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".