Atheism can leave questions that may never be answered;
Religion has answers that may never be questioned.

Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 4:26:40 PM

" ... As always, these are matters for families to decide not some dictatorial government controlled program for public schools whether it be pushing atheism or religion. ... "

I must say *Peli* that I do not agree with your opinion here at all. Reason being, is that I believe that children should be free from anyone wanting to inflict any form of belief system on them at all, especially from their family.

I include in this any particular religious belief and any non-belief system, whether it be a form of atheism or otherwise.

Rather, I would prefer to see children schooled in a global awareness of the variety of believes, philosophies, ethics, etc etc but in an objective and rationale framework which isn't advocating for any particular one of them.

Having said that though, I would include something of a history from our own country and the sources which have given rise to certain principals being enshrined in our legal system.

Additionally, the teaching of the scientific method, the difference between a fact and a belief, how matters are to be evidenced and what it means to be reasonable and rationale.

Only when an individual is of age ought they be able to choose, from their own hopefully informed and not entirely ignorant position, as to whether or not they wish to participate in any form of belief based organisation.

If not, well, when considering the current condition, we still have issues such as certain families churning out homophobes, forced circumcision etc etc, just to cite a few of the more offensive, to me at least, examples of our societal and collective failure in this regard.

davidf
' Sensible Christians and Muslims went about their business while their more intolerant fellows picketted the GAC. Across the street from the GAC was the Crown Casino where gullible people in some cases were pissing away the family sustenance. '

Good to see you being rid of that secular dogma of moral relativism. You must have had a change of heart by judging what is right and wrong.

Dear Pericles,

On the one hand you claim that: <<Life has no "meaning", except that which we, individually, choose to give it.>>

and on the other hand that: <<It would certainly allow for spontaneity and surprise, but is hardly much of a foundation for a useful life, is it?>>

Implicit in the "useful life" of your last statement is that there is a proper use for life (only you claim that subjectivity cannot forward it, only logic), in other words that life has a purpose. The relevant dictionary meaning of "meaning" is: "the end, purpose, or significance of something", so according to your first statement, it is you who chose to give life a meaning, and the particular meaning which you chose can only be forwarded by logic.

This summarises the article!

If your chosen purpose in life is planes, cars, trains, computers, etc., if you consider those to be of significance, then you better stick with objective evidence and logic, but if you seek as the purpose of your life to turn away from the material and be released from the grip of your attachments to it, then belief and hope in Jesus Christ is probably a better alternative (though just one of many better alternatives).

It is a mistake for religion to claim to tell facts about the world - and equally a mistake by anyone to believe that knowing and understanding the world through science can teach anything about the ultimate reality, or God.

Dear runner,

I haven't had a change of heart at all. It is you who talk of false dogmas of moral relativism. You have set up a stereotype of an atheist. When an atheist doesn't conform to your stereotype you take it to mean a change of heart. Perhaps you should question your stereotypes.

All atheism means is a rejection of a belief in a god and the mumbojumbo that surrounds it. Atheists may have strong beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. They just don't depend on a big daddy in the sky or his humanoid son to tell them what's good and what's bad. They don't depend on Zeus, Allah, God or other human inventions to provide a moral compass.

Asking "What is the meaning of life?" is like asking "What is the colour of Tuesday?" It presupposes that there's something it makes sense to call 'life' which has something it makes sense to call a 'meaning'; but unless the person putting the question is prepared to

a) define what they mean by these terms;
b) demonstrate that they actually go sensibly together; and
c) explain how this relates to the way we actually use the words in normal speech and writing,

the whole thing is just a category mistake, like "If you hit a promise with a hammer, will it break?" or "How much do your principles weigh?"

The same applies, of course, to 'purpose'. We can meaningfully ask about the purpose of a task or a journey, but not a life.