intellectually, that is. And I can only assume
that he wasn't challenged enough to respond.
Which was somewhat unfortunate - because he
did not create a very good impression as a result.

Had they invited a stronger panel (intellectually)
for Dawkins - it may have proven to be a more interesting
discussion.

Disappointing evening all round!

Tsk tsk Foxy.... Julie Bishop was there, the intellectual powerhouse of the Liberal Party, and Tony Burke representing the finest minds from the ALP....what more do you want?

Maybe the ABC under the 'deeply religious' Mark Scott (who gave Critto the short end) wants to achieve a sort of 'The Australian' notion of balance?

You know, where they allow Adams to spruik his wares for years as evidence of 'balance' while all the rest of their journos seem to belong to the Vatican and their private columnists represent every horrible rightwing thinktank imaginable.

So, Dawkins gets on, to boost the ratings, but to ensure he is not afforded a platform he is partnered by a bunch of lightweights?

(And I'd exclude the Oz of the Year fellow from that description- he was there to be 'on display' as the community's new 'shiny thing' and clearly he was on the wrong episode, should have had a mental health show focus-with Jeff Beyond Blue and Nick Sherry maybe).

Where was Pell and Jensen, Houston and Nahlliah, (Jim) Wallace and Grommett?

It was interesting to hear the cock crowing three times whenever Fielding uttered anything though... and that gem about Rudd and his pocketskyrocket was worth the boredom.

BTC

There you go again with the extreme examples.(which just happens to be wrong).
Many Christian denominations regard the Bible as god inspired writing, guidelines. Not necessarily to be worshiped chapter and verse.
I think you'll find most Christians in the west are special event, nominal Christians.
Christians and most religions allow for a range and depth of observances.
My mum's case *was* relevant in that even she as as a fundy draws the line at religious interference in Government.

The point TBC that being a Christian doesn't= being an extremist fundy.

Dawkins approach is to have the whole world *believe* the same as he does, no god, which he can't *absolutely* prove.

Even the crusades had little to do with god as such it was more the power or the pope and riches. A bit like saying the Spanish were there to save souls, they wanted the gold, plunder.
Clearly Religion was the means not the cause.

BTW being pregnant is a physical thing being Christian isn't.

Could it possibly be that Rudd was political speaking in that the was being inclusive of believers other religions. Nothing he said means he wants to bring in intelligent design or even believes in any of it.

Dawkins and ilk assume that if you're Christian one MUST see Christianity/religion in extreme fundamentalist perspective therefore you need re-education to his views. Which is simply the other extreme.

In distribution terms he's say 15, I'd be 35, mum would 75, and jihadists would be 99.

NB 2SD either way are considered in the normal range (of opinions)

let me also make the point Balance(sic) isn't objective.
in the above distribution example a 1 Versus 100 doesn't give you and objective discussion what you get is two extremes having their non-representative rant.
Oppositional debates achieve little i.e. look at "Question time" the truth is usually the first victim. Battles of attrition are no substitute for the reasoned objectivity

Examinator... there you go again.... you are right and everyone not agreeing with you is wrong.

"There you go again with the extreme examples.(which just happens to be wrong)."

I re-read... only one example, the extreme bias in that national rag, The Oz....which, of course, is not 'balance' at all, my point first time around.

"Many Christian denominations regard the Bible as god inspired writing, guidelines. Not necessarily to be worshiped chapter and verse."

Err... pardon? Not accepting God's writing as 'the' way to behave? Just, umm, 'guidelines' are they? Take it or leave it?

Fine, then let's not have such a fuss made about it being so pure and correct thanks.

But this line, true as it may be, is the clincher, "I think you'll find most Christians in the west are special event, nominal Christians".

Fine again. Then it means just about nothing, so should not have any special status in our community, but it does, because a very noisy minority demands their voice is heard, at our expense, and they also demand the right to infiltrate the minds of our children, and demand that we 'tolerate' them all the while.

"Even the crusades had little to do with god as such it was more the power or the pope and riches"... very little done by churches has anything to do with God, and most has to do with power and riches.

Even when they run school'breakfast clubs' they use the time to evangelise, and worm their way into the lives of the 'unchurched'.

"BTW being pregnant is a physical thing being Christian isn't", maybe you don't deal with fundies? They live for Jesus. Did you watch that 4 Corners on Scientology? These people were pregnant with lurv... yes, seems the wrong sort, but there you go, that's what religion can do for you.

"Could it possibly be that Rudd was political speaking in that the was being inclusive of believers other religions. Nothing he said means he wants to bring in intelligent design or even believes in any of it"... he was dog whistling, for votes.

Examinator

Maybe Rudd was "dog-whistling" for votes, maybe not. But he still continues the Howard tradition of prayer before parliament - this in no way counts as separation of church and state and is very divisive.

And I still want to know what the non-Christian pollies do while prayer-time is going on? Is it like at school, where you just hang around doing nothing?

This is what a 'moderate' Christian PM does? Would hate to see what a more orthodox one would do. Abbott anyone?

As for Dawkins, have read him, listened to him and watched him - no way does he present as extreme as any religious fundamentalist. To claim that he wants everyone to believe as he does is nonsense. Dawkins wants freedom from religion - religion out of politics, out of schools and held accountable like every other organisation.

Dear TBC,

I'm glad that you agree that the panel
on "Q and A," were somehow lacking in
qualities that would have made for a
lively discussion with Dawkins.

It's not a matter of "Tsk, Tsk,"
But a matter of - "zzzzzzzzzzzz's!"

Dr Paul Collins, who wrote
the book, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism
have a future?" would be a better choice then
George Pell. Then there's -
Geraldine Doogue, Phillip Adams,
Robert Manne, David Marr, Andrew Bolt, all - might have
made things a bit more interesting.

Dear Severin,

This may be of some interest:

http://www.australiavotes.org/policies/index.php?topic_ids=6

Party Policies on Prayer in Parliament.

Compare Party Responses.

Foxy... indeed, ZZZZZZZZZZs win the day as far as Q&A goes, and not just this one, they are all a bit ho-hum these days.

The fate of popular TV rather than any fiendish plot, I imagine/hope.

Yes again, Paul Collins, the reprobate ex-priest with something worth saying, but I'd rather see a goons alley as suggested, to show the popular TV show watchers just who represents Jesus on Earth.

They might start to be a little more critical... unless the ABC only has far-left greenie commos watching it, as according to the Truly Enlightened, like Chris Pyne.

I'm fed up with The Doogue, she's one of those gushing two-bob each way mob, and the others are not God botherers...we need the cream of that crew to show us 'the way'.

Marr? Yes, I'd stick him in but have him opposed by Pearson- they seem to hate each other. Maybe Shanahan, the female version, just for a larf, and Bathesby, the Qld Vatican Archbish, who could be human but for the constraints imposed by Rome, opposed by the meddlesome priest Kennedy, from the Qld church that might actually pass muster as a useful social machine...or maybe Father Bob, the Denton sidekick.

Be great to see him make a fool of Pell on TV...I'd even contribute to his super fund when he got pensioned off.

Examinator,

I realise you are “decidedly secular” in your personal views, which makes your zealous willingness to misinterpret and misrepresent Dawkins all the more puzzling.

<<If it wasn't religion, it would be some other substitute, spiritualism etc.>>

Yes, but no other substitute, spiritualism etc seems to incite people to do insane things quite the way religion can. Nobody kills on the name of Zodiac or any other sort of mumbo jumbo, so religion is rightly singled out.

<<Not everyone in the world has the capacity to survive without it.>>

And not everyone in the world has the capacity to survive with it either.

Whether it be the horrific conditions of the Middle-Eastern countries run by religious dictatorships, or people who commit suicide because their entire families ostracize them for their sexuality or what have you.

The only reason some need religion to survive, is because religion exists in the first place.

Religion spreads like a virus.

It starts by tearing a person down - telling them that they’re an unworthy wretch (like that dreadful and emotionally abusive song, “Amazing Grace”) - then it builds them back up again, but with itself at the center of what makes the person feel good; creating a dependence.

So what’s the harm in someone believing if it makes them happy?

If I walk around believing that I’ve won the lottery, that might make me feel really good inside, but if I were to start living as such and spend-up big, when in fact I hadn’t won the lottery, then that’s going to have negative effects.

<<I have dealt with enough murderers to know that the gun was the means not the cause.>>

A gun is an inanimate object - a tool. Religion is mindset - a mindset that has shown to have the potential to use such tools in dangerous ways.

<<You are very wrong about my knowledge of Dawkins I have most of his books and in Biology he's brilliant.>>

Then why did you misrepresent his position? You’ve done it again in your post to TBC...

Continued...

...Continued

<<Dawkins and ilk assume that if you're Christian one MUST see Christianity/religion in extreme fundamentalist perspective therefore you need re-education to his views.>>

Sounds like you’ve read all his books except the one where he discusses the very topic you’re attacking him on.

Can you point me to where Dawkins has said anything of the sort?

<<However as someone who understands the human condition he sucks. He epitomizes the difference between hard science and the humanities. A variation on a theme of nature V nurture.>>

Dawkins’ primary focus is reason and rational thinking. What do you want him to do? Ask everyone to hold hands in a big heart shape and sing Coombaya?

If you’re implying that Dawkins has no spiritual side to him then, again, you haven’t really read or seen much of him that’s relevant to this topic.

From what I know, Dawkins gets his “spirituality” (for lack of a better word) from the shear amazement that we are actually here to begin with:

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place, but who will in fact never see the light of day out-number the sand grains of Sahara.” (Prof. Richard Dawkins, US Berkley, March 2008)

Similar to Carl Sagans “Pale blue dot” speech. Both of which I think are infinitely more meaningful than the shallow Bronze-Age myths of ignorant sheep herders.

For starters, the Sagan/Dawkins view acknowledges just how unbelievably lucky we are to be here, unlike the Abrahamic-religious view that we were always going to exist as a part of a mystical being’s grand plan.

The fact that our time is so temporary makes each and every moment infinitely more valuable when compared to the Theistic view that we will live on for an eternity.

So please tell me how you think Dawkins wants to stamp out the “Human element”, and why we need religion to retain it?

AJP... where you write to Examinator thus: "So please tell me how you think Dawkins wants to stamp out the “Human element”, and why we need religion to retain it?", perhaps Examinator is referring to the stamping out of the human element that IS religion...that is... perhaps Examinator really does understand that religion is entirely a human construction, and that to expose that would be to destroy it.

The Q&A religious observers started to act very threatened when Dawkins reiterated a basic fact from Paul, and they all accused him of not being 'tolerant of their views'... the gold standard response when faced with something that cannot be explained.

A very moody moment, and Dawkins looked a bit like when that ape Ted Haggard was giving him a talking-to in the car park, as his Adams apple (does Dawkins have one, or would it be called a Nigel Apple?) before the entire world learned that he was just yet another liar and sinning (rich) clergyman with absolutely nothing of value to offer anyone, least of all his 'fambly'...thank and praise the Lord he is now cured and living a wholesome life delivering Gideons to Salt Lake motels... but very soon to become a Morals Advisor to Sarah Palin.

You could be right TBC. Examinator was using many different ways to say what I interpreted to be “spirituality”, so I guess I just assumed that’s what he meant by “Human element”.

Funny you should mention the Q&A episode though. I just finished watching it on YouTube.

I was absolutely disgusted with the way Dawkins was treated when he reiterated that basic bit from Paul. They were straight on the defensive and throwing accusations.

What annoyed me too was when Tony Kevin played Christian’s advocate by saying, “Is that [the crucifixion] not a story of sacrifice?”

Well... no, it’s not.

If I had the choice of being tortured, crucified, suffering Hell for three days, then rising and getting to be God for an eternity, I’m gonna choose that.

Hardly a sacrifice.

Soldiers have died for our freedom and will never return. Now THAT'S a sacrifice!

But it was shocking to be reminded of what our politicians - people who are supposed to be running the country - actually believe.

They may as well have sat there and said they believed in the Tooth Fairy and I would have been just as shocked.

Where Burke and Bishop get the idea that their fantastical beliefs should have any special consideration, exemption from criticism is beyond me.

I guess - like Dawkins said earlier in the program - it comes down to that fact that so many believe it.

Ideed AJP, indeed squilions do.

I'm wading through Dawkins new book, which is readable but very longwinded at times. But it is a shock to see the 'beliefs' we are supposed to be 'tolerant' of, none of which have anything at all to do with living in a decent environment-social as well as actual.

I see, pp.429-437, the USA is almost on a par with Turkey in its belief that evolution is false, 27%. Turkey also has 42% of people who believe people and dinosaurs cohabited the world... and so on.

The Pew Surveys never cover Australia, and I can find no hint of 'us' in the book so far, as far as what we have to 'be tolerant of', but I suspect the pollies from Canberra might extend to one hand of fingers, including the thumb, of people ready and willing to say they are not even what examinator calls 'significant event' Christians, but real live non-believers.

Funny how very selective these people are on what then constitutes a 'conscience vote' isn't it? There they all are, heads bowed at prayers, still mumbling God save the queen, probably,and then passing legislation, or denying it, without a hint of 'conscience' on display anywhere, until... suddenly 'the poofs' want to get married, and they all spring into action, froth at the mouth, and smite those pink trousered *uggers hopes down as fast as possible, with not a skerrick of tolerance, or conscience, to be seen.

Jesus loves, indeed he does.

Then, back to getting pissed and an affair with the office typist, taking her out on the travel allowance/printing allowamce but always leaving time to purge their sins on Sunday in Mass or where ever they go to recover and redeem themselves, ready for the next bout of sinning.

I see from Foxy's ACL election question link, that the ALP was as keen as the Coalition to keep mumbling prayers. Only the Dems, Greens and Secular Party say no to this fairytale madness..oh dear, how intolerant of me!

Oh for a Qld optional first-past-the-post system in the Fed election.

>>without the passive support of the moderates, the real loonies would either be gone or wouldn’t have the power-base to influence politics<<
Yes, this is what I also thought about the “moderate” intellectual (Marxist) lefties in the West during the reign of the Communist “loonies” in Eastern Europe where I lived in the fifties and sixties. However, soon after arriving in Australia I realised that the solution was not to eliminate the political left (or right) as such but to encourage the moderates on both sides, since only they can peacefully coexist (in theory as well as in practice) while agreeing to disagree.

Does this not hold also for debates (or even politics) concerning religion? Moderates (like e.g. Foxy and examinator on this thread), rather than the “loonies” on both sides of the divide, will tolerate and respect each other, thus contributing to a peaceful coexistence of holders of different world-views. Therefore it should be in our interest - whatever our own world-view - to encourage these moderates on both sides; and not to further motivate the “loonies” by putting up what is actually just a mirror image of their own fanaticism and intolerance towards other world-views and life styles.

I cannot see any other realistic way out of the quandary of conflicting world-views, religious or not, characterising our century.

George,

I never said anything about eliminating religion or religious people. Your Marxist analogy is pretty poor too I’m afraid. We’re not just talking about any old world-view. Religion is in a league of its own.

I don’t know what it was like to grow-up in a Stalinist country myself, but I do know that no one goes around pronouncing or labelling their child a “Marxist” child or a “Keynesian” child. If they did they would probably be looked at as freaks or asked something along the lines of: ”How do you know what your child will grow-up to think?”

Yet we allow this with religion for no good reason.

So please don't imply that I'm some sort of intolerant bigot when the points I'm making are perfectly sound.

I'd have to agree with AJP and TBC. Oh yes tolerance is very commendable, we all have to tolerate the myriad discrepancies between our own and the views of others, but why should we have to tolerate the impositions of entire cohorts, who draw their credibility merely from their weight of numbers (including in the halls of power) rather than any plausible doctrine. Why should calcified and barbaric belief systems be tolerated, not in their passive presence, but in their aggressive and ongoing missions to infect the world, governments and places of education, converting new generations (at broadly secular tax-payer's expense!) to their fantastic other-worldly hypochondria? Just as Dawkins denied being "strident" the other night, I deny there's anything fundamentalist about wanting eccentric gangs of soothsayers to keep to themselves. I'm quite happy to tolerate all and any harmless eccentricities, I'm even fond of them, but keep them out of government and schools and let their members fund themselves; Users pay!
Neither Dawkins nor other atheists want to round religio's up or stage a grand inquisition. Yes, lets live in a tolerant society where no belief system is favoured by government, or given open slather to the people's koffers, or actively encouraged to seduce and groom emerging generations.

AJ Philips,
I agree that “dismiss” rather than “eliminate” would have been a better word to use in what I wanted to say.

Your opinion reminded me of an opinion I once had, that was all. I read your statement as making moderate Christians co-responsible for the excessive and distorted application of Christian ideas by religious zealots and fundamentalists. Well, also the Communist practice was regarded as an excessive and distorted application of Marx’s ideas, “pretty poor analogy” or not.

>>We’re not just talking about any old world-view. Religion is in a league of its own.<<
Do you mean to say that religion is a world-view? This is rather strange. For instance, religion (with its myriad of definitions), or mathematics and philosophy of science, play important roles in my world-view, but neither of them can be seen as a world-view on its own.

I certainly did not label any child Marxist or Christian; there are only children growing up in Christian, Marxist, atheist, etc families, and the right of parents to educate their children in a world-view of their choice, provided they do not contravene the law.

I did not imply anything about you, certainly not in the terms you mention. I only expressed my opinion that it is better to encourage both atheist and theist moderates, than to pour oil on fire by advocating a mirror image of the fanaticism, intolerance, sweeping accusations etc of those one rightfully disapproves of. It is up to each one of us - who agree with this maxim - to properly apply it to himself/herself.

Squeers,
If you are referring to my post, please note that I was not objecting to AJ Philips’ justified criticism (to put it mildly) of religious extremists (his “loonies”) but to his sweeping statement about religion and its adherents moderate or not. As there are all sorts of people who are (or claim to be) atheists, there are also all sorts of people who are (or claim to be) Christians or adherents of another mainstream religion.

Thanks Foxy for the link. I thought the responses from the individual parties to be quite predictable.

How offensive Prayer in Parliament is; one doesn't have to be an atheist to find this habit exclusionary, simply being Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic or calathumpian - the message is clear only Christianity is acceptable in Australian politics.

AJP, TBC, Squeers your posts did a great deal to clarify to Examinator, Dawkins' position than I could. A shame that no-one was up to par for him (Dawkins) to debate on Q&A. My suggestions; Tim Costello or Peter Kennedy would've provided a more lively and intelligent debate.

George, please edify just how Marxism has anything to do with wanting separation of church and state - why even drag out this old chestnut, that if one is not religious, one must be a communist? Absurd, something I would expect Runner to opine, not you.

Foxy

I thought the Secular Party expressed the beginning of parliament the best:

"Response by Secular Party of Australia:


* The Constitution says that we shall not establish any religion or impose any religious observance.

* The Secular Party holds that opening Parliament with a prayer is anomalous and does not in any way enhance the process of rational government.

* The prayer should be replaced with a period of silent contemplation, where believers in any religion, or in none, may unite in contemplation of their own private thoughts."

Of course, none of it guarantees that the individual pollies will act with any more conscience than they already do, but at least the practice of contemplation would be inclusive.

Severin,
Please quote me, where I said anything about the relation of Marxism to the separation of church and state. And also where I stated that if one is not religious one must be a Communist? So that I know what to “edify”.

I have no desire, or intention, of impugning the characters of Foxy and Examinator, but George has used them as examples of the 'tolerant' that should be listened to, while those who point out the folly of faith-over-reason are to be shunned, and neither heard nor listened to as a serious counterweight.

Religion may well be 'the commonsense' view across the world, but that does not mean, at all, that it is 'correct'.

Raising the 'tolerant' up to exalted status, leads to this sort of absolute, total, dangerous rubbish:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/03/who-president-obama-seeks-out-for-spiritual-advice/1

I do urge you all to read this USA Today and then ponder the notions of 'tolerance' we have been talking about.

I understand that others may not see the dangers in this news clip, and actually believe that it is a display of 'tolerance' and very welcome, but it is just this sort of highlevel acceptance of the Truth of 'religion' that keeps promoting it well beyond any reasonable claims it makes to being a 'good force'.

Obama should distance himself from these ill-advised displays of tolerance, and just get on with his job of leading a second rate nation run by greedy and ignorant oafs who believe their particular brand of god has destined them to lead us all to a golden future (but not in a GM car anymore, eh?)

Now, in our part of the world, Rudd is advised by the ACL, supports Hillsong, panders to Pell and seems to be a follower of Jensen. He abuses Scientology, but backs off the Brethren and has said not a word about Catch The Fire, and he totally ignores the existence of non-religious people beyond saying he 'respects' their views....a bad fibber.

But he declined an invite to speak at the Atheists Convention.

TBC an interesting point of agreement here - not many of those it seems. I agree : Too much "tolerance talk" is enough to make any thinking man really sick .
Political woosiness is often a symbol of hiding your head in the sand and avoiding the issue. Predjudice and fear of conflict should not prevent conflict over words and ideas - thats one very effective tested way to fight extremism .Good on you OLO .
The West has been great for intellectual freedom and conflict resolution because it promotes attacking/listening to the idea/experience, but definitely not focusing on the man . (One reason why there are 66 books, and not just one in the good book? )
To NOT take the chance to attack the idea is to make the mistake that Chamberlain made - he didn't warn the people. If you don't talk to the issue , good ideas are moved by more vocal members of the congregation to the extremes ( right in my sketch)the "religion" gets the passion power that rightly frightens all of from time to time .
The problem has always been the same in our history ( ask Solzenitzen - he says the same in his country) - the majority don't listen to church people until the sore which the believers etc saw coming festers ( like now with our "notalk" but hidden worries over the "power of islam" - why attack the label?)
Bonhoeffer the Pastor was on taken off the air by Hilter 8 years before the war started . He visited England early but came home to to fight the enemy directly.
Like some of the people identified as "subversive christains" in aust , in some posts he would , I feel sure be honored, to think he had that much power.
A question: Could Ruddy could do with a pastoral visit right now - his veneration of Bonhoeffer might turn into more practical politics to deal with the evils of the day. Don't be "shocked" AJP- identify the electricity source and switch it off /or on ?.

Dear Severin,

I'm glad you liked the link.
I found it fairly predictable as well.

I totally agree with you - a moment's contemplation
prior to the start of Parliament -
would be the most appropriate in our diverse society today.
Perhaps that will happen one day - when we
get away from the restrictions of religion, gender, race,
et cetera, when a person's individual human qualities will
be considered the primary measure of a person's worth
and achievement. But now I'm babbling ... I think you
know what I mean because we've discussed this topic many
times in the past.

Dear TBC,

It is widely believed that our Constitution builds
a "wall of separation" between church and state,
but as I've written in the past this view is largely
a myth. I think that if we were to examine what it
actually implies is that the state, out of respect
for the principle of freedom of religion, may not
favour or penalize one belief relative to another.
However, although the state may not become involved
in religion, there is absolutely no prohibition
against religion participation in the affairs of the
state.

In practice, civic affairs and religion have long been
closely intertwined . Religion is an element in oaths,
court-room procedures, even the Boy Scouts give a "God
and Country" pledge, a phrase that implies to say
the least, a compatibility between the two. Such
sentiments are not allied to any specific faith or
political program; they're sufficiently broad to
be acceptable to almost anyone.

Anyway, it's when specific religious doctrine or
government policies are at stake, the relationship
between church and state can be antagonistic.

My personal philosophy is - live and let live.
Believe whatever you want as long as you're not
hurting anyone. What I believe doesn't mean it's
"right" for other people - it's simply right for me.
I have no wish to convert or condemn anyone

Hanrahan... the question is, who would provide your 'pastoral visit' to Rudd? Bonhoffer? He's not here. Read Rudd's speech to the ACL in Nov., he supports fundies, he is a fundie, and he would only listen to a fundie.

They do not provide 'pastoral care', they only evangelise and proselytise seeking to 'connect' with the 'unchurched'.

What Rudd does need though, is a visit from his caucus with a clear message to smarten up or 'roll yer swag'.

Rudd's caucus (the intelligent ones anyway) fears his entanglement with religion, but are so meek and mild (tolerant?) they dare not say boo!.

Anyway, since when did gods seek 'pastoral care' from mortals?

Foxy, yes, indeed the wall of separation is a myth, having been tested in the High Court and found to be 'not there'.

The 'state' (Commonwealth) is indeed involved in religion, with its dole-out of monies direct to religion, and all the tax breaks religion get, forcing all of us to be supporters of religion even when we have no interest in supporting them. And the 'states', as in each and every state and territory, have no such vague notion of any separation, so can indeed establish a state religion of they so choose, as Qld has done with Christianity in its public school system. They can also freely fund religion, as Beattie did with chaplains before Howard followed his poor example.

Note how the US, even though it has a pretty gormless view of the world, does not fund religious schools, or allow prayers in public schools, or any overt demonstration of support for any religion in the public areas of government...there are some failures of this I do acknowledge.

I think your live-and-let-live attitude actually encourages problems to arise, and is far too 'generous'.

1/2

We're now getting to the nub of reality, ABSOLUTES are currently a matter of Faith,
logically that goes both ways.

TBC religion/spirituality is an integrally human characteristic therefore a little of Biology and a little Psychology, It is decidedly not A or B alone. There has been some research that has shown that there is a CORRELATION between brain function and 'spiritualisation/religious' propensity. One set of researchers has *suggested* a link with a n expression of genes. Therefore, we're back into the argument about nature V nurture... where absolute simply don't fit.

If Dawkins stuck to his area of expertise Biology then I would have no problem with him at all. He is wandering into a less clear ' humanities', philosophy. In that area his views are no more valid than any number of folk.

Man unfortunately is more than the sum of his bits .i.e. genes. I believe he's correct in his original assertion in the 'Selfish Gene' because he is talking about the highly logical/predictable.

He make valid points that Religion/spiritualism (the the *precise, objective* cause of which is still speculation) has no sensible role in driving Government/Education. Beyond that it's both a matter of DEGREE and OPINION not science.

I would remind you again IMO proselytising is merely a power thing ”My faith is more reasonable than yours therefore you must follow it” a wholey dubious and debatable, extreme black or white assumptions. The logical extension of Dawkins view is no religion/spirituality , Decided an un-Human state of being.

AJP you are clearly defending your idol not engaging in the principals/the human reality.

BTW human existence is full of brutality (extreme and systemic) for non religious causes Nationalism, National pride come to mind Conquest etc. Are you suggesting the US actions in innumerable wars are religious based?

Your 'rebuttal' (such as it is) , involves the reductionist mentality of a bias ….my argument is *more* than the semantic sum of the words.

Because of the complexity and interrelatedness of the topic I have to assume an appreciation of the other factors

George,

<<I agree that “dismiss” rather than “eliminate” would have been a better word to use in what I wanted to say.>>

I don’t think “dismiss” would be a much better way to put my overall view of how religion needs to be dealt with either.

In my opinion, religion simply needs to take more of a back seat in society as it has been far too big for its boots for far too long now. I also think that religion needs to lose the taboo, no-go-zone status that it still retains from days of old.

<<Well, also the Communist practice was regarded as an excessive and distorted application of Marx’s ideas...>>

I realise this, but my point wasn’t that radical fundamentalists are an “excessive and distorted application” of the moderates, but that the moderates need to share some of the responsibility (albeit a very small part of the responsibility) for the radicals because of the unwillingness of the 99.9% of moderates to actively speak-out against them, and the passive support they provide as a powerbase.

It was in response to Examinator’s assertion that Dawkins et al argue as though everyone was a fundamentalist.

Most moderates keep quite and allow the radicals to run amok because they’re either too embarrassed to openly acknowledge them and want to pretend they don’t exist, or they quietly sympathise with them since the radicals still - at the end of the day - believe in the same religion and God as they do.

I think my point still stands.

<<Do you mean to say that religion is a world-view? This is rather strange.>>

No, but “world-view” is the term I often see you use when you’re discussing Theistic and Atheistic view-points. Such as: “Therefore it should be in our interest - whatever our own world-view - to encourage these moderates on both sides.”

Continued...

...Continued

<<I certainly did not label any child Marxist or Christian; there are only children growing up in Christian, Marxist, atheist, etc families, and the right of parents to educate their children in a world-view of their choice, provided they do not contravene the law.>>

Yes, but those children growing up in Marxist or Keynesian or Atheist or any other household aren’t having beliefs engrained into them through a weekly congregation, or a rituals like baptism. Nor are they being told that an invisible being has a special place for them to go when they die if they don’t believe.

We’ve been through this before.

<<I only expressed my opinion that it is better to encourage both atheist and theist moderates, than to pour oil on fire by advocating a mirror image of the fanaticism, intolerance, sweeping accusations etc of those one rightfully disapproves of.>>

Of course it’s better to encourage the moderates (although I’m not sure how you could possibly have an atheist extremist - certainly not in the same sense as Theist extremist), but that doesn’t seem to be working.

Despite the 9/11 attacks, most Muslim moderates continue to sit in silence about Islamic extremism. Despite the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells and the James Dobsons, most moderate Christians continue to ‘sit on their hands’.

The day I see most moderates band together and say, "Enough is enough. Shape-up or ship-out", I'll take back what I've said.

Until then, I stand by it 100%.

Examinator,

Could you please explain what you mean by “the principals” and “the human reality”? You haven’t made that very clear.

<<BTW human existence is full of brutality (extreme and systemic) for non religious causes Nationalism, National pride come to mind Conquest etc.>>

I realise that. So what’s your point?

None of those get the special consideration; the untouchable, taboo status; the undeserved and unearned respect that religion gets. I go back to what I said to George about the labeling of children.

Another example can be seen here on OLO.

When it comes to Left/Right political issues, it can be a no-holds-barred slanging match filled with insults flying back an forth.

But as soon as someone criticizes religious view, then you’re suddenly being ‘intolerant’, ‘rude’ or ‘arguing from extremes’.

It’s an appalling double-standard and it’s exactly the kind of double-standard that Dawkins et al point out.

I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

<<Are you suggesting the US actions in innumerable wars are religious based?>>

I have never said, or even Implied that all wars are religious. In fact, I think I’ve made it pretty clear why I am singling out religion here. If you’re still not getting it, then I suggest we discontinue this conversation.

I have no idea what the rest of what you addressed to me was all about, but it’s interesting to note that you couldn’t back any of the claims you made about Dawkins that I called you up on.

So my initial, and main point, that you were misrepresenting Dawkins, still stands.

As for the following addressed to TBC...

<<Man unfortunately is more than the sum of his bits...>>

I believe Fractelle addressed this beautifully the last time you said this when she replied:

“As for being greater than the sum of our parts, we all are, but so is my computer.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150079)

Well said AJP and I like the Fractelle line too.

I was cut off, in full flight, for some time so here is 2/2 of my first post:

The boy scouts were designed quite deliberately as a nationalistic, religion based force of coercion to 'connect' with the 'youf' of the day and provide a direct link into the armed forces, as well as the spiritual forces of the day.

These days Baden Powell would be suspected with his behaviour towards boys, some of which continues to this day in the fabled 'scoutmaster' antics.

One on trial now for encouraging two children to have sex in front of him... what badge would that be for I wonder?

And scouts supported Christianity when it started, wash your mouth out for even thinking any other religion is worthy of a scouts support!

"...it's when specific religious doctrine or government policies are at stake, the relationship between church and state can be antagonistic"... but Christians are always antagonistic to our nation-state, believing they are serving another sovereign, not ours, and are building another nation-on-Earth, not our nation-state of Australia.

Their belief is a fifth column action, white-anting 'the national interest' for their own 'nation'. They are treasonable, without wishing to sound like Peter the Believer.

Yes, religion is in oaths, but should not be, as someone has already said.

How’s this for the Truth about religions: http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/03/11/coast-cancer-faith/

I have a sister-in-law in a wheel chair, who went to Lourdes for a ‘cure’. Cost her many thou$and$ and she came back still in it.

How come the ACCC and the world community lets the Vatican off with its dodgy claims but (quite rightly) closes this man down?

And how come the ABC, and Rudd, assert that Scientology is a fraud, but not all the rest?

Believing in little green men from Mars is no sillier than believing in 'rising from the dead'.

After all, Scientology has been to the High Court, and won, and none of the others have.

Two posts in a row is as bad as flaming, so forgive me please but I had to post this from Dr. Nalliah at Catch The Fire Ministry, concerning the Q&A.

It's good to know that Burke and Bishop are equally blessed by the Dr.Pastor isn't it?

And I think I mentioned the cock crowing three times before Fielding spoke.... seems CTFM shares that view, probably for different reasons though.

"Pr Daniel stated, 'I watched this program yesterday as I missed the original broadcast.

"Sitting by my computer I was absolutely shocked and appalled at how Steve Fielding of Family First responded to the questions.

"On the contrary I was very impressed by both the Liberal & ALP politicians who spoke up very boldly about their Christian faith.

"Julie Bishop especially needs our applause and appreciation for being very bold in standing up and supporting the teaching of the Bible in all schools across Australia.”

Just wait til Rudd adopts the Bible angle from Abbott too, along with Abbotts hofpital boards, although we already have Bible lessons in class in Qld in Y1-7.... "Qld, the smart state".

No mention of preying on Dawkins soul, but he is now busy praying for Derryn Hinch, following a tempestuous interview with 'the beard'.

Dear TBC,

You argue so well, and I Congratulate you
for that. You seem like a passionate man
who cares deeply about things.

I care deeply as well. Perhaps I'm not
putting it well. So I'll quote from the
book written by Father James Kavanaugh,
"A Modern Priest Looks At His Outdated
Church."

"Faith has passed from the passive and
complete acceptance of a body of truths to
the honest search for total commitment.
The world has become man-centered, meaning-
centered, and the individual measures the
traditional truths in terms of personal value.
He/she refuses to accept irrelevant sermons,
a sterile liturgy, a passe and speculative
theology which explores publicly dry and
distant formulas, a law which does not explain
its own origins. He demands a pastor who
reaches him in honest dialogue. He/she will not
be bullied by an authoritarian demand...nor by
moralizing which ignores the true and complex
context of modern life..."

I guess what Father Kavanaugh was pointing out
was a soul-searching plea of a Christian for an
evaluation of what is Christian, and what is
simply tired and imperious tradition.

He apparently did not believe that the present
structure of the Church was an adequate representation
of the Christ of Gospel and history. In his book
he asks for honest dialogue, an open hierarchy, and
a Church which doesn't have all the answers or expects
people to walk in the wooden cadences of frozen
categories.

Of course there are valid criticisms to be made of many
religions. And as a Catholic - I have many frustrations
with my Church. Cardinal George Pell is a church leader
who makes me cringe - he's about exclusion - and he
shouldn't be. However, my religion is my personal belief -
and as I said earlier - I have no intention in trying to
convert anyone else to it. I shall follow my conscience,
demand meaning and relevance from my Church, and continue
to "live and let live!"

George:
"Squeers,
If you are referring to my post, please note that I was not objecting to AJ Philips’ justified criticism (to put it mildly) of religious extremists (his “loonies”) but to his sweeping statement about religion and its adherents moderate or not. As there are all sorts of people who are (or claim to be) atheists, there are also all sorts of people who are (or claim to be) Christians or adherents of another mainstream religion".
I wasn't referring specifically to your post--I find your philosophical/theological position eminently reasonable. But this is now also political, which for me should mean bipartisan---secular.
I do question the usefulness of the "moderate" position you ascribe to Foxy and Examinator, and indeed the implication that I or TBC or AJP are extremists (loonies) on one side of the divide. Political tolerance means support and more of the same.
The symbiotic relationship between government and Christianity (hegemony) has thrived on tolerance for far too long and has to be torn asunder. People may indulge their mystical whims to their hearts' content, in private or in church, but not in government, the exchequer or state schools. This is not extreme, but perfectly reasonable, as designed in constitutional separations of church and state in the archetypal democracy.
I still stand by my disenchantment with Dawkinsesque liberal rationalism--his talk on RN this afternoon was nothing more than marketing of his new book--which has nothing more to add, I gather, since his "The Way Things Are" of twenty odd years ago.

I've just been sent a Facebook message about a person who is trying to bring about a greater level of secularity in our wide brown land.

It looks promising to me, and I would relish s.116 'as it was really intended' to be swung into action.

The only question is, why has this taken so long?

Those from a religious perspective should be just as pleased as those without the same view.

Try Bishop Tom Frame 'Church and State: Australia's imaginary wall'.

I think Tom is regarded as a credible person within the 'believer' camp.

The 'reading room' therein, of the HCC webpage, is most instructive.

All freely available media comments.

Where do yer get it?

Here:http://highcourtchallenge.com/

I'll be donating $100 to give this fellow a hand in his struggle against the forces of Rudd and Abbott, both of whom would throw unlimited tax dollars at the school chaplains, with no evidence they were needed in the first place, or achieve anything more useful than a properly qualified professional counsellor.

And if parents want to attend to their children's 'spiritual development', let them actually attend a church and stop being so lazy expecting schools to provide every last element of their children's development.

So we are divided about Dawkins leadership in the area of reasonableness. No one who believes Dawkins to be the shining light here has responded to suggest why the reasoned biologist didn't answer the question the Muslim bloke asked (on behalf of at least 2 elephants in the audience ) see previous post. Not impressed .
I am concerned we here on OLO are also talking too much around the current fears of religion and not to those specific fears - postings are not being specific enough , esp about the widespread fear of Islam .

To move on, we need to stop lumping all religions into the same basket case( too easy ) and start talking about their simularities and differences , If we don't we will be like Chamberlain and won't be able to help allay the fears of the people effectively ( my reading of the current situation in Dawkins home territory ).
Much has been made of heavenly rewards amongst the monotheists , What about the huge difference betwen the 2 over the rightness of REVENGE and its implications in teaching a response for life in our societies . A starting point
Please stick to the subject of ideas and their implications, so we can all get a break .

Come. come Hanrahan... "So we are divided about Dawkins leadership in the area of reasonableness. No one who believes Dawkins to be the shining light here has responded to suggest why the reasoned biologist didn't answer the question the Muslim bloke asked (on behalf of at least 2 elephants in the audience ) see previous post. Not impressed ."

OLO writers are always divided on everything, even here.

To be honest, I have forgotten what they said, but I do recall thinking, as they asked whatever it was, that it was not a very good question... predictable perhaps?

So, assist a bit by restating at least the outline of it please.

"To move on, we need to stop lumping all religions into the same basket case( too easy ) and start talking about their simularities and differences"... why? They are all in the same basket- religions. What else needs to be said?

As for paring away the good bits of each-why?

You keep mentioning Chamberlain, presumably 'the piece of paper' moment? As I recall, whatever he thought he had achieved or not I have no idea, apart from the line 'PIOT', but I do vaguely recall Britain was de-armed, with no modern planes, tanks, guns and little ammo.

Maybe Chamberlain was not a dunce, but played for time while the nation started to rearm? Knowing they'd be wiped out in a flash at that point, which I think nearly happened shortly after anyway, at Dunkirk.

So, maybe Chamberlain is not a good example of whatever point you make here

TBC (and Hanrahan),

>> Foxy and Examinator, but George has used them as examples of the 'tolerant' that should be listened to<<
I did not name them as “tolerant per se” (I agree, tolerance can be a golden calf that many do-gooders worship). I mentioned them as two examples of moderates (in the sense I thought AJP used the term) who can tolerate EACH OTHER, even if they do not share the same outlook. I never mentioned, even implicitly, that one should tolerate world-views that exhibit fanaticism and sweeping statements about the world-view they disagree with, I actually said one “rightfully disapproves of them”. There is an article, that I have linked to here a couple of times, by an atheist who can better put these ideas in practice than I: (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html).

As to Obama, would you have preferred the McCain/Palin alternative? (There was no Dawkins/Harris or what alternative.) There are no statistics on this but I am sure that there were many more people in the world horrified and offended by the way Obama’s predecessor wore his “crusades-inspiring” religion on his sleeve than by Obama’s. If in 2012 the majority of Americans will not like what he achieved they will not re-elect him. I do not think that where he gets his inspiration from will matter that much.

The common denominator of this and similar points you raise seems to me to be the fact that you had a bad experience with religion (Christianity?), which is regrettable and hard to argue against.

AJ Philips,
I sometimes wished I could give better marks to a student (in mathematics) who gave wrong answers that made sense than to the one who - I was pretty sure - did not understand himself/herself, what he/she was writing. Of course, in these debates of ours there is no such clear-cut distinction between “right” and “wrong” as in undergraduate mathematics, but still. So since I appreciate your clear words, I shall try to deal with them also item by item. (ctd)

(ctd)
If you agree with Habermas (see the link above), then we have no bone of contention about “how religion needs to be dealt with”, irrespective of what words we use.

>>the unwillingness of the 99.9% of moderates to actively speak-out against them, and the passive support they provide<<

This is exactly what we felt in the sixties about the western leftist moderates, hence my subjective association. I am not sure whether you refer to e.g. Muslim or Christian moderates - quite a distinction. I know nothing about internal Muslim debates, but I am not sure you sufficiently follow internal Christian debates (and in-fights) to justify your 99.9% claim. For instance, everybody knows the Pope’s attitude towards war (Iraq) and pseudo-scientific ID theories, and there are Christians with a variety of more liberal approaches to sexual morality. I do not know what other radicals you had in mind. Of course, the situation is different if you expect Christian moderates to parrot Dawkins’ theses.

You are right, I like to use the term world-view because of my Continental background. I am aware that it is only recently that it became domesticated in English (before philosophers used the German Weltanschauung untranslated). In my dictionary, it is “a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world”, so there are world-views compatible with Christianity (briefly Christian world-views) but not THE Christian (or religious) world view, as there are many of those compatible with atheism but not THE atheist world-view.

>>I’m not sure how you could possibly have an atheist extremist<<
Well, I grew up with them, my marx-leninist teachers, many of whom were, believe me, as naive as our Young Earth Creationists.

>>beliefs engrained into them through a weekly congregation, or a rituals like baptism … an invisible being has a special place for them …<<
Do you use this pejorative description because you want to deny parents the right to bring up their children the way they want just because they are Christian? How would you want to implement this denial, what laws what you suggest?

Squeers,

You might be right, however I was not referring to politics, only the way people debate and argue here (and elsewhere). As you know, there are political solutions that are preferable (to some or even to everybody) and there are those that are workable, unfortunately not the same thing. As a non-expert I do not want to say more than to refer again to the above article by Habermas.

George..."As to Obama, would you have preferred the McCain/Palin alternative?", now, really, what sort of question is that?

But my point is that O'Bama has decided to surround himself with the same cloak as Bush and Palin. They may not be the same people, but they are still seeking guidance from above, and looking at America, and its appalling record on so many issues, there is clearly a massive disconnect between what they say they believe in and what they do. As with most nations, of course.

What is the real benefit of having some charlatans 'advise' you on what the clouds said today?

Why hide human inspiration in some un-human cloak?

"If in 2012 the majority of Americans will not like what he achieved they will not re-elect him. I do not think that where he gets his inspiration from will matter that much."..so you agree, it's a sham to get re elected?

Where is this from "you had a bad experience with religion (Christianity?), which is regrettable and hard to argue against"?

I take it as a means for you to dismiss some very real concerns about the ever increasing, shrill, noise from 'religionists' as they demand ever greater space in the public square.

I am happy for them to be 'private', and I look forward to the post-secular world Habermas wrote of, but in recent years what has happened is that religion has been used far more overtly as a base political tool, with payoffs to the noisiest players, and an redefining of the role religions play with a total absence of a two sided debate.

Some already have empires, even though they look frayed at the edges at times, but others are in empire building mode, and they are not of the 'tolerant' kind of Catholic such as Foxy, and others.

As a student of 'security issues', I regard this as a very serious imposition on the security of our nation-state.

There is no 'peace in our time' available with these people/movements.

It is, as their literature says, a war against the secular world.

George,

I whacked my last response to you together very quickly while I was at work so I’d like to make a few additional comments that I think are important.

I said before that I would take back my “sweeping statement” the day I see most moderates band together and say, "Enough is enough. Shape-up or ship-out".

But then I remembered that would just mean that the loonies would move off and form yet another sect of their religion.

So what I think really needs to change, is the general attitude of Theists to the perceived virtuousness and sacredness of their beliefs. They need to stop perpetuating this notion that their beliefs are a no-go-zone. Otherwise we’d simply be back to square one and the radicals would still be hiding behind this cover that is provided to them by the wider and more moderate religious community.

That being said, you can disregard the 99.9% figure. My argument doesn’t rely on it anyway. The response Dawkins got on Q&A (that TBC and I were referring to earlier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PxDHUE3o8M)) along with my example of the comparison between the reaction one faces when criticising religion, and the reaction one faces when criticizing Left/Right political views here on OLO, is support enough for my argument.

But back to what I was saying though, religion is very much a group mentality - a communal thing. So when big lobby groups such as the ACL start throwing their unjustifiably large weight around, then the beliefs of the adherents to the belief system that they purport to represent become everyone’s business and should remain open to criticism.

Continued...

...Continued

Now to your new post to me...

It’s quite late at the moment and the article you linked to looks very in depth, so I can’t read all of it now, but from the skimming I did, I couldn’t see how I would have a problem with what Habermas has said there.

<<...I grew up with them [Atheist extremists], my marx-leninist teachers, many of whom were, believe me, as naive as our Young Earth Creationists.>>

They were Marxist-Leninist extremists who were Atheists. They weren’t necessarily extreme about, or because of their Atheism.

I would suggest their extremism was more to do with a collectivist and anti-capitalist stance.

<<Do you use this pejorative description because you want to deny parents the right to bring up their children the way they want just because they are Christian? How would you want to implement this denial, what laws what you suggest?>>

C’mon George. Don’t play dumb. You’re deliberately missing my point and instead offering me an offensive question.

I believe it’s a right for parents to educate their children from any view-point they have. In fact, I think that’s unavoidable.

Religious indoctrination is not just education though. In children, it is emotional manipulation used to coerce a child into believing what the parent knows the child won’t accept if they don’t get in there before critical thinking skills develop.

Of course we can’t make laws against childhood indoctrination, but that still doesn’t make it right.

George,
Thanks for the Habermas piece; I've finally ploughed through it(since our one year old twins are keeping us awake anyway). Very interesting, though my conclusion is that a secular state is still imperative as a modus vivendi in the post-secular cultural sphere. Quite right of course that the cacophony of religio-cultural truth-claims is entitled to its respective, and respectful, legitimation, though I like Habermas's rider that this concept of universal respect depends on the willingness of all parties to revise self-reflexively the tenets of their belief systems. This is an anti-fundametalist rider that calls for broad subscription to anti-essentialist, historicist ("hermeneutic") relativism rather than literal readings of holy or secular (Enlightenment) texts, when arguably relativism is itself the "belief" or assumption that there is no monolithic truth (I'm thinking of our recent debate), also that Habermas is still foisting a preference for "enlightened" or "reasonable" truth claims over fundamentalism--also the target of his liberal sibling, Dawkins. Such a peacefully polyphonicist society might be desirable, but since Habermas points himself to the rise of fundamentalism as "the fastest-growing religious movements, such as the Pentecostals and the radical Muslims" it hardly seems workable (I say "might be desirable" because for me liberal democracy under capitalism is already indefensible). In any event, only a secular state, that shows no favouritism, could accommodate this post-secular atomisation of creeds. And even if we argue that secularism is itself a belief system or language game (as it must be in an anti-foundational and relativised universe), I'm not saying that secularism or atheism should be imposed on our scrambled culture, but on political/ideological state apparatuses (to use the Marxist term). By all means let culture resolve "itself", but as long as it remains "nominally" diverse (under the overwhelming aegis of capitalism, belief systems are mere commodities, economic patronage), surely only a secular, non-partisan, separation of church and state can accommodate it it?

TBC,
Thanks for your quick response.
>>what sort of question is that?<<
A rhetorical one to remind you that there are/were only two alternatives as to who will/could become the US President, irrespective of what you or I wish.

>>some charlatans 'advise' you on what the clouds said today?<<
I checked again, there was nothing to support this in the article you linked to. It is about a list of people Obama “turns to for prayer and spiritual and moral discussion”. Only the “moral” part should be of a concern to an atheist, and the article does not say whether Obama does not turn also to atheist professors of ethics for moral discussions/advise. Nevertheless, it is a simple fact that for the average American “religiosity” and “morals” are somehow interlinked, if for no other than historical reasons. Call it sham if you wish, but to get re-elected is what most politicians aim at, and for an outsider the only criterion of his/her success.

Is it a problem, that also Obama prefers to support moderate Christians and Muslims (and apparently also atheists), rather than pour oil on the “clash of civilisations” fire as his predecessor did?

>>very real concerns about the ever increasing, shrill, noise from 'religionists' as they demand ever greater space in the public square<<
I do not understand your perspective: I am pretty sure that in our society the influence of Church and its dignitaries (if that is what you mean by ‘religionists’) in the public square has been diminishing over the last decades, although one might wish to make them retreat even further. So if by “shrill from religionists” you mean their resistance to this trend, I could understand you. Many lobyists are disliked by many people.

Neither you nor I will live to see what our society will look like when not only these Christian ‘religionists’ (the Muslim ‘religionists’ will not go that easily) but also what they are supposed to stand for completely disappear from the political scene, or rather are driven into the “private” underground.

AJ Philips,
Thank you for the link to the TV programs featuring Dawkins in Australia that I could not watch on TV from overseas. I was wondering, who chose the people who sat with him on the panel. There was, to my knowledge, no specialist in the philosophy of science and religion to challenge him.

I think in a democratic society you cannot stop people from “perpetuating the notion that their beliefs are a no-go-zone” as you cannot stop others from perpetuating their notion that religious education is indoctrination and “emotional manipulation used to coerce a child into believing what the parent knows the child won’t accept if they don’t get in there before critical thinking skills develop”. On the other hand, you can try to stop people from sexually abusing children or producing child pornography by making it illegal even in a democratic society, because there is a general consensus that these things are not right, whereas there is (yet?) no consensus that giving your child a Christian education is not right. Sorry if you found my rhetorical question offensive.

>> They weren’t necessarily extreme about, or because of their Atheism <<
You asked for “atheist extremists” and I gave an example. I never claimed they were extremists “because of their atheism”. Like if you asked for Australian thieves, giving an example would not mean one claims they are thieves because of their Australian nationality. There are Australians who are not thieves as there are atheists who are not extremists and Christians who are not fundamentalists.

Squeers,
I knew you would understand and appreciate Habermas better than I could, since he is closer to your expertise. Thank you for the interesting comment on his article. I did not find there anything I would necessarily have to disagree with.

Only future (that you and I are not going to see) will tell to what extent this model of a system that is completely fair to all world-views (whether based on some religion or on atheism) is also workable.

George..The US is awash with 'people of faith', yet no amount of 'faithers' seems to lift the moral standard of their nation... they can kid themselves if they want, but all their belief in angels, hell, heaven and Ark dinosaurs fails when it comes to translating all that into 'moral action' on the ground.

They even regard something as basic as a universal health system as a sin, and demand that 'the poor folk' whom Christians say they have an affinity with and a duty to, in their service to Jesus and God, should go and die in the gutter, where they really belong.

Such a display of high morals indeed.

"I am pretty sure that in our society the influence of Church and its dignitaries ... in the public square has been diminishing over the last decades"... this is a yes and no one.

Yes, the ABS census figures indicate a change downwards of support for Christianity overall, and an increase in some to identify with no religion, but at the same time, maybe in response, within Australia, there has been a rise in influence, or proclaimed influence, via such groups as the ACL.

Messrs Jensen and Pell are redoubling their efforts to drag their flocks to pre Enlightenment, and groups such as Hillsong, and the AOG ilk, make squillions in businesses that run tax free, feeding back to increase their power and influence in the public square.

Politicians here feel the need to appear to be 'religious', but presumably fail to read the ABS figures to see how many they are aiming at.

Take, for instance, that seat of incompetence, Tasmania, now in election mode. The ACL organised an audience of 400 in a hall, with, they claim, the same amount in churches watching TV screens.

The ALP bloke declared that he'd been to Damascus and back as far as school chaplains went, he now thought they were great.

Thus adding to the power and influence of a small lobby group and assisting in their empire building.

Government support for religion is increasing, not diminishing, here in Australia.

TBC,
>>They even regard … a universal health system as a sin<<
There are opponents as well as supporters of Obama’s scheme among American Christian representatives.

Living now overseas I am less familiar than you with the Australian scene. I had to look up ACL in the Wikipedia, noticing that the “L” stands for “lobby” which according to my dictionary means “a group of people seeking to influence politicians or public officials on a particular issue”. As longs as it is done by legal means, I do not think you can prohibit that in a democratic country. You can support (or create) a lobby whose aims are in the opposite direction. As you know, both the Australian and (especially) American political scenes show an abundance of lobby groups, some more, some less influential, some more, some less extremist in their demands. To repeat myself, many lobbyists are disliked by many people.

Probably the creation of ACL (and similar movements in the US) was a reaction, the same as the emergence of “the four horsemen” Dennett/Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens on the other hand. And - as in physics - these reactions tend to swing the public mood pendulum from one extreme to the other. I think the question of who/what caused these turbulences originally is a “chicken or egg” type question.

Why should also the Catholic Church not be alowed to “seek to influence politicians or public officials” as long as they remain within the law, even if one does not call the Church a lobby.

I really do not think that Pell’s influence on Australian politics is stronger, than was (archbishop Daniel P.) Mannix’s, not even among Catholics, although in his time the Catholic Church played only the second (public and political) fiddle in Australia.

So I really think the Christian influence (in Australia, US or Europe) is decreasing on the whole, while showing local fluctuations, like the creation and rising influence (if that indeed is the case) of the ACL. A behaviour similar to that of the stock exchange (despite the recent crisis) though in the opposite direction.

George,

<<Thank you for the link to the TV programs featuring Dawkins in Australia ...>>

You’re welcome.

I figured, being overseas, you’d appreciate the link to the Q&A episode that was being spoken about here.

<<I think in a democratic society you cannot stop people from “perpetuating the notion that their beliefs are a no-go-zone...>>

I’m not suggesting that we, or the authorities, forcefully stop people perpetuating the notion that their beliefs are a no-go-zone. I’m simply saying that the fact that most Theists - even the moderates - perpetuate this idea is why they need to accept a part of the responsibility for the radicals out there who hide behind this no-go-zone status that religion has.

<<...as you cannot stop others from perpetuating their notion that religious education is indoctrination and “emotional manipulation used to coerce a child into believing what the parent knows the child won’t accept if they don’t get in there before critical thinking skills develop”.>>

I understand that the idea of indoctrination wouldn’t be an easy one for any Theist to accept, but it’s a part of religion and that’s just the cold hard truth.

Indoctrination involves repetitive rituals and teaching children unprovable assertions without letting them know that the assertions aren’t backed by any sort of objective evidence. Indoctrination is being selective in what one tells the indoctrinatee (if that’s a word) in an attempt to coerce them to believe as the “educator” does.

Even if the above didn’t apply in this alleged “education”, the fact that the parents have to get in as early as possible is also an indication that what we are talking about here isn’t just “education”. If it was, then it could wait, but it’s not, and that’s why it’s done as soon as the child can comprehend what is being said.

Continued...

...Continued

The sad thing is though, that if the parents don’t get in early enough, the best they can hope for is a tragedy in their child’s life. After all, what happy healthy and well-adjusted person just decides one day that they’re going to take up religion?

It’s always a sad story of a person’s life hitting rock bottom that brings them to God. If this God existed, then I would think he’d be powerful enough to reveal himself to people who aren’t just in a vulnerable and fragile state of mind.

You keep pointing out the laws and the freedoms that democracy stands for, but if you feel so secure in your beliefs, then you shouldn’t need to keep hiding behind the law by mention it and the what real democracies accept.

<<You asked for “atheist extremists” and I gave an example. I never claimed they were extremists “because of their atheism”.>>

I realise you never claimed that they were extremists because of their atheism. But you had earlier said “...encourage both atheist and theist moderates”, which to me, suggested that you thought that there could actually be Atheists out there who “extreme” about their Atheism.

On another note, in my experience, it is a common tactic for Theists - particularly Creationists - to wrap their opponents up in semantics in order to distract them (and the onlookers) from their original point, and I certainly don’t want to think that an intelligent Christian like yourself would have to resort to a tactic like that.

So I just want to point out that the main reason I entered the discussion on this thread in the first place, was to show that Examinator’s contempt for Dawkins was unfounded and irrational. And considering he spent most of the time dodging, weaving and obscuring; and considering too that the coherency of his posts rapidly declined towards the end there, I’d say my mission was an overwhelming success.

That being said, I also think that my side point about moderates needing to accept some of the blame for the radicals still stands.

George... "There are opponents as well as supporters of Obama’s scheme among American Christian representatives", always the glass half full view in your quest to be 'tolerant', even in the full glare of 'the bleedin obvious'.

Be honest about this... there are Americans who do not believe in angels too, about six of them according to Pew Surveys. The overwhelming majority of Americans clearly regards any form of universal health care as being 'the work of Satan', or was that Stalin?.

Why bother with Wikipedia, where a favourable angle will be offered, since it would have ben written by ACL. Go to their web page, see their fake TV shows with about 10 viewers, posing as a massive commercial TV system, read their literature.... wikipedia is the last place to look for objective info.

I agree with you about the scourge of 'lobbyists'.

The Vatican, and all other religions, are not 'lobbyists' at all though, in the same sense as the ACL, or the AIG for instance.

Religions are given very special status: tax free, rates free, inspection free, unaccountable, secretive,able to discriminate where others would be before the courts,distort children's thinking, abuse children with impunity and so on.

Even 'real' lobby groups do not do that George.

Religions also pretend to know, even been the path to, high moral values.

Oh yeah? When, and where I do wonder, did this positive side appear?

Ah, the blood sacrifice TBC... pull the other one please.

Just listening to the latest ABC RN news outpourings of moral turpitude within the Vatican's child abusing soldiers-of-Christ, clearly God sent to me just as I was thinking about the very high moral standards Christian display as Christians representing Jesus on Earth.

What a laugh!

Except for the squillions of people abused by these guardians of our moral behaviour.

Be TOLERANT TBC, do be tolerant, please.

AJ Phillips,
Thanks for challenging me again to more carefully formulate my own views.

>>the radicals out there who hide behind this no-go-zone status that religion has.<<
There were blasphemies, if that is what you mean by no-go zones, that protected the status of the Christian religion. Today blasphemy has become an empty word - things sacred to Christians are ridiculed in a form unimaginable decades ago, but nobody pays much attention to it - so I do not understand what it is that the radicals are hiding behind.

>>Indoctrination involves repetitive rituals and teaching children … assertions (that) aren’t backed by any sort of objective evidence.<<

Well, “repetition is the mother of learning“, and I am not sure at what age can a child understand - without being totally confused - what it means that an assertion is not backed by “objective evidence”, except by a simple explanation that this is what mum and dad believe, though other people don’t.

If the parent cannot tell this to his/her child, then the problem is with the parent, not with the Christian (or other world-view) education. Besides, there are many things I learned before I could claim to be able to think critically - not only the Ten Commandments or the Bible stories - as data on which to base my critical questioning later in my adolescent and adult life, when my parents (or e.g. my science teacher) lost their unquestionable authority. Even the most sophisticated program cannot achieve much without input data.

>>After all, what happy healthy and well-adjusted person just decides one day that they’re going to take up religion?<<

Do you think all those listed for instance in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics converted solely because they were “unhappy unhealthy and ill-adjusted”? I think, the reason they usually give is “search for meaning and purpose in their lives”, as meaningless as this might sound to some. However, I agree that for those who look for such meaning it is simpler to build on the world-view they were educated into (religious or not), if they can. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>if you feel so secure in your beliefs, then you shouldn’t need to keep hiding behind the law by mention it and the what real democracies accept.<<
Could you please quote me where I “hid my beliefs behind the law” and “what real democracies accept”? I was referring to law and democracy in connections with what I thought was a fair (and workable) way of treating people with different word world-views (religious or not), not as a justification for my own system of beliefs.

>>you thought that there could actually be Atheists out there who (are) “extreme” about their Atheism<<
Atheists, by definition, reject religion and believers, and some of them indeed go into extremes in showing that (the mirror images of runner, as I mentioned before). I did not deny the existence of such: I only objected to the thesis that Communists did their bad things BECAUSE OF being atheists. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

>>I certainly don’t want to think that an intelligent Christian like yourself would have to resort to a tactic like that (distracting opponents from the original point.<<

Well, in my experience this happens often on these threads, namely that the succession of arguments and counterarguments wander away from the original point, without anybody intentionally wanting to distract. Some of the most interesting (at least to me) exchanges of opinions appeared here in the form of comments to articles by Peter Selick that soon came to have almost nothing to do with the article itself.

>> moderates needing to accept some of the blame for the radicals still stands<<
Do you mean to say - this coming after you refer to Dawkins and Examinator - that also Examinator ought to accept the blame for some radical views of Dawkins? Here I disagree, the same as I disagree that I should accept blame for what e.g. the Young Earth Creationists claim, or that mathematical physicists should accept blame for Hiroshima, manufacturers of kitchen knives for stabbings, etc. So on this point we just have to agree to disagree.

TBC,
Though you did not tell me anything I have not heard before - about “religions”, their special tax concessions, the Vatican, the recent scandals, etc - you told me a lot about yourself. I appreciate that, but I do not see any point in continueing this talking past each other: You keep on repeating your criticism (to use a mild term) of religion, both justified and unjustiefied, whereas I was only advocating a personal as well as political positioin that discriminates neither against those who agree with you nor agianst those who don‘t.

George, what an odd view.

Are you saying that you hold absolutely no opinions either?

That you are so 'tolerant' of everything, nothing annoys you, or inspires you?

Are you a cold dead fish?

Do you meekly accept nonsense, saying 'that is his view, which concerns me not'?

If so, why do you bother with spending your time here, wasting your time even, disputing what others say?

Why do you not simply accept everything, sort of 'Chance the Gardener', fashion?

Or is this what is meant by the phrase 'live and let live'?

George,

<<There were blasphemies, if that is what you mean by no-go zones that protected the status of the Christian religion.>>

Blasphemy is one way of putting it, but although blasphemy is no longer an actual “crime” as such in most Western countries, the ideal still exists today and we see evidence of this everywhere. We are not supposed to criticise someone’s faith simply because it is their faith.

<<...things sacred to Christians are ridiculed in a form unimaginable decades ago...>>

Yes, but it’s still considered rude or impolite to say one iota against another’s faith. I refer back to my example of OLO and the way Dawkins was attacked on Q&A.

<<...but nobody pays much attention to it - so I do not understand what it is that the radicals are hiding behind.>>

In a legal sense... no, they don’t. In a social context, or a general sense, yes, they do.

You’re going back the whole legal bit here which is most unhelpful, as we are not - and have never been - talking about legalities.

<<Well, “repetition is the mother of learning“, and I am not sure at what age can a child understand - without being totally confused - what it means that an assertion is not backed by “objective evidence”, except by a simple explanation that this is what mum and dad believe, though other people don’t.>>

It’s simple... explain to the child that there is nothing to back the beliefs of the parents other than emotions that could very well be explained via other more rational means.

Explain to the child that there is no way to apply any sort of practical knowledge and rationally come to the conclusion that the parents’ belief is justified.

Or here’s a better idea... don’t bother telling the child anything at all. After all, if the belief is sound, then it wouldn’t matter what age the child was told about the belief.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Do you think all those listed for instance in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnosticsconverted solely because they were “unhappy unhealthy and ill-adjusted”?>>

Yes, I do.

Of course, I can’t actually prove that and that’s what you’re relying on because it makes this discussion look like it’s all a matter of opinion.

But I was once a Christian. I knew (and still know) many Christians (including much of my own family), and so far in my observations, 100% of the time, the reason for turning to religious belief is emotional and not rational or objective.

We all have problems in life no matter how big or small, and religion is just one of many ways people find solace in life, whether it be the ultimate forgiveness for something horrible we may have done, or just a feeling of meaning and purpose...

<<I think, the reason they usually give is “search for meaning and purpose in their lives”, as meaningless as this might sound to some.>>

There’s hardly any rational basis in finding “meaning and purpose” in some unprovable religion. But people don’t need rationality when they feel emotionally or spiritually lost.

<<However, I agree that for those who look for such meaning it is simpler to build on the world-view they were educated into (religious or not), if they can.>>

Which goes back to my point: “The sad thing is though, that if the parents don’t get in early enough, the best they can hope for is a tragedy in their child’s life.”

My father is convinced that one day I will see the “truth” [sic]. But I have assured him that unlike him, I realise that just because something makes you feel good, or comforted, that doesn’t mean it’s true.

<<Could you please quote me where I “hid my beliefs behind the law” and “what real democracies accept”>>

Sure thing...

“...there are only children growing up in Christian, Marxist, atheist, etc families, and the right of parents to educate their children in a world-view of their choice, provided they do not contravene the law.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83834)

Continued...

...Continued

“I think in a democratic society you cannot stop people from “perpetuating the notion that their beliefs are a no-go-zone” as you cannot stop others from perpetuating their notion that religious education is indoctrination” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83923)

<<I was referring to law and democracy in connections with what I thought was a fair (and workable) way of treating people with different word world-views (religious or not), not as a justification for my own system of beliefs.>>

Regardless of your intentions, I said nothing about banning or criminalising that which I didn’t agree with, yet you jumped straight to the legalities of what I was talking about without addressing the rationality of the point. One was even presumptuous to the point of being ludicrous...

“How would you want to implement this denial, what laws what you suggest?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83907)

<<...in my experience this happens often on these threads, namely that the succession of arguments and counterarguments wander away from the original point >>

Despite the rock solid reasoning behind my arguments, you are dragging me down into semantics and unnecessarily blurring/obfuscating something that is really quite simple...

Moderate Christians perpetuate the idea that their faith is a no-go-zone, therefore, they share some of the responsibility for the radicals who hide behind this notion.

Whether or not you agree with me doesn’t change the fact.

Continued....

...Continued

<<Do you mean to say - this coming after you refer to Dawkins and Examinator - that also Examinator ought to accept the blame for some radical views of Dawkins?>>

Absolutely.

That’s one of the reasons I challenged his absurd views on the topic.

<<Here I disagree, the same as I disagree that I should accept blame for what e.g. the Young Earth Creationists claim...>>

I also don’t think you should accept the blame for what Young Earth Creationists claim, because you don’t make those claims.

But if Young Earth Creationists claimed that it was inappropriate to scrutinise their beliefs because it was their “faith”, and you were a Christian who made others out to be ‘rude’ or ‘intolerant’ or not ‘living and letting live’ for criticizing religious beliefs, then yes, you would need to accept some of the blame.

<<...or that mathematical physicists should accept blame for Hiroshima, manufacturers of kitchen knives for stabbings, etc.>>

That analogy is absurd to the point of being totally unrelated to what we’re talking about here.

If you invented the human emotions that went towards people making out as if their religion was a no-go-zone, then it might be a different story.

Sorry George, I read this part wrong....

<<Do you mean to say - this coming after you refer to Dawkins and Examinator - that also Examinator ought to accept the blame for some radical views of Dawkins?>>

I thought you were asking if Examinator should accept some of the responsibility for the radical views of some Theists.

But even that would be wrong as I have never suggested that moderate Theists should accept responsibility for the “views” of radicals. Only that they are a part of the problem by helping to perpetuate this idea that religious belief is something that should never be criticised.

I won’t be continuing this if you are going to keep subtly altering what I say in order to attack straw men. It’s unhelpful to the discussion, and only helps to make it look like you really are trying to bog me down in semantics to divert attention from my original points - something you wouldn’t need to do if your position was reasonable.

Besides which, I don’t know of any radical view held by Dawkins. So I don’t know what you’re talking about there.

Even if Dawkins did have radical views, then how would Examinator speaking out AGAINST them mean he should take some of the blame for them?

Sorry, but it seems to me like you’re getting so tied up in obfuscation now that you’re not even making much sense anymore.

This discussion has provoked more posts than a Sellick article. Probably because Christianity is really central to good government. We have posts decrying the saying of the Lord’s Prayer in the Parliament of the Commonwealth at the start of each days work. However what most of you have failed to understand is that Christianity is the greatest grass roots political organization in the world.

Wherever it has taken root, women are treated with respect, children are fed and nurtured, and government is for the people by the people. The departure of the English from their Christian Roots means that their government, in flirtation with Atheist Europe, has departed from their fundamental systems of good government, into the sort of government that destroyed Eastern Europe.

Instead of a strong Central Government on Christian Principles, we have a wishy washy central government divided between Christians and Atheists, unable to run a p**s up at a brewery, let alone a fully functioning democracy. We have a High Court that no longer issues process in the name of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, despite a law that says they must, and a competition between the atheists in the ALP to see which one can ruin Australia first.

So insidious has atheism become that even the versions of the Holy Bible used in Anglican Churches have taken the Christian word, commonwealth out of Ephesian 2:12 and substitued citizen. If you have a Authorised King James Version you will see that both the Lord’s Prayer as said in the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and the word commonwealth are in it. They are not in some of the Atheist influenced Bibles, that modernizers have installed. This atheism has extended to all the facets of the law. Magistrates refer to themselves as God. We have it on tape: “In this Court I am God.” No wonder drought has been stalking this land.

The ultimate power in a democracy is a jury of 12 people sworn on the Holy Bible to find the truth. KR continues to allow Atheist tails to wag the Christian Dog: the ALP risks defeat

Atheism in Australia was legislated into law by the Australia Act 1986. It created nine separate and equal Gods, ( Sovereign State Parliaments) who on pain of a fine we are obliged to worship. Instead of One Government under Almighty God and relying on the blessing of Almighty God, we now rely on the blessing of a Mafia Don, in charge of a State Government, with the power to destroy all opposition absolutely. We have nine leaders in Atheist Australia, all more or less equal, even if their constituency is no bigger than inner Sydney. One of these is currently Liberal, and eight are Labor.

If the so called Christian Prime Minister wants to have a State that can be governed effectively, he must use his last few months to install Christian Government. He must sack his lying Attorney General, a member of the Cartel that rules Australia, and appoint Chris Bowen, the Cartel Buster to the job, with instructions to restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the paramount law of Australia. The cartel is the lawyers union, the last undisciplined union in Australia, busted by the amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 introduced by Chris Bowen and passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth this term.

As a Christian Nation we should be governed by the people for the people. Instead we have nine atheist occupying armies in addition to the Australian Armed Forces, called State Police, all under a different Parliament. We have a Governor General who has so far refused to deputise every Magistrate in Australia as Her delegate, so that they know they represent Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. Of course the Commonwealth should pay them the same as a Federal Court of Australia Judge, about $6000 a week, but that is what we need to restore grass roots political power to the people locally.

These Magistrates should know that S 116 Constitution was introduced to preserve Christianity as the State Religion. Give us that basic reform Kevin, and clip the wings of your State Mates. Do it before Tony does

Peter.... "These Magistrates should know that S 116 Constitution was introduced to preserve Christianity as the State Religion".

That is simply not true.

Do you have something to back up your assertion there?

It looks like this new High Court challenge will be testing this very question anyway, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

If this fellows case fails, of course, that will allow the Commonwealth to fund religion, and given the leanings of our current crop of politicians, they will do just that as quickly and as much as possible.

The long suffering tax payers will be further lumped with funding myths as truth, even Truth, and it will mark the end of any notions of secularism in Australia, and we will go backwards a few hundred years to be on a par with the Taliban regime we are currently fighting against.

Funny old world, eh?

I call the Attorney General a liar, and an Atheist liar at that, because he wrote to Robert Oakeshott, stating that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not part of Australian Domestic Law. I went to the University Library, and went to the year book of Acts passed in 1981. The Human Rights Commission Act 1981. It says

Whereas it is desirable that the laws of the Commonwealth and the conduct of persons administering those laws should conform with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights …… and other international instruments relating to human rights and freedoms.

BE IT THEREFORE ENECTED by the Queen , the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia as follows: and the Covenant is Schedule 1 to that Act.

Assented 14th April 1981. No 125 of 1986. An Act to establish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission , to make provision in relation to human rights and in relation to equal opportunity in employment, and for related purposes.

BE IT THEREFORE ENECTED by the Queen , the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia as follows: and the Covenant is Schedule 2 to that Act.

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is enacted as:
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Queen , the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia as follows ;- and S 13 (2) says: Every schedule to an Act shall be deemed to be part of an Act.

Since Act no 8 of 1991, the enacting words have been left out of the Acts passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Atheists in concert, have replaced the Queen without a referendum on Acts enacted by all Parliaments. This repeals the Constitution and makes Atheism the law of Australia. Is it any wonder I am angry. The law relies on anger for its enforcement. Angry young men use violence, angry old men should be able to use the law. Remove the law and violence rules. Young men use knives or guns

Peter, be all that as it may, none has altered the constitution, or s.116.

So, I'd say you might be barking up the wrong tree there.

Well you seem to be having "fun" while I was away, you old greeks you . I like your rebellious streaks, but disappointed that noone has pointed out what the atheists are going to do with all their worries -Its not what are they against, but what are they for thats make a difference - the last half of my original post .The pagans have had 2 thousand years to create a revival. To be effective. we rebels need to "Be for something" .

Why for example ,wasn't it the agnostics convention? My Point is however much WE worry about radicals, we prefer to them to moderates, don't we ?- who has got the projection problem here? ( picture here of Dawkins saying "I'm not vehement am I?"( ABCTV news tonight) , "Moderates" don't build schools and start revolutions with words like we try to do?
In focusing on lobby elements, we have got too excited about a problem that doesn't exist. Have you heard about "pseudoinnocence" and power ; as george says <<So I really think the Christian influence is decreasing on the whole, while showing local fluctuations,.. I agree ;The only thing you can say is thatC's punch over their weight at the moment.
Let me suggest we are NOW beyond agnosticism because its seen to be too woosy.
TBC ---what do we really know about how Chamberlain was thinking -OK - not much about his thinking processes but His/England's political mind was clearly in neutral/unaware of what evil is ( same as our island culture ?) Ripe for the pickin, no munitions , By contrast - I was saying about Bonhoeffer -that he was very vocal for 8years about need for balancing aggression with agression but like most radical( i prefer Rollo May's use of "rebel" ) followers of Christ all through history ---He was not taken seriusly even when he toured England because he happened to proudly wear the badge of being religiuos .
Maybe you think we need more machevellis TBC?

Aj Philips,
>>Yes, but it’s still considered rude or impolite to say one iota against another’s faith. … OLO and the way Dawkins was attacked on Q&A. …You’re going back the whole legal bit …<<

I did not mention the word legal in connection with blasphemies. There are many different things considered rude or impolite by different people. In the past it was a general consensus that blasphemy was close to the top of the list. Today those who think they have to demonstrate their outrage (thus giving satisfaction to the “blasphemer“) form a gradually diminishing minority (even the Church protests only seldom and formally).

As to OLO, there have been things written here offensive to atheists, as well as those offensive to Christians or Muslims, so I still do not understand the piece about hiding. As to Dawkins, people who make controversial public pronouncement - e.g. politicians, or George Pell - have to expect to be verbally attacked.

>>explain to the child that there is nothing to back the beliefs of the parents other than emotions that could very well be explained via other more rational means. Explain to the child that there is no way to apply any sort of practical knowledge and rationally come to the conclusion that the parents’ belief is justified. <<
I repeat, how would you “explain“ to a small child all these things heavily depending on abstract concepts that even professional philosophers argue about, except by presenting them as another belief - “this is what we believe, other people believe other things, namely that … etc.”

“better idea... don’t bother telling the child anything at all”
Do you mean to say that if an Atheist’s child asked “Dad, what do you think, does God (that my friend spoke of) exist?“, he should ignore the question? Well, I think the father - Atheist or Christian or what - should answer “Some people believe he does, some believe he does not, I/we believe …, for the following reasons (arguments in support of father‘s conviction adapted to a small child‘s mind).“ (ctd)

(ctd)
I find it strange (if not condescending) to assume that ALL people who converted to Christianity - and thus radically changed their outlook and life style - did so just because they were unhappy unhealthy and ill-adjusted; in case of people from the quoted list, containing many well-known names, maybe even more.

I certainly do not think this about you, although your “conversion“ went in the opposite direction. I respect that you had your reasons that only you could credibly formulate. And yes, I am aware that today the traffic of “conversions“ from Christianity to atheism or agnosticism is much heavier than the traffic in the opposite direction. May I add that I appreciate the sincere words about your personal “conversion“ and your father.

>> quote me where I “hid my beliefs behind the law” and “what real democracies accept”>> Sure thing…<<

You were perhaps right if you were referring to my belief in a fair treatment - in debates like this, by media, by politics etc - of reasonable people with different world-views, and not beliefs that are part of my world-view (last described in my response to Squeers earlier on this thread). Hence the misunderstanding: I thought you claimed I was hiding these beliefs of mine behind the law, which I would not know how to do anyhow.

>>Whether or not you agree with me doesn’t change the fact<<
Agreeing to disagree, as I suggested we conclude this discussion with, indeed does not change any facts; I don’t think that is the purpose of having an exchange of opinions.

So please let us leave it at that, namely to agree to disagree on views about people of good will with opposing views (on religion or other things) and on what is the best model for the coexistence (empathy is now the buzzword) of “moderate“ people with different backgrounds in a pluralistic society.

There is really no point in continuing with this if you can see my plea for fairness towards both sides only as “obfuscation”. Still, I‘m sorry I could not express myself more clearly.

In Act no 8 of 1991, atheists in Canberra by underhand and illegal sleight of hand, started saying on a Federal Act: The Parliament of Australia enacts. The brainwashing schools that turn out lawyers, had turned Australia from a Christian country into the home of Atheists. S 116 Constitution is violated. S 116 requires the Queen, as representing the Almighty God mentioned in the recitals to the Australian Constitution, to bless every Act passed by the Parliament, or we are missing out on the blessings of Almighty God.

This atheist change, effected without a referendum, has resulted in systematic abuse of civil and political rights, because the atheists which include Jewish Chief Justices, wishy washy Christian Judges, and many Magistrates, feel comfortable with the abolition of Christianity, and the installation of Atheism, or more seriously multitheism, as the State Religions of the State we now call the Australian Government. I am loath to use the word Commonwealth. Commonwealth is a Christian word, and not having Greek, I am unaware where the Atheists got citizen from the Greek, instead of Commonwealth in the Bibles used in Anglican Churches. I speak of Ephesians 2:12 where the founding fathers got the word Commonwealth. It may have been from the murderous Cromwell, who established a Commonwealth in England, and committed genocide on one third of the population of Ireland, and destroyed every beautiful Roman Catholic Church except perhaps two, in England. That was England’s flirtation with Satan and a republic which ended when he died.

Atheists cannot read. If they could read, they would know that S 79 Constitution preserves the Christian integrity of all courts. It says: the federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. I don’t know where the processors installed in atheists came from, but my CPU says that the federal jurisdiction of any court may not be exercised by one Judge. The word judges is plural, and the plurality of Christianity, and its inclusiveness, is reflected in the plurality of judges. Atheists are selfish and exclusive, and so are their Courts

I saw the pictures of the Atheist Convention in Melbourne. Talk about punching beyond their weight. It seemed about half the seats were empty, and only about two and a half thousand people from all over the world were there. Now the ABC has not recently shown a Hillsong Conference, certainly not since Peter Costello attended, but the preachers there would be disappointed at a gathering smaller than one service at Baulkam Hills, or about one tenth the size of the Christian crowd, that takes over Acer arena at Homebush, and enthusiastically fills every seat to hear the worlds leading advocates of Christianity trot their stuff.

Punching above their weight, is an understatement. Christianity is very dear to the heart of about 65% of Australians and that is a hefty majority where I come from. There is a small and very influential minority, have taken over and dominated the profession of law in Australia. The law is very attractive to Jewish people, because Jewish boys, by the age of 14 are already lawyers in the Jewish tradition. However why have we let them instal Judges. The Holy Bible says judge not that ye be not judged. Matthew 7: 1-5. It says give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine. Judges certainly render peoples lives asunder. It also says that if you ask you shall receive, Matthew 7:7-12. Destruction awaits all who consent willingly or unwillingly, to allow one man or woman to exercise judgment over them.

The delivering of judgment is a Holy Prerogative. It was reserved to two or more gathered together, by the Gospel of Matthew, 18:20. That is the essence of Christianity, and S 79 Constitution, is supposed to guarantee it to all, Christians and Atheists alike. It is mentioned in the Gospel of John 5 :22 and 23. The Holy Prerogative of Judgment is reserved to the Holy Ghost, the supernatural awesome mystical ability of Almighty God to get it right and find the truth, where the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. Luke 12 Verse 10 sets that out

George,

It seems to me as though you’re poking and prodding, and stretching my arguments out with questions that are re-worded (to subtly imply something I didn’t quite say) in order to find a chink in my armour.

<<As to OLO, there have been things written here offensive to atheists, as well as those offensive to Christians or Muslims>>

Yes, but no one jumps on Theists and accuses them of rudeness, intolerance or arguing from extremes, or states that democratic values and the law allow them to be Atheists. It’s usually countered it with rational arguments.

<<...so I still do not understand the piece about hiding.>>

I hope the above explains it.

<<As to Dawkins, people who make controversial public pronouncement - e.g. politicians, or George Pell - have to expect to be verbally attacked.>>

There is a distinct difference between attacking someone because of the opinions they are voicing and attacking someone because you don’t think they should be voicing those opinions to begin with.

OLO and the Q&A episode were both good examples of the Latter.

<<I repeat, how would you “explain“ to a small child all these things heavily depending on abstract concepts that even professional philosophers argue about...>>

Firstly, if it’s that abstract, then that’s a good indication that the “education” should wait.

Secondly, if religious belief is “heavily depending on abstract concepts that even professional philosophers argue about”, then that, to me, suggests that it’s merely pure obfuscation.

Occam’s razor.

<<Do you mean to say that if an Atheist’s child asked “Dad, what do you think, does God (that my friend spoke of) exist?“, he should ignore the question?>>

Of course not. If a child asks a question about their parents’ beliefs, then there is nothing wrong with the parent telling the child what they believe.

I’ve neither said nor implied anything about ignoring questions from children. We’re talking about indoctrination here, not childhood curiosity.

You’re intelligent enough to know exactly what I mean by “indoctrination”, but I feel you’re rummaging around desperately to find a reason as to why it’s just education.
Continued...

...Continued

<<I find it strange (if not condescending) to assume that ALL people who converted to Christianity - and thus radically changed their outlook and life style - did so just because they were unhappy unhealthy and ill-adjusted...>>

Unhappy OR unhealthy and/OR ill-adjusted.

Your choice of wording here makes my view seem extreme.

Condescending? Absolutely! I’m happy to admit that because condescending doesn’t necessarily mean false.

We don’t know the exact personal reasons of why many people who convert do so, but I know from my personal observations (and I’ve seen many examples), that those who do convert have done so every time for some emotional reason or another.

There’s nothing objective or rational about selecting the popular religion (out of all the religions) of one’s own culture to find meaning and purpose in life when there’s nothing to support the beliefs of the religion. It’s purely emotional, and our emotions prove themselves time-and-time again to be a bad thing to base our beliefs and actions on.

The new OLO article, “theistic and Christian faiths - a contest of delusions?” (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10176&page=0) even goes to prove my points above...

“The lives of both men were radically turned around, from despair to hope, and from crime to benevolent philanthropy (such as giving away mountains of food to the needy six days a week), as a direct result of their respective Christian conversions.
And an episode of Gangs of Oz last year featured an ex-member of a violent and ruthless criminal gang who gave his life to God and is now a law abiding citizen and productive member of society.
I have yet to hear of any similar transformations resulting from conversion to atheism.

<<I certainly do not think this about you, although your “conversion“ went in the opposite direction.>>

Of course not, and that’s because my “conversion” went in the opposite direction.

Nobody finds emotional relief from hardship or the fulfilment of an empty feeling with the unbelief in, or absence of something. That’s why Rowan Forster is “yet to hear of any similar transformations resulting from conversion to atheism.”

Continued...

...Continued

<<May I add that I appreciate the sincere words about your personal “conversion“ and your father.>>

Thanks. It’s nothing really though.

I’m quite happy to go into personal detail if it helps others to see where I’m coming from. I think if more people were to expose themselves a little more it would help us all to achieve a greater understanding of eachother.

<<There is really no point in continuing with this if you can see my plea for fairness towards both sides only as “obfuscation”. Still, I‘m sorry I could not express myself more clearly.>>

I think I’ve been quite fair; harsh, but fair.

Now if I was to actually claim that moderates were responsible for the “views” of the radicals then, yes, that would be totally unfair.

But I would be quite happy and relieved to drop this too if you wanted. Believe me, I take absolutely no pleasure in the thought that what I’m saying may be deeply offending you. I just believe this is an important point that needs to be said.

AJ Philips,
>>emotions prove themselves time-and-time again to be a bad thing to base our beliefs and actions on<<

I completely agree, only would add “as well as to conduct a debate and exchange opinions”. So I am glad you are also happy to leave it at that. Though in a sense it is a petty, since I found your suggestion in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10176&page=0 interesting, and wanted to expand and comment on it, but now think I better not.

George,

Juts to be clear, if you're referring to my comment at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#164835, then that was simply some tongue-in-cheek fun pointing out the silliness of the post above mine.

AJ Philips,
Well, I had in mind only the part “the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is that Atheism deals with belief and Agnosticism deals with knowledge“. However, since I found silly not only the article by Rowan Forster but also most of the (negative) comments, I did not see a point in getting involved in a discussion about possible definitions of atheism, agnosticism, etc on that thread.

I have some questions and hopefully they may be of interest and keep us away from more lumbering logomachy .
TBC - maybe if you told us why you call yourself blue cross. I think George is right to encourage you to read more about the rebels in the good book -even thoughits a very touchy subject for you ; They are only stories and if they are so dangerous, why isn't everybody aware of the detail and pulling them apart ( like what's in the Koran)

I call myself Hanrahan ( special secret between us , mind you )because finding a way beyond the tiresome old greeks at uni over 30 years ago meant that i discovered ( not rationalized )in myself a pessimism and an optimism that actually works to help resolve things - personally and in looking beyond into the public sphere .
Have a good day
What about you severin ?
And what did we all think of the messages flowing forth from the conference?

Simple Hanrahan.

A local believer sent me a card on the world prayer day some time ago with a transparent cross that goes around the neck.

When you join the two ends of the 'chain', it lights up with a blue light... a blue cross.

As horrible a piece of Xtian rubbish as one could ever hope for, quite apart from knowing that some nong is saying a prayer to make me evaporate and turn into Barnie Schwartz of The Age, or worse, if there is worse...well, Brian Houston, George Pell, Kevin Andrews, Phil Ruddock, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott.... Family Jensen... the list is endless.

Although I have just watched something amusing on how the Internet is disorganising religion. Seems, if this is correct that is, that there are more declared unbelievers in the world than there are Catholics signed up to the Vatican Rag.

Now, that really is Good News.

I'll ignore your snipes Hanrahan... clearly you and George suffer from eggshells when it comes to justifying your blind faith, so careful where you chuck your bag of stones.

TBC you do me the honor of calling me by a badge name I am happy to wear (about page 20). Yes call me Simple.
I don't think , as Philip Adams has rightly noted now , the leading atheists at a conference badged "rationale par excellente" do their cause much good by calling some people in the other congregation words that do not apply - "earthworms". Without doctrine, the blokes in the back row of the congregation of atheists ,who use the word "cockroaches"( Rwanda etc ) will not be excommunicated effectively .
We won't be remembered for all our words ( us old greeks), but the world will remember all those people murdered (in this century alone) using badges of vilification to justify that action .
See, its not about words- all have their place - its about vilification . Jesus is no woose on this subject echoing the same old simple stuff from the OT .(Sq again ) The atheist congregataion will not function with just behavoiural and desperate word controls (" Don't press that button boys " ) The athiests need to stop denying that they have a view of god before they can move on .
Despite our 34 pages, noone has picked up on the fact that the conference was so predictable - there is denial,fanaticsm( http://fanaticism1.blogspot.com and frustration seeping out everywhere.
4 people who have the ear of Australia( and the world) for a very long time in P Adams and R. Williams case , are a bit edgy . Surely as comrades in questioning and rebelling, we OLO's should try to stand back as observers and understand this (without being told). Is there some reasonable non religiuos explanation for fanaticism and denial ?
Its up to reasonable people to find the reasons and ask the ABC to consider retiring those who , despite all their power and rhetoric over 30 years refuse to give us simple sorts more than we have been getting.(who else is switching off and watching videos? )

Hanrahan...I checked pp.19-21 for this source of this, 'TBC you do me the honor of calling me by a badge name I am happy to wear (about page 20). Yes call me Simple', but could find no reference from me calling you 'simple' or anything else for that matter. I'm not going to go through the whole lot though.

I'm not sure why I am linked into the 'earthworm' comment either, although I may well have a very dim view of Fielding and his ilk myself.

As for this line, a hoary old one that comes out all the time, 'The athiests need to stop denying that they have a view of god before they can move on', speaking only for myself, I can assure you that I do not have a 'view' of god at all, nor God for that matter, other than I have no belief in one...in a 'dead parrot' fashion if you can understand that.

The only time I have considered myself to be an 'atheist' is when I have had to take up a sword to fend off maddogs who do their utmost to impose 'their' views on me and my family.

To be honest, for most of my life 'God' was not an issue.

My grandmother believed in it, but no one else in my family did at all.

Naturally, we were all good Catholics.

It was what others believed in, you know, the protestants.

(sorry-in two parts)

Hanrahan 2

I was happy to let them get on with it. But then, in more recent years, the imposition of religious extremists has become overbearing, and I have started to react to their assaults.

And as this has happened, I have realised that I duped myself for years into thinking these people were 'harmless'.

Some individuals indeed are, many probably, but the institutions that power them are not.

They are rapacious, power hungry, manipulative, dishonest, conspiratorial, and, frankly, dangerous. Or at least, they have a great ability to be that, and a greater propensity too.

"noone has picked up on the fact that the conference was so predictable", yes, well go to any convention/conference on a particular topic and it will be 'predictable', which is why most people go there, since they know what they are going to be doing there.

Go to Mass to pray for the perfidious Jews, or to Hillsong to pray to get rich quick, or to an Anglican stable to do..umm, whatever they believe in, which seems to be always in dispute, and you might find them all predictable too....or a Brethren Stalagluft razor-wired camp, or a Scientology brainwashing session.

The day people flock to a 'jamborre bag convention' or a 'serendipty conference' in the hope that some glimmer of something might touch them on the shoulder is still a long way away... or I think it is anyway.

I doubt you are 'simple', but your posts are hard to understand at times. I could not understand the point you were aiming at with the rest of it I'm afraid... maybe I'm simple?

TBC - Sorry I know i should have checked the page .It was pge 15
It wasn't you that started using the adjective -simple , It was me and as far as names go - its growing on me.
pge15 " And yes, I do have a simple faith and if you think feeding me to the lions works , well ,,have a go ......its a free country. "

Thanks for your openness. It seems so so many resent the way "a church " has sought to shove things down their throats " . I too hate it when members of my congregation ( very big church) blast away in terms that make no connection with the minds of people in the audience or try to prove things that can't be proven.

Which is all the more reason I think you should watch
BRUCE ALMIGHTY . God in the film is not out making much noise. He's mostly, just cleaning up after people .

Hanrahan..I'll leap to your defence here.

Having 'a simple faith' is something I can understand and comprehend the meaning of, and is not the same as being simple.

Try not to birch yourself (too much).