...Continued

Well, if you want to play that game, studies show that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to be religious; far more impressive than a relatively small list of people that (given the world’s population) you’re inevitably going to find anyway.

<<So, why do you believe that naturalism is “logical”? >>

Because it doesn’t violate Occam’s razor; a reason why it’s also more rational too.

<<Incorrect- the vast majority of confirmed atheists would agree with the statement that “God does not exist”.>>

Atheists don’t NECESSARILY say that no gods exists. Technically babies are atheists too because they’re not theists.

<<Plenty of agnostics totally disagree with you about the nature of evidence, and whether we can know God exists...>>

The key word here being “know”.

I liked David’s response here, but I would say “self-proclaimed agnostics” rather than just “agnostics”, because atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism/theism go to what you believe, while gnosticism/agnosticism go to what you know.

Thus many self-proclaimed “agnostics” don’t even realise that they are also atheists and usually try to separate themselves because of some 1950’s communism stigma or because they mistakenly think that atheism is a claim to knowledge. So “agnostic” is a largely useless and unhelpful term as it tells us nothing of what a person actually believes, just that they don’t ‘know’ - as none of us really can anyway.

Anyone who genuinely doesn’t know what they believe here is a pretty fickle-minded person. Often “agnostics” are people on the far-right who are simply not comfortable with contradicting the worldview of such a large portion of those who they are politically aligned with.

As for your questions:

1. That depends on how you define “god”.

2. I think what you’re trying to say here is, “what evidence would one expect to see as proof of god?”, because we don’t get to re-define “evidence” according to what we’re trying to prove or disprove. Evidence, put simply, is just a reason to believe or disbelieve something. So this, again, depends on how you define “god”.

Over to you.

I agree (As I continually state) that children should be taught about all religions and none and let them make a decision when they are mature enough to do so. How fairer can it be? [AFA]

David, many of the private secondary schools do indeed teach about all religions via assignments students choose along with class work. 35 years ago to date. I was educated in the private system and learned about Buddhism, Hinduism, a wide range of religious beliefs during High School. My son is educated in the private system and during 2009/10 was asked to choose a religion as an assignment each term in addition to learning about peoples life philosophies and beliefs.

Your statement is totally wrong 'factually'.

I have the 'evidence' to dispute your above statement in addition to a couple of others you are spruiking about on behalf of your 'organisation', a group of people whom, draw their own conclusions on many issues surrounding Christianity, indoctrination and Spirituality ignoring the 'evidence' that exists.

Q: Have you ever visited private/religious secondary schools across Australia at all during your time spent with the AFA David?

At least stick to some facts demonstrating 'evidence' when making your claims David.

AJ Phillips et al:

I am not worried if people declare themselves atheist, agnostic, religious, or anything else. What does worry me is the sort of statement you have just made:

<<I realise there are some less literal Christians on this thread who quite happily admit that there is no empirical evidence for god, but this doesn’t help their position as it only tell us that they don’t really care so much about the truth of their beliefs.>>

And that, in my opinion, is the nub of the issue. You, Foyle, AFA-David and some others believe as an article of faith that logic and fact (empirical data) are the sole channels for valid investigation of human being or for testing truth.

If David’s statements represent your world view, you also demand that children be indoctrinated with that belief and that no political decisions should be based on anything but logic and empirical data.

This is pure scientism, a fundamentalist mind-set every bit as dangerous to humanity as that of the religious fundamentalist.

We must oppose any inclination to indoctrinate children and grand-children with these beliefs. For the sake of humanity and the ecosystem we must also ensure that we elect to parliaments individuals with a more balanced mind than displayed by you people.

<<You, Foyle, AFA-David and some others believe as an article of faith that logic and fact (empirical data) are the sole channels for valid investigation of human being or for testing truth.>>

Trying to argue against logic is hopeless. To do so you need either:
1) Base your argument on an attempt at logic. In which case you are refuting yourself.
2) Base your argument on randomness, in which case there is no correct answer and there is no truth.

An argument against logic is an argument for chaos and meaninglessness.

It’s not like you at all to be so emotive in your posts, Crabsy.

<<You, Foyle, AFA-David and some others believe as an article of faith that logic and fact (empirical data) are the sole channels for valid investigation of human being or for testing truth.>>

Well, they are the only channels that have so far proven themselves to be reliable. Applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth given what we currently KNOW.

Any other method is totally indistinguishable from pure imagination. Could you explain how one would test the reliability of any other proposed method for arriving at the truth?

<<If David’s statements represent your world view, you also demand that children be indoctrinated with that belief...>>

“Indoctrination” involves teaching to think uncritically, which doesn’t really gel well with what I’ve said above, yet it’s a key method used in childhood indoctrination. Religious parents will often stress to their children that it’s a sin to question god’s existence from a very young age.

<<...and that no political decisions should be based on anything but logic and empirical data.>>

I think David’s more suggesting that theists shouldn’t be forcing their standards on society if they are based on unprovable assertions.

In which case, I would agree.

You already knew this, but you disingenuously try to make it sound like David is suggesting that if it can’t be put in a test tube, then it can’t be legislated.

That being said though, we can at least demonstrate that depriving someone of a human right has negative effects on them; much better than, “Because god said so”.

<<This is pure scientism...>>

Oh goodie.

We get to be labelled with an ‘ism’ too now; just to make it sound like ‘fascism’ or ‘communism’.

And just how is it a “fundamentalist mind-set” and “every bit as dangerous to humanity (and the ecosystem for crying out loud!) as that of the religious fundamentalist”?

I would suggest that if everyone cared about the truth of their beliefs, we’d be living in a much better world.

'Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.' - Ethan Allen