Dear Aspley,

I feel sorry for you being a victim of secular propaganda, having been brainwashed into the false and violent concept of "nation".

---

Dear Spencer,

Although you seem religious, it appears that you accept the dictionary's secular recipe for "religion", lock stock and barrel.

While we, religious people, undergo a very real and profound process of transformation, the dictionaries grossly and mockingly attempt to present our process as some silly technical recipe with 'belief' as its main ingredient.

Why, for heaven's sake, would you want to go along and further build on their faulty definitions?

AJ Philips,

>>your insistence that I must be mistaken<<

I don’t remember insisting that you must be mistaken. Also, I do not know whether “your god” (just to return the compliment about “my god”) has a need to interfere with what an authoritative dictionary says, but God, as educated Christians see Him, certainly does not. And finally, I cannot answer for runner but from what he writes I do not think he would be offended if you said he adhered to a (Christian version of) religion; hence for him - and other Christians - “havig a religion” is not an invective.

Dear Yuyutsu,

So I misunderstood you, sorry. I was reacting to your “there comes the interesting moral question, whether one is obliged to tell the truth to tyrants … if your answer is 'No', then indeed you may tick any box, who cares.” I interpreted “ticking any box” as admission of a lie. Anyhow, tyrant or not (I do not see Australia as being governed by a tyrant) you are not telling the truth about yourself, only contributing to the collection of statistical data.

Of course, the question on religion does not have to be answered and when evaluating the results “no answer” and “no religion” might or might not be seen as meaning the same thing.

>>I strongly oppose any government-money handed for Hindu temples and educational institutes. <<

This is your personal view and it might be the default position among Hindu in India. In Western countries the situation is more complicated. Governmental financial support for Christian, Jewish or Muslim run schools etc is based on perceived mutual benefits. Should the Government come to the conclusion that this support is not for the good of the general public (that the Parliament is supposed to represent and the Government serve) - as maintained, for instance, by a number of debaters also here - then it will cease.

The census results are only marginally related to the pressure put on religious groups to “politically correctly” conduct their activities.

George,

You need to understand that more can be said and communicated than what is spoken through actual words. There is the explicit, and then there’s the implicit.

<<I don’t remember insisting that you must be mistaken.>>

No, you have not said that I am mistaken, let alone insistently. But the fact that you are still here and have appealed to the authority of those at Oxford (without addressing my reasoning) as a rebuttal to my niggle with your apparent endorsement of the third listed definition suggests otherwise.

<<Also, I do not know whether “your god” (just to return the compliment about “my god”) has a need to interfere with what an authoritative dictionary says, but God, as educated Christians see Him, certainly does not.>>

This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. When was it that I mentioned your god?

<<And finally, I cannot answer for runner but from what he writes I do not think he would be offended if you said he adhered to a (Christian version of) religion; hence for him - and other Christians - “havig a religion” is not an invective.>>

Of course he wouldn’t be offended, but that’s beside my point. The fact of the matter is that many theists refer to atheism (and other various -isms that so often offend them, like climate change) as a religion in order to vilify it.

Spencer

5.

Re: Your last objection to my post:

"You say, ‘Most secular people are united in wanting an end ot the conspicuous privileging of outdated and largely irrelevent Christian religious beliefs in our society’. This is an example of your promotion of a straw man fallacy against the accurate content of Christianity."

It's not a straw man. It's undeniable that Christianity is given privileges in our society. Prayers in Parliament, RI, Chaplaincy, Government funding, exemptions from anti-discrimination law, tax free status (just for being religious - not tied to charity or public benefit) and so on. These are all privileges granted to Christianity and or religious beliefs in general.

"Accurate content of Christianity"? Please! Whatever could you mean? The unverifiable metaphysical claims? The fact that even Christians can't agree with each other on the basic beliefs. Was Jesus born of a virgin? IS there a Hell? Which discrepant gospel is true?

DOes it not occur to you that the "accurate content" you speak of is founded upon unprovable assertions. As a well known physicist once said - unverifiable claims are "not even wrong."

This article raises fundamental philosophical questions about what is reality? how do we actually measure and thus define it without getting too carried away with semantics.

Our concepts of reality are not defined by what we perceive via our 5 senses here on earth either. After all, "reality" is literally everything. Just ask any qualified astronomer how increasingly complex and bewildering outer space is, and that is only with the current technology we have to observe and test it with..

Take something relatively simple like radio waves, you can't perceive them without the right tool, eg. radio receiver. So it is with our understanding or even acceptance of God or the source of everything in existence, without the right "tool" or "tools" we will never know or begin to know of God or the source. Religion is but one tool.

I'd suggest a visit to www.reasons.org to see some enlightening articles about science and religion.

'DOes it not occur to you that the "accurate content" you speak of is founded upon unprovable assertions'

Sounds very much like secularism RationalRazor. The big bang fantasy, the gw fraud, the feminist dogmas. Yeah I am sure all secularist, scientist and feminist are at one.