This person calls himself a rationalist. How is it 'rational' to waste his time rabbiting on about things he doesn't believe in?

So then ttbn, logically extending that argument, your rabbiting on about climate change is not rational also?

Good to know.

yes so rational ttbn that he beleives order comes from chaos, life came from non life and laws don't require a Lawmaker. So rational that the scientific facts on how unhealthy the homosexual lifestyle is (not), how badly most kids do without dads and the fact that many non religous parents send their kids to religous schools seems to escape Max's attention. One gets the feeling that Max thinks he is smart enough to be God himself not having the intelligence to realise that He is reliant upon His Creator for his next breath.

Why are rationalists so obssessed with religion? Shouldn't they be concerned that any social change is reasonable? Any social change on the basis of religious principles should simply be ignored since its fundamental premise cannot be proven and so it has no reasonable argument.

Once you agree to this(as it seems rationalists do) then you are just rabbiting on about nothing unless you have some agenda in relation to religion.

It is irrational to engage with religious folk.

phanto it is because religious groups effectively are funded by the government.

If you didn't get the points from the article then just read runner's post says it all. Runner poster boy to the bewitched and befuddled.

Runner if your god is responsible for every breath we take then he must also be responsible for all the rapes and murders and kiddy fiddling too. I know the church is big on the latter but come on.

I for one would rather live in a world where we make our own laws where these things are wrong, rather then live in a world run by the religious believing in a dusty book where these things are exceptable.

Well what do you expect, when everything is faith based and not supported by a single scaric of reliable evidence or even a first person eyewitness account.

Instead we have storytellers emerging 50-100 years after the event, and quite massive plagiarism, plus a Jewish scholar (the Gospel according to John) altering the narrative so it conforms with a prophecy pertaining to a messiah.

Then there is sun worshiper Constantine's involvement/control and many pagan rituals included, that simply had no place inside esoteric Christianity.

Plus the emerging archaeological evidence seems to be refuting some of the stories of an exodus and therefore all that relies on it?

Compounded by a history of shameful wrongdoing and cover ups only able to be gotten away with till now, by the application of so called moral Authority. I believe in God and intelligent design, but not in organised religion (cultism) and all that is wrong with it!
Rhrosty.

Cobber:

“phanto it is because religious groups effectively are funded by the government.”

How does this type of article change that? What is the point of trying to show that religion is largely irrelevant . It does not matter one way or the other. Religious people have the right to express their opinions - what matters is how they behave.

If they are getting funds from the government then it is the government that needs to do the talking. They need to explain what reasons they have for giving them funds. If they are giving out funds without good reason then it is they who should be under question and not religious people.

Religious people are not going to stop asking for funds so it is up to the non-religious to demand the reasons for the government’s behaviour. Religious people are not subject to reason and logic by their own definition but governments are.

'Runner if your god is responsible for every breath we take then he must also be responsible for all the rapes and murders and kiddy fiddling too. I'

I know Cobber that secularism likes to keep as many people as possible in the constant state of victimhood (look at the high paid white feminist). But sorry mate you are responsible for your own lust, greeds, rapes, kiddie fiddling or whatever sins you have committed. I suggest you go to the Only One qualified to forgive you.

G'day RUNNER...

I'm an atheist but I still can't quite understand why it's necessary for other atheists and non-believers to continually seek to condemn and pillory all those who believe in a God, Christianity or any other religious faiths?

To sneer, censure or denounce those individuals who genuinely believe in God and Jesus Christ, as long as it doesn't interfere with the lives and activities of others, others who don't share those beliefs, then they should be left quite alone without being disparaged or denigrated by these so called intellectual types who claim to know everything!

COBBER THE HOUND seeks to lay blame on God for all those abhorrent crimes occasioned against these unfortunate women and children? COBBER, it's not this 'God figure' who's responsible for these crimes, it's these 'maggot men', who by any definition are just criminals! And I can assure you, when these blokes hit 'boob', they'll immediately have the 'dog' put on 'em, so much so, they'll quickly ask to be placed in 'protection' for their own safety!

The fact that some religious leaders, have also engaged in such heinous crimes, means nothing as far as this 'God figure' is concerned. After all they're criminals, 'slugs' who pose as human beings, who deserve nothing less then long gaol terms, together with a thorough floggin' upon their reception in boob!

COBBER, this 'GOD figure' is not to blame? You can't level accusations of culpability at something or someone that doesn't exist? It's these lowlife dogs, who pose as members of the human race, it's them and them alone where the blame must squarely rest!

o sung wu:

And there but for the grace of God go you!

Why keep propping up churches with the actions they have been found with. If they want to survive let the congregation pay the bills.

'I'm an atheist but I still can't quite understand why it's necessary for other atheists and non-believers to continually seek to condemn and pillory all those who believe in a God, Christianity or any other religious faiths? '

o sung su

I suspect that they know how patheticly weak their own belief/worldview system is. It holds up no moral compass and certainly no science to back it.

Cheers

I’m a Christian, but I find myself agreeing with most of Max’s argument. The churches as institutions can no longer expect to exercise much authority over public policy by virtue of their inherent authority or their interpretations of scripture. Even large numbers of self-described Christians are disregarding their teachings on social matters, as the low birth rates in Roman Catholic countries (suggesting widespread contraceptive use) and Ireland’s recent referendum vote for gay marriage attest.

If the churches want to argue for particular social policies – especially ones that apply coercively to everyone, believers or not - then they need to frame arguments that demonstrate why the community should accept that the policies are in its interests. “Leviticus says you shouldn’t” won’t cut it. They can still take principled stands based on Christian values, but if they can’t explain why those values are in the community interest they are probably on shaky theological ground anyway. The quote from T. David Gordon sums it up well.

Gandhi when asked what he thought about Christianity effectively replied, "I like Christ but not the Christians". As a Christian I agree with much the author wrote. It is up to me to try to demonstrate that Christ was who He said he was by what I do as a follower surely. China allegedly follows socialism however it is adroitly phrased by successive Party leaders as 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics'. This supposedly 'overcomes' any objections one may have as to why do they not follow their own Constitution on issues like freedom of speech, freedom of religion which is effectively only freedom if the Party is held to be 'God'. There are more Chinese Christians than the 70 million Communist Party members out of 1,300 million people and if they suffer more persecution the growth will be only be more rapid. The Party has replaced the emperors and the landowners as the ruling class but hey, Australia doesn't have a problem with that as it is not in our national interest to upset the hen that lays the golden resource-buying eggs [though the prices need to lift a bit and to hell with the Chinese economy problems otherwise Australians could suffer - shock horror!] Nor have successive Australian Prime Ministers EVER registered any real concerns about Indonesians 'colonizing' and raping resources and murdering 'freedom fighters' of West Papua. The sham 1,200 'representative vote' by Indonesia-'selected' indigenous leaders [encouraged by a gun on the table to vote in support of Indonesia taking over their country] was shock, horror endorsed by the United Nations and good 'ol John Kennedy who wanted to halt the possible threat of Communism taking over Indonesia. If one believes in Jesus Christ it would appropriate to say "Jesus wept!" If one doesn't believe perhaps change it to "Marx or Lenin or Bob Hawke, John Howard, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Brown et al wept!"

o sung wu clearly you are religious and not an Atheist as you suggest. Only the religious can read my post and not comprehend what I'm saying.

Clearly I don't think there is a God and so clearly I don't think god is to blame for the bad things that happen.

I was responding to runner typical silly religious comment that that the omnipresent god he believes in is responsible for all things... not a sparrow fall and all that.... however this omnipresent god is absent when evil is occurring. free will is shouted out "read runner post" as if that answer the question..how could a loving omnipresent god not intervene when a innocent child is being hurt?
I (the evil godless atheist) would intervene and even put my own safety at risk to save a child.But the likes of Runner want us to worship a god that can but chooses not to.

Give me a world run by the godless trying to make the world a better place every time, western culture is far superior to any theocratic hell hole.

This person calls himself a rationalist. How is it 'rational' to waste his time rabbiting on about things he doesn't believe in?
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 9:54:38 AM

Religion is a societal issue.

//how could a loving omnipresent god not intervene when a innocent child is being hurt?
I (the evil godless atheist) would intervene and even put my own safety at risk to save a child.But the likes of Runner want us to worship a god that can but chooses not to.//

Ahh, the problem of evil. Runner has still yet to put up a sound theological defence against the problem of evil, but we live in hope.

If I had a choice betwixt preserving my own worthless life or saving the life of one my worthy nephews, I'd choose suicide every time.

But runner would have us believe in a supposedly beneficient God who won't lift a single omnipotent, omnipresent finger to save one innocent newborn dying of smallpox.

Awesome God, runner: he's either lazy or an asshole, possibly both, but you still choose to worship him. It says more about you than it does about your imaginary friend.

G'day there CORNONACOB...

I might seem to be a believer but I'm not. It's just that people who are atheists, non believers or whatever, are constantly having a shot at those who DO believe in something ? It's as if the non believers feel threatened in some way and the method they employ to assuage their fears are to belittle those who do derive some measure of comfort from their belief in their particular God?

In the early days we'd drive through the inner city parks, Hyde Park and others, where the poor old indigent blokes would be lying about usually pissed out of their brains. This one particular bloke who was called 'wingy' he had no hands and forearms, had his artificial prosthesis removed, because he was always assaulting others with the hooks at the end of his prosthesis!

Anyway this night around 0330-45h old wingy asked me what'll happen on his death? I told him because he had nobody and no assets, the State would bury him as a pauper (directed by the Coroner). Wingy was delighted with that news ? It was then he told me he had believed in his God all his life and being interred as a pauper was no big deal, because Jesus and God would be able to find him no matter where he was to be interred, even in lonely unmarked grave? Wingy died about four or five months after I was transferred from the Central LAC. I suppose the poor ol' bastard is handing out floggings with the stumps of his arms wherever he may be?

There is no problem with evil Toni. You demonstrate your love of it. Thankfully people have been given a choice to choose. Most like yourself choose arrogance and self righteousness. Unfortunately nothing new. Some choose to humble themselves most like yourself are idiotic to console yourself that you are not quite as bad as the other fellow. You live in self deception.

//Thankfully people have been given a choice to choose.//

Ignoring your terrible grammar: who was it that made the Garden of Eden?

God. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And who put the fruit tree in the garden and said 'Don't eat any of the fruit.'?

God. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And who said 'Go on, one little bite won't hurt you'?

Well it wasn't Adam, and there is no reason to assume it was Eve. Caine and Abel weren't around then, so we can't put it down to childish pranks. Once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. We have three possible suspects, Adam, Eve and God. We have already eliminated both Adam and Eve, which points the finger squarely at God. A simple process of deduction, working from the available evidence.

So that was God too.

Basically, it all comes back to God... he's like Professor Moriarty on a cosmic scale.

Post Script:

Prof. James Moriarty was a clever man.

Gods preserve us from people who think they are clever men.

Runner writes; "yes so rational ttbn that he beleives order comes from chaos, life came from non life and laws don't require a Lawmaker."

You got the first two correct runner. As for your third assertion, the rational in society insist on a lower-case initial for lawmaker.

"So rational that the scientific facts on how unhealthy the homosexual lifestyle is (not),".......

You may be contradicting yourself here. But what dreadful sentence construction! You give the impression of being angry when writing your diatribe against rationality, one might say irrationally so.

......."how badly most kids do without dads,".......This is unworthy of you, even one so given to irrational statements as you. Does your "dads" refer only to biological fathers or do you include step-fathers and fosterfathers? Please be rational and present reference to the research that supports your assertion.

....... "and the fact that many non religous parents send their kids to religous schools".......

Again, an unsupported assertion. Present reference to the research that supports your assertion.

......." One gets the feeling that Max thinks he is smart enough to be God himself not having the intelligence to realise that He is reliant upon His Creator for his next breath."

What a low opinion you have of Max. I must advise though that rather than intelligence being the faculty required to identify the source of his next breath, I would point directly to the penchant for irrational grovelling self-delusion as the source if there must be one. The rational in society, of which Max seems to be a member, have no delusions whatsoever about creators, gods, ghosts, devils and polka-dotted giraffes on the dark side of the moon runner. There is a kind of contrived non sequitur in your paragraph quoted immediately above

runner writes; "I know Cobber that secularism likes to keep as many people as possible in the constant state of victimhood (look at the high paid white feminist). But sorry mate you are responsible for your own lust, greeds, rapes, kiddie fiddling or whatever sins you have committed. I suggest you go to the Only One qualified to forgive you."

I love it when theists present this kind of argument. If ever there was a blatantly contrived way of praising god for all the good things and execrating society and oneself for all the bad things then the "Free Will" fantasy is it. I've asked myself for many years how a relatively intelligent and rational human could possibly believe such piffle. Obviously it sits well in the scheme of "Original Sin". How are people convinced they are in effect worthless, sinful failures, given to sin, condemned to an eternal after-life of torture and anguish? cont.......

........The answer is as clear as crystal. Their developing minds are abused by being inculcated with this filthy doctrine from an early age. They are taught that they are responsible for all the terrible things that happen to them and their god gets all the credit for their accomplishments and all the good things that happen to them. Case in point: In Brazil a nine-year old girl is raped by her uncle and she becomes pregnant. Parents and doctors insist that giving birth at her age would almost certainly prove fatal. The Vatican sent two priests on a holy mission to council against abortion. Fortunately they were unsuccessful and the girl's life was preserved by doctors terminating the pregnancy. The family of the girl and the medical staff who performed the termination were all excommunicated. The offending uncle was not.

Anyone who can maintain their equaninity and agree with such an obscene occurrance surely is an insult to humankind and to decency, empathy and compassion, all traits that make us human. I'm sure many readers will remember the case, it was not that long ago.

The sooner religious faith is eradicated from human society and replaced with intellectual honesty and integrity, with passionate curiosity, with self-confidence, with wonder and awe at the numinous [when interpreted as surpassing understanding or comprehension, mysterious] then we might just be qualified to impose ourselves on the Cosmos. We court disaster if we bend our knee and tearfully beg guidance from a ghost in the sky before doing anything.

Dear Pogi,

Why would you want to impose yourself on the Cosmos?

This sounds to me equally irrational!

It is futile and nonsensical for Christians to try and convince others of the validity of Christ or God quoting scripture that others clearly do not believe. This is just plain nonsense as it would be to try and convince others that they must believe in Chinese Communism by quoting The Communist Party of China and/or Chairman Mao's Little Red Book of 'marvellous wisdom'?! The logic of science is first I see and then I 'may' believe. The logic of Christianity turns this around to first I believe and then I progressively [it is hoped] 'may' see and grow in accepting biblical truth including that for the world to be formed and all its miraculous diversification of creatures, us included, by the chance mutation of two cells from some slime from a swamp is about as scientific as accepting that 747 aircraft could be randomly assembled via evolution from a pile of junk from a salvaged machinery junkyard! How come apes are still apes and they haven't made the 'big evolutionary leap' to become human?

CIA
The presumption that your personal incredulity is of some significance to science reveals a conceit whose source must be irrational. No living cell suddenly announced the appearence of LIFE on Earth. Only a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry is required to understand this but obviously you are not convinced. However, it is in my nature to try to be helpful. The atomic structure of the chemical elements is such that some elements are attracted to others. Take water for example. The elements hydrogen and oxygen are naturally attracted to each other in the ratio of two atoms of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen. Thus we have H2 plus O, making H2O or di-hydrogen oxide which is the chemical name for water. The natural combination of these three atoms forms a MOLECULE of water. It is by means of the chemical molecule formed by chemical attraction that is believed by science to have been the precursor to life occurring on Earth. Whether in fresh water in lakes and ponds or in a salty water in the oceans, billions upon billions of chemical reactions occurred each day over several billion years. One or several different combinations, or molecules, developed the capability to replicate [make copies of] themselves possibly by absorbing other energy-giving molecules.

I am not a qualified scientist so if you seek more detail then my ability to provide it is highly problematic.

The correct combinations of chemicals has been a very active area of scientific research, particularly since WW2. Note, also particularly, that this science should cause your religious faith no serious concerns. If you like, it provides a scientific explanation of one of the "miracles" performed by your god. From your viewpoint, one conclusion that can be drawn from such a scenario is that your god does not expect his flock to limit their seeking knowledge of the Cosmos

CIA
As for your remarks concerning apes......drawing on a boundless enthusiasm for the scientific method of reasoning and a numinous awe of the natural world, I have concluded that an explanation may save you frequent future embarassment.

In evolution it is not claimed that an entire genus or species evolves into a different one. One of the most important causes for evolution to take place is for the environment/climate to change and thus act upon a local population of a certain species, putting the group and each individual under stress to adapt or die . Note; only the local population that lives within the boundaries of that environmen/climate change is affected, within that population individuals adapt to the change and pass that adaptive ability on to their progeny together with any genetic changes brought about by the stress of a live-or-die situation. In every other region populated by the species in question no change is wrought.

Over geologic ages certain pockets of a species may become isolated so that interbreeding with neighbouring populations of the same species may be prevented, thus severely reducing the genetic vigour of the isolated group by reducing genetic diversity, under these more subtle stresses evolution into a new species can occur also. Isolation can occur quite suddenly through vulcanism or earthquake or by permanent flooding of valleys or alteration of river courses by other geologic upheavals like mountan range building over longer periods.

Thus it can be can be clearly apprehended that entire species do not change into a new species uniformly and at the same time.

You should also be aware that it is not claimed by the science of evolution that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. It is a shame that you feel the need to continue with this infantile creationist furfey. In holding to this notion I believe you are in a minority among your creationist bretheren.

Pogi

you really don't know how unscientific your rant is. You seem to very confused with adaption to environment compared to crossing species. You are right that god deniers/evolutionist have been changing their narrative each time they are found out. As to your explanation on beginning please spare us such fantasy. Science requires a person to be able to reason not accept fairytales such as the big bang.

Dear Pogi,
Why would you want to impose yourself on the Cosmos?
This sounds to me equally irrational!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 January 2016 7:17:09 AM

Dear Yuyutsu,
Thankyou for your request for clarification. I take it that you are questioning my use of the word "impose".

IMPOSE: [1] To lay on or set as something to be borne, endured, obeyed or fulfilled. [2] To subject to some penalty. [3] To obtrude oneself or one's requirements.
OBTRUDE: ......obtrusive- undesirably obvious. Thus: to impose oneself or one's requirements in an undesirably obvious manner.

I used my son's well-worn high school MacQuarie Dictionary [He's an electrical engineer now. My own Oxford Concise 1964 ed. became lost in my relocation to the Philippines in 2012.]

Not only was I employing a kind of poetic license [which I prefer to call "lexical license"] but IMHO, [3] seems to cover our all consuming propensities when invading new worlds/lands wherein we seek to live, prosper and exploit usable resources, organic and inorganic.

Far from being irrational, I see use of the word in question to be unquestionably honest and totally devoid of PC mealy-mouthed hypocrisy.

runner writes; "you really don't know how unscientific your rant is. You seem to very confused with adaption to environment compared to crossing species."

Never mind runner, I'm quite confident of the simple outline I offered. It fits neatly with a very useful book SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM. A view from the National Academy of Sciences [USA] published 1999. There can be no doubt that it is you who is confused. You cannot escape the proof to be found in your published record. So please, save the creationist waffle for your co-delusionalists.

ADAPTATION...........not adaption.

"You are right that god deniers/evolutionist have been changing their narrative each time they are found out."

I made no such admission runner, and you know it. Scientific ideas are by the very nature of the scientific method, always subject to change in the light of new knowledge. That is an advantage your belief system is denied. The freedom of thought, inquiry and interpretation within science is infinitely superior in enhancing human advancement when compared with the awful intellectual religious environment of two or three thousand years ago in the Middle East. Religious faith's Use By Date is at hand runner. Less and less does humankind suffer fear of retribution or other punishment for not doing the right thing. More and more are we extolling the Golden Rule where no threats from a fire-breathing, vengeful god are necessary.

"As to your explanation on beginning please spare us such fantasy. Science requires a person to be able to reason not accept fairytales such as the big bang."

I made no comment on origins or beginnings. Please be assured, you are the last person to lecture anyone on how science should be conducted. It is fortuitous that you mention "fairy tales", for readers here see these as your avocation, your raison d'etre. I've observed over the past year or two that you're really quite adept at the nonsensical and the ridiculous
and I'm certain that you'll entertain us with many laughs in the future.

I'm sorry about your dislexia. I'll make allowances for it in the future.