If you think you need to appeal to a fictional character in order to show that child abuse is wrong and the Catholic Church's approach to it is evil, then you have some very serious problems.

As explained by Jesus, the problem is primarily of a spiritual nature: a man who dedicated his life to God, what need does he have for boys or girls or men or women? With God besides him, taking all his focus, why should he need another?

This is therefore an indication for a deep spiritual crisis and while the suffering of the affected children is only temporal, the suffering of the offending priest is deeper and can even be eternal. When Jesus suggests cutting off his limbs, it is not in order to punish the offender but in order to help him to recover!

How could serving time in a secular jail (at our tax-payer's expense), among the most unspiritual criminals and jailers who have no understanding of God, possibly help the offending priests to recover? How possibly could it strengthen their faith?

The Melbourne response is correct: what the offending priest needs is spiritual counseling and support, which can only be provided within the church itself. Such support may occasionally include the chopping of limbs, which from history we know the church was not shy off. That this technique is not currently in practice is not the church's fault, but that of the secular state prohibiting this good practice through its uneducated secular laws.

'(Mat 18:6) But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believes in Me, it would be better for him that an ass's millstone were hung around his neck, and he be sunk in the depth of the sea. '

Thank you Yuyutsu for showing so clearly why the Catholic church has been indifferent to the victims of child abuse. I don't give a rats about the spiritual suffering of abusing clergy - they just need to be exposed, punished through the secular criminal system, and prevented from doing more harm, as should all those who have been accessories to their crimes and who have enabled them to continue their abuse. Its about time the decent people in church are rid of the filth.

An excellent article, one that exposes the hypocrisy of Churches which has been going on for centuries.

There is no punishment that is bad enough for the defilers of children, none. Even burning in hell for a thousand years is still too good.

If we got rid of religion, then many of the molesters would be gone. If we upped the penalties for those who are caught defiling and include compulsory castration, that would also help.

How we protect our children is a sign of the health of our society. Currently, it is sick!

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

If the problem were primarily of a spiritual nature, it would seem appropriate to tear out the soul.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how one should go about doing that and, also, what proof we could show that we have actually done it.

Obviously, tearing out hands and eyes does not seem appropriate to child sex abuse. In fact, you are right in thinking that none of the limbs of the reverend clergy may be considered as the principal source of sexual activity.

A few other areas of the male anatomy come to mind but it would probably be wise to consult competent professional sexologists before we start tearing out this or that male organ in case we get it wrong.

It might be more appropriate to eliminate certain areas of the brain which command and respond to sexual stymuli.

Quite honestly, these are questions which really need to be submitted to expert opinion. Unless, of course, Jesus has already addressed this particular aspect of the problem and I am unaware of it.

.

*With God besides him, taking all his focus, why should he need another?*

It's exactly that kind of thinking Yuyutzu, which is part of the
problem. Somehow you seem to be in complete denial of the human
endocrine system. Nearly all males, religious or not, have regular
erections. To just wish them away in the name of god, is hardly
realistic

Well if he were real and walked amongst us today, he probably take out that dreaded whip and use it to whip all those boy buggering, girl child raping defilers, out of his fathers house; and indeed, all those who have so mutilated his original evocation and teachings, as to somehow justify, protecting patent perpetually recidivist criminals!
He would roar, where is it written, that I demanded of any of my followers, to be celibate, which may in part, be responsible for ultimate deviant of psychotic behaviour?
He would demand, in terms entirely unmistakable, that all the criminals sheltering in his father's house, be immediately defrocked and handed over, to the appropriate authorities; bellowing, render unto Caesar, that which is is Caesar's!
And or, inasmuch as you do to the least amongst you, do also to me, or, suffer little children to come unto me, for my personal protection!
A responsibility, which I hand on to all those who purport to speak and act, in my name!
Rhrosty.

Dear Yabby,

Having an erection is no excuse from turning one's attention away from God. It is natural for the human mind to stray after one's endoctrines, but then once we notice it we bring our attention back on God, that is if our faith is steady - if it isn't, then we are in a spiritual crisis.

Dear Banjo,

Isn't tearing up the body, or parts thereof, away from the soul, equivalent to tearing up the soul from the body?

I tend to agree that the brain, or parts thereof, is the organ which is most likely to do us in. We may be more knowledgeable today about physiology than in Jesus' times, but the underlying principle remains the same.

Mind you, indications are that in most cases the so-called "sexual abuse" has nothing to do with sex but rather with control and power.

Dear Candide and David G.,

There are two possible reasons for your disregard of clergy's suffering: either you don't recognize the extent of their suffering; or you don't genuinely care for suffering in general, but are instead motivated by politically-correct ideology. I would like to believe it's the first case.

Physical and emotional pain last one lifetime at the most. Spiritual pain can endure much longer, relative to which the flames of hell are but a breeze.

If we got rid of religion, David, then both molesters and the children they molest would be gone, since they would have no remaining reason to come to live on earth in the first place - a perfect example of throwing the baby with the bath-water. Practice of religion is not always conscious, but we are all somewhere on the path to God whether we recognize and acknowledge it or not.

*Having an erection is no excuse from turning one's attention away from God.*

Hehe Yuyutsu, you would have to be female to provide such an answer.
They don't suffer from the regular testosterone flows. If perchance
you are male, do you think of god whilst you masturbate away that
erection?

Jesus is a myth, there is not a skerrick of evidence any such person ever existed.

Why do so many people wonder what this mythical creature would do?

"...but we are all somewhere on the path to God whether we recognize and acknowledge it or not." So said yuyutsu!

Please be advised that my path to God has a sign on it which, in large letters, says: DEAD END.

The path I am on says: THE WAY TO TRUTH AWAITS THE THINKER.

Cheers.

Not sure where I read this but it certainly is profound. Supposedly a child asked, ‘If Jesus (the) Christ is a historical figure, then why isn’t he mentioned in history books?’

Special pleading that the Bible is credible history when the Vedas, the Koran and the Torah etc are not, isn’t very convincing. Like they say, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

The only extraordinary part about this is the extraordinary lack of evidence.

David

Dear David G.,

EVERY path leads to God, no matter how it is labeled. Some paths are longer, others shorter, some more pleasant, others more painful, etc. but no path can escape God because ultimately there is nothing but God. Yours, it seems, involves much thinking - I hope you enjoy yours!

Dear Yabby,

If you commit your life to God by becoming a priest and you can't keep your attention on God while masturbating, then don't masturbate. It is no sin to have an erection and nature will take its course anyway, the only sin is to be willful about it, forgetting God. Think of it this way: "God gave me this erection, so God will also take it away when He sees fit".

Note however, that you don't necessarily need to THINK about God (it may perhaps suit David G.'s temperament and label, but not necessarily yours), only to have your attention on Him, at least to do your best in accordance with your level of spiritual development.

Dear David (Atheist Foundation),

This is a hypothetical discussion anyway: Suppose Jesus Christ existed, then what would he say about...", as inaccurate as it can be, because Jesus could have said different things at different times even within his short life.

In more general terms, the question whether Jesus Christ existed or otherwise, is of not much significance: all it asks is whether or not his life intersected with the objective plain. Other than for curiosity's sake, why should that be so important, relative to what Jesus stands for in his believers' lives?

Jesus would take one look & say , Oh God, why have they forsaken us ?

hard to know whether murdering the baby in the womb is worse than abuse. I suppose moral relativism can be used justify both. I am sure Jesus is disgusted by both.

*If you commit your life to God by becoming a priest and you can't keep your attention on God while masturbating, then don't masturbate.*

Ah ok lol, if you think of Jesus whilst you masturbate, that is ok
then. I just love Christian logic and reason.

I don't have the URl anymore, but just a couple of days ago I read
an article in the SMH, IIRC. This guy was giving evidence about two
priests talking, when they were fiddling with the kids. One had said
to the other "God is making me do this".

If these guys had some kind of normal sexual relationships in their
lives, their minds might not have been quite as twisted.

But of course that would cost the Vatican money, they'd have to pay
them a bit more to feed the families. The Vatican is loaded for good
reasons

Marylin Shepherd I do agree with you, how people can seriously believe in Jesus , God, Gods father and so on amazes me, it is fiction at its best and all gullible people just follow a story of make believe because they have been brought up to believe just that, all children molesters should be tried before a court of law, not behind a confessional box (Catholic Church) and then escape their wrong doing..

I am sure Jesus is disgusted by both.
runner,
hard to say what would upset him more, abortions or unwanted children being neglected. After all it was his old man who apparently designed the human body so that people can't choose their children.

Yuyutsu,

Sorry, you lost me there completely. Speaking in tongues would possibly be clearer. You should attempt to use the English language to elucidate, not complicate.

David

Dear David,

<<You should attempt to use the English language to elucidate, not complicate>>

OK, I'll try to break it down in the simplest way I can:

Whether Jesus existed or not is not important.

What is important is what Jesus stands for and how he serves and enhances the spiritual lives of his believers.

The question "what would Jesus say about X?" is meaningful despite the fact that we already know that the historical Jesus (if indeed he was historical) said nothing about the topic at hand. For the believer, however, the question becomes "how would my highest ideal, as presented by the scriptures that I try to follow, guide me in this particular case".

By the 'objective plane' I mean that specific cut in Reality which we consider 'exists' and is verifiable by science.

The question whether Jesus existed is therefore equivalent to asking whether his life intersected with the objective plane (which as above, I don't think is of much importance)

I then generalised my statement to the effect that in general, questions about the objective plane, though they tend to satisfy one's curiosity, are of less importance than questions of faith and spirit - that is because the objective plane is only a thin (singular, of 0-width in geometric terms) section within Reality.

Yuyutsu,

No offence, but that is still dribble to rational people. Interchanging with religious babble is not possible in this instance.

David

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"Isn't tearing up the body, or parts thereof, away from the soul, equivalent to tearing up the soul from the body?"

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that the body and soul are one and the same or that it is not possible to separate one from the other.

That means that somebody who has lost an arm or a leg or more has had his soul shortened or scattered about in different parts of the earth. My mind turns to all those war veterans and innocent children who have lost limbs in mine infected zones. And what about all those bomb victims and plane crash victims whose bodies are blown to smithereens? Their souls must be scattered about everywhere. How on earth could they ever be found and identified and put back together again?

When I think that mankind has been in existence for about 4 to 7 million years, goodness knows how many souls are still clinging to the dust of the remains of their bodies or perhaps become food for grass and weeds, ingurgitated by wild animals or dispersed in foreign lands in the claws of various migrating bird species or washed away in floods...!

I may have even eaten bits and pieces of somebody's soul myself in a side salad!

.

Soul food?

*Soul food?*

Hehe, Poirot. More likely those flowers lovingly tended on that grave,
are eaten by some insects, after having sucked up those nutrients.
Along come the birds, eat the insects and poop out those nutrients
over the ocean, which are eaten by the fish. The trawler hauls in the
fish, and this load is going to Mecca, perchance, as the Arabs have
money.

So who knows, Yututsu and Runner could become Muslim food one day.

Now that should sound cheerful :)

@runner: "hard to know whether murdering the baby in the womb is worse than abuse."

Well, since the 'baby in the womb' is normally a bean-sized lump of non-sentient flesh, and an abused child is a living, sentient independent human being, it's not actually very hard, is it? Not unless you reeeeeely reeeeely try to make it look that way.

Do you think it's 'hard to know' whether you should have a cancer cut out or let it grow? After all, God's intentions in creating it were presumably for it to reach the fullness of its potential.

Jesus would say that Politicians and CEO's who manipulate our communities with corrupt pricing for electricity and freeloader immigration schemes that deliver markets, votes and adoration to the rich and infrastructure gridlock, shame and destitution to the middle classes are attacking churches which are the last bastions that can revolt against the ABUSE of all Australian citizens by every level of Government in this land.

The embracing of Globalisation by Australian upper classes is a CRIME against humanity that makes child abuse an insignificance in terms of total suffering.

The whole purpose of globalisation is to make the rich richer and make the middle classes and poor pay for it with abuses, fiscal rape by vacuum up economics and externalisation of RISKS that make child molestation look like a blessing.

That Judas Gillard had to abuse Kevin Rudd with a knife in the back makes her royal commission into child abuse look like "lies and fictions so she can live within her (many) CONTRADICTIONS".

And finally Jesus would say this "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, unto God the things that are God's and unto fresh-blood migrants and unborn mouldable children the power to pass all their RISKS, ABUSE and taxes onto the Australian masses who are too stupid to stand up for their rights"

Yuyutsu deserves credit for acknowledging that Jesus may not have existed:

"Whether Jesus existed or not is not important.

"What is important is what Jesus stands for and how he serves and enhances the spiritual lives of his believers."

Posted by Yuyutsu, Thurs, 15 November, 9:36pm

Added to issues of existence, or not, is whether to apply possible myth-fiction stories to real-life situations, especially when those stories "said nothing about the topic at hand" ....

>> The question "what would Jesus say about X?" is meaningful despite the fact that we already know that the historical Jesus (if indeed he was historical) said nothing about the topic at hand. For the believer, however, the question becomes "how would my highest ideal, as presented by the scriptures that I try to follow, guide me in this particular case".

How can one generate a meaningful "highest ideal" when one is seeking to apply disparate stories, and when the real-life situations involve those who perpetuate the myth-fiction stories and religious-only practices - the priests - while performing real life abominations, yet seeking myth-fiction solutions eg. "absolution" through "sacrament".

Morals and Ethics can be determined without references to stories, and without references to erections.

Look, the Chinese people, principally the males, have just had massive 'elections' and yet there have been no reports of untoward things like masturbation.

The Chinese are obviously morally better than we are and they seem intellectually superior too!

>>Morals and Ethics can be determined without references to stories<<

Stories have played a role in informing our ethics since we started telling stories. I don't see any harm in looking to fictional characters for moral guidance. Jesus is a traditional favourite - a more recent example is Harry Potter. When faced with moral dilemmas I ask: what would Luke Skywalker do?

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Banjo,

You got me wrong: the spirit and the body are not the same.
Spirit clings to the body for a while, only while it finds it useful.

Dear David,

<<No offence, but that is still dribble to rational people.>>

Yes, so sad to see people live in such poverty as they limit themselves to the rational.

Dear McReal,

<<Morals and Ethics can be determined without references to stories, and without references to erections.>>

For some, for some McReal: there are people, like David, who cannot accept a moral/ethical system unless it satisfies their rational mind and yet others who cannot accept morality unless it satisfies other parts of their body (the stomach, I mean...), so are there those who cannot accept morality unless it satisfies their hearts.

If morals and ethics are to be based on the objective section of Reality alone, then they would be as thin as that section itself and blown away by the slightest wind.

Yuyutsu,

Can you supply a few examples of these non-rational moral/ethical deliberations thanks?

And I don’t mean accepting a god as a saviour or anything like that. There are many gods and lots of ideas concerning them. It is only arrogance to suggest you have the correct one.

I look forward to your reply.

David

Dear David,

<<Can you supply a few examples of these non-rational moral/ethical deliberations thanks?>>

Can one supply any moral/ethical deliberation that IS rational?

ANY moral deliberation that we have, had, or will ever have can serve as an example of irrationality. Though some may be superficially covered in rational explanations, if you dig deep enough, then at the bottom line they are all irrational!

One may argue for example that if you abstain from killing others, then life in general would be "better" as well as decrease your own chances, and your family's, to be killed. Or one may argue that molesting children is immoral because it increases suffering.

So what?

What's rational in wanting life to be "better"? What is "better" anyway? What's rational in wanting to live longer or have your family live longer? What's rational about wanting not to suffer or to decrease suffering in general?

You see, science can tell us that if we do such-and-such, then the consequence is likely to be death or suffering, but it cannot even touch the subject of why this should morally be avoided.

<<And I don’t mean accepting a god as a saviour or anything like that. There are many gods and lots of ideas concerning them. It is only arrogance to suggest you have the correct one.>>

I am not concerned with gods, only with God. Yes, people have lots of ideas, which obviously cannot all be objectively true at once, in fact none of them are (because God cannot be captured by the mind and the ideas therein), but why should it matter? so long as those various ideas help them to come closer to God, that's good and I welcome them!

The object of religion is not to give us information about the objective world - that's what science is for and can do much better. Religion, however (but that's NOT its main function, only a side-effect), can provide us with moral guidelines, something science can never do.

Sorry, I have no more time today, but I'll be happy to continue this conversation on Sunday.

Yuyutsu,

“Can one supply any moral/ethical deliberation that IS rational?”

You made the case yourself. One can work out the rational consequences of an action. Such as, if I allow a system where I can murder my neighbour, then I can’t complain if I am murdered. What is irrational about that?

Your disappointing answer of ‘so what’ to this is astounding. Wanting to live longer is rational as it is seen as an extension of life already lived. That is totally rational as are your other examples. It is irrational to not want them.

“You see, science can tell us that if we do such-and-such, then the consequence is likely to be death or suffering, but it cannot even touch the subject of why this should morally be avoided.”

Why jump into science now when we are discussing human ethical behaviour. Our rational side tells us that suffering should be limited and death avoided if possible.

“I am not concerned with gods, only with God. Yes, people have lots of ideas, which obviously cannot all be objectively true at once, in fact none of them are (because God cannot be captured by the mind and the ideas therein), but why should it matter? so long as those various ideas help them to come closer to God, that's good and I welcome them!”

Which god? You have a god and others have different gods which you dismiss. What are the objective criteria you use to identify your god as the true god? And what is the evidence that would be acceptable to all that you even know your particular god exists? And why is it good to come closer to your particular god? And what gives you the right to welcome others to your god? Has it told you to do this?

I agree; religion can supply moral guidelines as it’s a human construct and its guidelines human made. But religion can also distort ethical considerations and often does.

Ethics is largely based on rational consequential evaluation. Religion is a free-for-all-concoction of the interpretations of the words of others.

David

Sorry I am in a hurry, David, I will answer in full on Sunday.

Just one quick point for now:

Wanting to live longer, death avoided, etc., is not a moral imperative, but a biological desire. Biology is science, but no science can circularly prove its own importance, including its moral importance.

<<Our rational side tells us that suffering should be limited and death avoided if possible>>

Has your god told you that?...

Yuyutsu.

Wanting to live is a biological imperative but it is also a mental desire based in rationality. It is not a case of either or.

The flight or fight response when threatened with death or suffering can be understood by us all using our rational brain which develops a plan to escape. I don’t need a god to tell me that and neither do you. (Well, I sincerely hope you don’t)

Moral importance has bugger-all to do with it and is a meaningless phrase.

In your reply I would ask that you use your critical thinking skills and stop moving the goal posts all over the place.

If you need some help other than innate ability to be able to empathise about the suffering of others and an understanding that death should be avoided for as long as quality of life is good, then you are malfunctioning as a normal thinking human being.

I'm not particularly perturbed you think this way, if you do, as long as you only let it be manifested in private between consenting adults and it doesn't influence political decisions you make that are opposed to rational conclusions.

I am not going to spend an inordinate amount of time on mumbo jumbo answers.

Your response, to my questions so far, will tell me whether or not it is worth continuing.

David

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"You got me wrong: the spirit and the body are not the same.
Spirit clings to the body for a while, only while it finds it useful"

Well I hope it has its claws well embodied in me and won't fall off. If it's anything like the soles of my shoes, it might well do.

I have no idea what it would be like walking around without a soul, though I have walked about without a sole. That was a fairly unpleasant experience.

Mind you, I do remember thinking to myself one day when I was on walkabout in the bush: "there is not a soul in sight". They all seem to have buzzed off somewhere.

I'll keep an eye out in future. You never know, one of my neighbours may have lost his and I'll ask him if it makes any difference, with or without his sole.

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain what "use" the soul (or, I see you mention the word "spirit") has for a body and why it needs it so badly it has to "cling" to it. What about when it goes to sleep, does it still manage to "cling" to it?

.

Dear David,

Why our brain is influenced by biology is obvious - it's part thereof.
Why biology "wants" to preserve itself is also clear, it's evolution.

Just as you said, moral importance has bugger-all to do with it.

But why in heaven would you want to identify with a biological form (a human, including its brain) and allow it to run your life? Why should you care in the first place for this world and for what comes down to chemical and electrical reactions? that's irrational!

Just as there is nothing moral or immoral about whether an electron spins clockwise or counter-clockwise, there is nothing moral or immoral about the function (or dysfunction) of bigger structures such as a human body: morality is derived from spirit, not from biology, but isn't it surprising to find that there is a significant overlap between the two? You would be quite right to invoke Occam's razor on this point.

It is however, not a coincidence: the overlap is there because identification with biological life-forms can serve a spiritual purpose, allowing us to learn and practice morality (there may be other life-forms, but if there is no overlap between morality and their mechanical tendencies, then we simply never come to know them or recognize them as "living").

Yet, you realized yourself that this overlap is incomplete ("But religion can also distort ethical considerations and often does.")

Historically, the state has used the church as its milking-cow, using that overlap to generate the societal "morals" it wanted. This however helped to corrupt churches, tempting them to compromise whenever the overlap was incomplete and morality didn't fit the state's objectives, perhaps not even biology's objectives, which the state, as biology's extension, tried to promote.

It has become fashionable to say "this cow is no longer yielding, we can get our milk from elsewhere, so let's slaughter it". What isn't being realized is that alternative milk, though more palatable, lacks in nutrients and only lasts one earthly lifetime at best.

Your query about gods deserves its own 350 words, so it will be in my next post.

Dear David,

<<Which god? You have a god and others have different gods which you dismiss. What are the objective criteria you use to identify your god as the true god? And what is the evidence that would be acceptable to all that you even know your particular god exists? And why is it good to come closer to your particular god? And what gives you the right to welcome others to your god? Has it told you to do this?>>

I never claimed that "my particular god exists". In fact, if someone came and told me "my god exists", I won't necessarily dismiss that god, but rather (disappointing you again) shrug it off, saying "so what?".

Perhaps some god exists (not that I know any), perhaps he even created this world: if so, I may either tell him "thank you" or "what a shoddy job". While such a god may be, from a worldly perspective, far more powerful and knowledgeable than myself, from a spiritual point of view he would be exactly equivalent to myself and yourself.

In short, a god which exists is not God.

Claiming that "God exists" is an insult to His holy name (as well as a logical contradiction, as you as an atheist must already know), reducing it to a mere object, yet many good but uneducated people do so innocently out of ignorance of the logical implications, please forgive them!

It is impossible to apply positive criteria to identify God, but negative methods can be used instead: if for example he exists, then he isn't God. Also, if there's anything besides him, then he isn't God. I think that should settle most other claims, if not all.

Why is it good to come closer to God?
Because there is nothing else but God: the alternative is to live in illusion, unreality and spiritual pain.

What gives you the right to welcome others to your god?
He's their God as well because there's none besides Him.
Any approach that helps one come closer to Him, is welcome, regardless of using different words and concepts.

Yuyutsu,

You seem to believe you are answering questions as a knowledgeable seer, instead of promoting and defending the irrational, which is what you are really doing. You have no more understanding of nature than me and in fact, you apparently have a whole lot less.

To wade through the mire of your extraordinary take on spooky suppositions would require more time than I am willing to give.

Good luck with the only life you are ever going to have as far as all the empirical evidence known more than strongly suggests.

I'm sorry that for some reason you seem to think that is not enough.

David

Dear David,

It is you who defend the irrational, which is as if the objective plane (that tiny section which can be verified by empirical evidence), is all that matters, that not only is it valuable, but nothing else is.

It seems to be your god.

Yuyutsu,

Everything else might have various amounts of importance to humans but if that ethereal side of our character as a whole impinges on selected groups, interferes with science and politics, then it is upon those not so encumbered to speak out. Therefore I do.

David

Dear David,

Yes, it is upon those encumbered to speak out, at least try to, if anyone even listens. What I find strange is that scientists and politicians find themselves encumbered: THEY are the powerful ones, THEY are the ones who hold control, the law is on their side, the police is on their side, the financial resources are on their side, they can do virtually anything while religious people are under siege.

You are writing as if we are still in Galileo's times, as if nothing changed since, as if secularism isn't in power for decades now, if not a century.

True, the major religious orders (essentially the Christian orders, to the extent they still are religious) also have powers, money and feet in politics to protect themselves from the government - good for them, but that's of no use and little comfort to myself and others who just wish to be left alone out of this scientific/technological tide, devoting our lives instead in the service and worship of God.

What selected groups have I impinged on? I cannot even guess.
Who ever restricted your science? I didn't!
(unless perhaps you feel encumbered because I'm not interested in your latest technological gadgets?)
Restricted your politics? You mean that because I am religious I shouldn't even be allowed to vote, trying to use the ballot box to protect myself (with little success)?

Perhaps you hold an imaginary childhood image of religious people as big men with beards and tall hats who look to dip you in a barrel of ink for the slightest mischief. Far out!

Nay, it doesn't make sense that you, the strong and influential, should be afraid of me, the weak and helpless whom no one listens to, who am regularly taxed to feed the cogwheels of science and government, my tormentors. What may be the case, is that it isn't me that you are afraid of, but of God, that deep inside you know that ultimately victory will be His!

Yuyutsu,

That’s quite a persecution complex you have there and generally indicative of fundamentalist religion. You can be sure atheists do not fear you personally but we are concerned that religion frightens the hell into children thus producing politicians making stupid laws and failing to initiate others that are needed.

I’ll have one last attempt at extracting some sensible answers from you. Just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers will suffice.

1/ Is the 30 billion dollars of annual tax exemption for religion in Australia fair on all citizens?

2/ Should women be equal before the law and society in all aspects?

3/ Should lesbians and gays be equal before the law and society in all its aspects? (The right to marriage is one of those aspects)

4/ Should women have the right to abortion at least until 20 weeks? (After that time, medical advice may be needed to help with termination decisions)

5/ Should students in state schools have access to effective sex education? (Please note, teaching abstinence as an effective method is, well, errr, not effective)

6/ Should state schools have religious classes where it is known indoctrination methods are used?

7/ Should fundamentalist Christian chaplains be allowed in state schools as happens at present?

8/ Should creationism, either the young earth type or the old earth type be taught to students in state schools in science classes?

9/ Should the theory of evolution be taught in state schools in science classes?

10/ Should both the theory of evolution and creationism be taught in state school science classes?

11/ Should parents use the fear of hell and promise of heaven in the religious indoctrination of children?

12/ Should stem-cell research be limited by religious-concerns only?

13/ Should a system of legal voluntary euthanasia be initiated in Australia?

14/ Should the leading question on religious affiliation in the Australian Census be changed to a non-leading one? (The present question is, “What is the person’s religion?”)

I have attempted to ask the questions in a reasonable manner. When you have answered them all, feel free to ask question of me.

David

"" Why our brain is influenced by biology is obvious - it's part thereof.
"Why biology "wants" to preserve itself is also clear, it's evolution.

"Just as you said, moral importance has bugger-all to do with it.

"But why in heaven would you want to identify with a biological form (a human, including its brain) and allow it to run your life? Why should you care in the first place for this world and for what comes down to chemical and electrical reactions? that's irrational! ""

Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 18 November 2012 2:06:33 PM

Yuyutsu,
There is no awareness without a brain and its neuroChemistry. None. zilch. An "afterlife"without a body, without a brain, is mere wishful-'thinking'.

to say " .. morality is derived from spirit, not from biology .. " is to deny the thinking and the brain that goes into determining morality.

David,

You posed the question:

"1/ Is the 30 billion dollars of annual tax exemption for religion in Australia fair for all citizens."

I'm a little confused in the wake of a recent article on this forum.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14340

"In appealing for tax exempt status while at the same time decrying the tax-exempt status of religion through its publications, the AFA was, and remains, in my view, compromised."

Some of us on this forum have noted that your own rhetoric rejecting religion was coloured by a something akin to religious fervour....I had no idea that you were striving for the same perks as well.

Poirot,

The thread wasn't going anywhere and I have been busy but I have answered it here about a week ago, not that there was anything resembling the truth to answer. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=16129

David

Dear David,

Yes, I hope I deserve the title of a religious fundamentalist, meaning that I look at, and base my choices upon, the fundamentals of life rather than its surface.

Good heavens: sure the politicians make myriads of stupid laws, but you blame the victims instead of the perpetrators. So far I was never able to influence and overturn a single one of them!

Here are my answers:

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes, but the state should stay out of marriages altogether.
4. Yes, but with a slight correction: women should maintain their natural FREEDOM to abort at any time, rather than be granted the "right" to do so by the state.
5. I find it hard to answer decisively those questions related to public-schools because I don't support their existence in the first place. While they still are, I tend to say Yes.
6. Tentatively No.
7. Tentatively No.
8. No. Creationism is an insult to God.
9. Tentatively Yes.
10. No.
11. No, rather the promise of hell and fear of heaven (but it's a highly advanced topic, probably unsuitable before high-school age).
12. No.
13. Initiated - no, but any 2+ people should be free to kill each other for whatever reason if fully-informed consent is given (not that I recommend the practice).
14. There should be no census. Also, as you must know, the purpose of this question is to help the government to allocate funds to religious orders, thereby corrupting them. I don't support this practice.

Dear McReal,

Without a brain one cannot be aware of the world, but that's not a big deal so please don't attribute to me wishes that I have not made.

The brain operates according to the laws of physics. What's moral or immoral about it?

Dear Banjo,

As I just told McReal, bodies do not need souls - they operate by the laws of physics.

Why should a soul want to cling to a body? it's just a common addiction. When we sleep we let the grip loosen a bit, but then we wake for another "fix".

>>Without a brain one cannot be aware of the world, but that's not a big deal<<

Correction: without a brain one cannot be aware of anything. Or nothing. Without a brain one cannot be aware. Or unaware. Without a brain one cannot be. Which you probably don't think is a big deal because you don't attach much importance to being.

There is an idea in philosophy called 'solipsism': the denial not only of material existence but also the existence of other minds. For the solipsist the self is the only existing reality and and all other reality (and non-reality) are representations of that self and have no indepedent existence. Cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - is the alpha and the omega.

Your position goes a step further and says that just because you think it doesn't mean you am. You are less certain of your own being than solipsists are of your not being: bearing this in mind I would ask you to consider the possibility that you are just the figment of some solipsist's imagination.

Cheers,

Tony

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for answering the questions. I have a better idea now how you ‘tick’. Quite often and mostly in conversation with someone with a faith position, it is difficult to ascertain a full point of view as there are so many contradictory ideas out there.

I thought a few answers slightly odd and didn't suit the religion/political situation extant but everyone is entitled to their opinion unless it causes strife to others and then such opinion should be challenged. Your vagueness was evident and not helpful to others in society in a few of these answers, such as legal voluntary euthanasia and the role of education etc. It’s best to work with what we have instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

I really don’t want to go into it but your ideas on a ‘God’ and a ‘soul’ has no evidence in support. Subjective evaluation is not good enough evidence for lots of folk. Good enough for you, so it would seem, but not for me. Wishing stuff to be true to back-up childhood spooky teaching or personal ‘spooky’ experience will not make it true. And, of course, personal ‘spooky’ experience cannot be used as proof of anything to others.

Shall we leave it there?

David

Dear Tony,

I have no clue where you get this idea as if without a brain one cannot be aware of anything.

Sure, without a brain there is no memory, hence one wouldn't remember their experiences: this however doesn't make it probable that there wouldn't be any experiences whatsoever, albeit one's experience without a brain could be very different than what we experience via a brain.

There are other reasons why I consider your suggestion improbable, but nevertheless, even if you are correct and there is no awareness, no experiences, without a brain, still I am who I am, with experiences or without them, so indeed this is probably no big deal.

Dear David,

Sorry about the vagueness due to time and space constraints. If there are any more details you still want to know about my views, don't hesitate asking.

It was never my intention to prove God's existence as I myself am convinced that He doesn't exist (I suppose this technically makes me an atheist).
If there had been (God forbid!) any evidence of God, then He wouldn't be God, but a mere idol, a deity, a god with a small 'g', and that is of no interest to me.

While I am not trying to convince anyone that my views are true, it is important for me to present a consistent model of what I stand for, to demonstrate that it is not in contradiction with objective facts. This is necessary for any religious person who is not under an umbrella of a strong religious organisation in order to survive (and not be locked up in a mental hospital) in a country where nearly everyone is either secular or Abrahamic.

You say that subjective evaluation is not good enough for you, likewise objective evaluation is not good enough for me and my love of God does not depend on that.

We can leave it here if you want.

Sorry, Yuyutsu, but it is obviously pointless to continue this discussion. I'm very happy living on this planet and maybe you should contemplate paying it a visit sometime.:))

David

>>this however doesn't make it probable that there wouldn't be any experiences whatsoever, albeit one's experience without a brain could be very different than what we experience via a brain.<<

How are you going to experience things Yuyutsu? Are you expecting that your appendix will step up and take the plate?

You're right about one thing: having no brain doesn't make it probable that there wouldn't be any experiences whatsoever. It makes it certain. Without your brain you're just a decaying lump of organic matter.

>>without a brain, still I am who I am<<

No you're not. Without a brain you have nothing to generate your sense of personal identity unless it's that magic appendix of yours again.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony,

<<How are you going to experience things Yuyutsu? Are you expecting that your appendix will step up and take the plate?>>

Ever stopped to consider the miracle of how the brain, a lump of organic matter, is able provide us with experiences?

For our appendix, also a lump of organic matter, to provide us with experiences is no more a miracle than the brain doing the same.

As the appendix is built differently than the brain, it shouldn't be surprising that experiences via the appendix would be different than experiences via the brain. The brain for example supports memory, which the appendix probably doesn't. The brain supports thoughts, which the appendix probably doesn't. We don't know what experiences are in store for us via our appendix because even if we had them already we can't remember them, but different experiences do not mean no experiences.

<<Without a brain you have nothing to generate your sense of personal identity>>

That sense is commonly called 'ego' - wouldn't it be wonderful for once to be without one?