diver dan,... said...

"I think there needs be a distinguishing mark drawn between a personal religion and organized religion"............and that's the answer that's based on all this, which can not agree.

A little story perhaps.

Long befour humans had a conscious mind.....instinct was the higher function as we were among all others that was connected with-in the natural world. Then one day, a new born came into being, which was quite different in ways from the troop and clearly was not a custom too, however the instinct by natural laws was over-whelming.

As this new born grew, the others observed the skills that this one displayed, but un-knowns to the troop....the conscious mind was here in all its spender, and the next page began. Time when past....and the new man-child began to explore at an incredible rate, with the first open eyes that ever looked upon the heavens, and wonder filled the hearts and minds of this new creature as its when ahead, and changeling all that he could understand, and did.

Its not sure what was the first thing that was worshiped, but many gods came from the minds that the eyes saw.

More time when past, and now the top predator man was, with still not much clearness as to why this had happened, however....till this day.......man still looks up to the skies and asks.....why.

and so it should be.

until the next page.

BLUE

GlenC (and anyone else):

You write: <<Where did this other reality, this spiritual reality, suddenly come from? Reality is that which we can perceive to be real via our senses.>>

It didn’t appear suddenly through my use of the term: humans have perceived it for untold millennia. Your assertion that reality is perceived exclusively through the senses is only that – an assertion.

Then you say: <<Your mere use of the expression “spiritual reality” does not guarantee that there is such a thing.>>

It is real according to my experience and that of many others. I don’t expect you to accept that as a proposition. It needs to be experienced.

You wrote: <<You could have musical reality, emotional reality, introspective reality, poetic reality, unreal reality …. >>

Music, poetry, introspection are all viable and well-used gateways to spiritual reality. And “unreal reality”? Don’t be deliberately ridiculous!

Lastly you state: << There are two tactics that the religious resort to when the arguing gets tough. First, they speak as if merely asserting something makes it true.... The second is to take the argument out of the empirical domain to protect it from the depredations of evidence. ...you have employed both.>>

Don’t group me with runner and AGIR: I share none of their literalist fundamentalism and prejudice against human diversity. Like many of the anti-religious brigade, you use a common ply: bracketing all who do not bow to empiricism as the Lord of all perception, as if they are all of the same world-view.

Glen, devote time to trying non-empirical perception. You play recorders: so contemplate the sense of relationship to people and the natural world which you experience as you play in ensemble; once you enter the “flow” zone the sense of oneness can be profound. Or if you prefer, contemplate the poetry of T.S.Eliot, Judith Wright or John Shaw Neilson. Better perhaps than all of those: spend time meditating daily the way many Christians, Buddhists and Hindus do. These are just some of the things that may help you discover more to human being than empirical data reveals.

<<Grateful,
You and Sheikh Nuh both string a lot of words together but they do not make much sense.>>

Foyle,
I'm not sure whether the following will make sense to you but here goes:

If i were to do a course in evolutionary theory my null hypothesis would be: "Man did not evolve from another species". I would start with this hypothesis because this is what the Qur'aan states.

If you want to argue that this is akin to assuming "Fairies exists" on the basis of claims made by an unreliable source, then demonstrate that the Qur'aan is an unreliable source. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'aan does not make statements such as the world in 5000 yars old and i find in the Quraan good reason to consider it reliable.

With this null, I would put my faith to the test by asking whether the evidence allows me to conclude that the probability of falsely rejecting the null (and therefore the Qur'aan) is quite small. Otherwise i would retain the null.

You can ask why I do not follow atheists and assume the null "Man did evolve from another species".

I would answer that I'm not sure whether it is a refutable proposition. If I were to begin with the null that "man did evolve from another species", then the appropriate methodology should be to look for ways of refuting the hypothesis. But how would we go about refuting such a hypothesis? On the other hand, I don't think anyone would doubt the refutability of the proposition that "Man did not evolve from another species"?

So let me ask the experts:

Is the proposition that "man evolved from another species" refutable?

If so, how?

It is well nigh the time that Australia has an accurate count on how many are and how many are not religious.

The AFA Census web site is not up and running yet but our Media Release concerning the campaign is here.

David, how many 'religious Athiests' exist within Australia out of interest?

The term 'religion' to myself is defined as those who worship, have faith and belief in any system or organisation, not excluding Atheism or an Atheism Foundation, particularly a Foundation strongly opposing Christianity and Religion, exhibiting quite contradictory behaviour carrying out surveys or research into other Australian religions. Furthermore, what right does the Atheism Foundation have, to declare how other people should be raising their children regarding religion?

The same issues your Foundation members raise, could be raised by other religious' Australians, accusing Athiests of teaching and dictating to their offspring that they become Athiests throughout their childhood or dictating to their children the 'wrongs' and strong opposition to 'other' religions, ie. Baptist, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist etc.

In fact, one of my lovely neighbours, an Atheist, declared that her children and self were 'Atheists' during a morning tea 15 years ago, when religion and God had not been mentioned at all by any of her new neighbours or myself. It was an irrelevant topic at a morning tea and one in which was raised by a self declared Atheist.

A beautiful person although over the years my neighbour enjoyed spruiking to anyone she met "I am an Atheist, what religion are you"?On some occasions this neighbour enjoyed degrading religions. I could not have cared if she was an S.D.A. Hurri Krishna or Cult follower. She was a lovely person with her attitude towards my children and self, which was more important as opposed to her atheist religion.

However, each person to their own faith, if Australians live within the law and do not hurt or curtail the rights of others to live and follow their own beliefs.

My question posed to you is the point of my opinion David.

Upon reflection, for want of a more appropriate term 'Athiest Cult' or 'Athiest Cult Foundation's objectives'is the point I am raising in response to your religious comments David.

weareunique,
You stated, "Furthermore, what right does the Atheism Foundation have, to declare how other people should be raising their children regarding religion?"
That is easily answered; the right of the child to be educated to think clearly is one of the most important rights each child has. Indoctrination is child abuse.

Discussion of open ended questions in school for one hour per week from an early age will improve each child's cognitive ability (similar to IQ) by 6-7% and virtually eliminate bullying from the school environment. These are benefits which partly flow to children in the ethics classes to start now in NSW.

This is why the the archbishops, Pell and Jensen, are so opposed to the ethics classes; it will make indoctrination much more difficult. The archbishops would be happy for ethics to be "taught" to all children but they would then have authoritarian input through their representation in curriculum bodies. This would negate the benefits of the proposed discussion approach.

With a bit of luck the children will realise the inherent evil in the concepts of original sin and vicarious redemption.

Vicarious redemption is an underlying cause of the Roman Church's problems with its child abusing priests. The priests are granted the power of vicarious forgiveness and all power corrupts!