ttbn,

Atheism and agnosticism address different questions. They’re not mutually exclusive:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MDZPs8ROJXE/TNx7UFqbaII/AAAAAAAAB9M/XDfxPwyBVpA/s1600/Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png

Welcome back to atheism, though you never really left us.

Joe,

I disagree that an ethical foundation would be harder to achieve without gods or their priests. I see no reason why empathy alone could not be a sufficient (or even superior) foundation for ethics. Ironically, religion is one of the only phenomena that is capable of eroding empathy.

As for Mother Teresa, she was not the saint that she was made out to be. Mother Teresa was a cruel and cynical person who left dying people to suffer without pain relief or adequate care because she believed in the virtues of suffering. Her hospices were conversion factories in which it was hoped that conversion could be achieved by emulating the suffering of Christ. Hitchens wrote a book about it (http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/1455523003).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nCaxHN-cY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa

Great post!
This is basically the thing that makes me changing from someone who's being raised Christian to an agnostic. I still do believe that God, or someone out there that's basically beyond our understanding, exist. But I've always believe that religion is something that is being made by human. People nowadays use religion as an excuse of anything and to differentiate one person to another.

Gary Red,
The Blinds Gallery
http://theblindsgallery.com.au/products/awnings/

Religions seem to reflect the societies that believe in them.
As societies become more compassionate, enlightened and
educated the punitive side of their religion is replaced
with forgiveness and understanding.

The separation of church and state is what allowed this to happen
in Western Societies. Because people could defy the churches rules
and couldnt be sentenced to death for blasphemy etc.

People eventually defied the church on contraception, because the church had no power to
torture or kill the dissenters. That power rested in the hands of the elected politicians,not
in the hands of priest dictatorships.
Priest dictatorships, interested only in shoring up their own positions and power bases
using the wombs of women like factory conveyer belts.

Western society, can probably trace this separation of church and state back
to the despicable, Henry the Eighth.
It meant that the Kings and Queens had the power of life and death not the
churches.

We all know that eventually the Kings handed power to the people:- elected
parliaments.

And so the people had power over their family lives and bedrooms again
and not the church. They no longer had to struggle in poverty to feed
6-10kids

Perhaps the muslims would have fared better, with a King, like Henry the Eighth.
Women benefitted from his separation of church and state, although not until
a few centuries later.

I got off the subject a bit after reading some of the other posts.

Yes, there is a definite culture of appeasement towards the muslims by
certain, left wing, hippy love and peace types.

It also strikes me as the well known -"blame the victim mentality"

If they attack us, then we must have done something to provoke it,the
mentality being, if we make them feel more welcome and dont criticise
their centuries old beliefs, then we'll be safe.

The reality, that they actually do hate us and will kill us no matter what we do or dont
do, is just too scary for them to believe.
They want to believe they can control things,it doesnt compute with
their fairy la la land that people will love you if you are nice to them and so we
can have peace and love on earth, although that has never happened in all
of earths history..

Hi Cherful,

Yes, when you think about it, many ancient and backward societies presupposed EITHER the absolute control by the church/temple/mosque over the internal affairs of the family, OR the absolute control by the King/State over the internal affairs of the family, OR both at once, (in what they called Caeesaropapism, i.e. the power combination of both a king and a pope).

The long struggle for human rights in Western societies, really from Roman times, the equal rights of the peasant/worker AND the ruler, the equal rights of women and men, has painfully inched forward. What rights we have now shouldn't be devalued, as if a society can choose rights A or B or C, at will. No, any rights diminished or taken away historically are seized back with enormous difficulty.

And the rights of Australians are the precious heritage of ALL Australians, including Muslims, inkling Muslim women. Nobody should have the power to diminish those rights, no imam, no self-proclaimed sheikh or emir or caliph. We have to fight for the safeguarding of those rights for ALL Australians, including those who wear hijabs or nikabs.

If any of those assorted imams can't get that through their heads, and behind the scenes still try to pervert the legal rights of our fellow-citizens, then they should face the penalties of the law, whether it's child marriage, multiple marriage, honor killings, genital mutilation or any deprivation or diminution of the rights of women.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Cherful,

There's a brilliant article on this theme by Paul Monk, in today's Australian.

Joe