I left the Methodist church and became an atheist in 1955, when I was 13. My position now is that it doesn't matter whether or not there is a God or gods, we each have to take responsibility for our own development and ability to live in harmony with others. I support Muehlenberg's stance and think that to force these changes on churches and any other body is disharmonious and puts sectarian (in this case, extreme left-wing) doctrine ahead of contributing to a society in which each person can develop their own wisdom and understanding and then act within that framework, subject of course to reasonable legal and societal constraints.

Hi Faustino,

Wow, talk about parallel lives. I agree that people should be free to believe or not, as they wish, provided that any advocacy or incitement arising from their beliefs be dealt with by the law. Any attempts, in the name of some set of beliefs, to subvert people's basic rights, equality before the law, especially that of men and women, etc., should be punished severely.

As an atheist, of course I believe that religion is a very poor basis for belief - that science, and its evidential base, is vastly superior. Evidence trumps belief, just as science trumps magic. But some moral precepts based on religion can be better than nothing at all.

As an aside, one thing I really like about OLO is that some contributions make you think about your own ideas and understandings, and what their basis may be. This thread is one good example. Knocking around Indigenous affairs for fifty-odd years, I've learnt to be sceptical about 'belief', about taking what someone says, narrative, oral story, as truth. If it's backed by some evidence, either documentary or actual physical and forensic, okay, but I've learnt to suspend belief otherwise. Frankly, I've heard so much bullsh!t from Aboriginal people.

For example, the 'Stolen Generation': in my investigations of mission and settlement records, protector's letters, school records, etc., I've found very little or no evidence of completely unwarranted removal of children (see web-site: firstsources.info). Children whose mothers had died, yes. Children whose fathers had died, yes. One parent or the other who shot through, yes. Children who quite possibly had at least one alcoholic parent, yes. Children from very large families with a dodgy bread-winner, yes. AND children taken into care for a year or less, YES, usually, then back on the settlement.

But the problem with evidence is that it loses you friends. People prefer to believe. People prefer plausible narratives. But evidence is a pointer to the truth. Narrative is pretty worthless without evidence.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, more parallels. I was advised from a supportive insider that I was seen as a threat by Queensland Treasury heads et al because of my "honesty, integrity, intellect and analytical rigour," which constantly exposed the failings in what they sought to pursue. But those things were far more important to me than playing the insider-outsider games necessary for promotion or even fair treatment.

Hi Faustino,

"Honesty, integrity, intellect and analytical rigour" ? They won't get you very far in some organisations. Total loyalty, slight incompetence, absolutely no initiative - these will take you a long way in many of them. I envy people who have had a good boss, someone who rewards work and ideas, who actually adds to your motivation.

Actually I have had one like that, a lovely bloke - after he retired he started up the Men's Sheds concept. A joy to work with. One time, when all uni schools had to re-choose Heads, he stepped out of the school meeting, his deputy took over, asked for nominations, his was the only one, the deputy asked for discussion, there was none, the deputy put it to the vote which was unanimous and the bloke was back in the room in two minutes. Those were the days.

Cheers,

Joe

runner, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 5:55:31 PM

"How else can secularist dumb down those who are taught to think for themselves."
Despite being affronted by a question violently stripped of its correct punctuation, I did indulge myself a modest guffaw of incredulity at runner's astounding observation that the religiously afflicted are the original and progressive thinkers in society.

"The Govt will still insist on Christians paying taxes and want to dumb down and make Christian schools like some of the zoos they have created."

It would be quite amusing to see a case made for christians to be exempted from paying taxes [yes, even the taxes they don't pay now]. And similarly to see one made for the dumbing process that arouses such angst.

"And then we came from slime (must admit regressives are the best evidence for this)"

Is it any more uplifting really to come from the dust of the Earth than to come from slime? The latter is immeasurably farther along the evolutionary path than is dirt, even if we are all made of the same stuff as the stars.

"......and have no moral conscience."

Approximately 99% of prison inmates world-wide have moral consciences. Secularists, humanists, atheists etc, according to runner's dictum, do quite well without moral consciences in society.
Of course, runner's irrational and idiotic hyperbole has no source in a moral conscience but its origins can be sourced to a deeply inculcated bigotry of the type used to infect very young minds. And in speaking of sources, it is one of considerable regret to the non-religious that so many erstwhile useful minds are rendered virtually useless by being "taught to think for themselves" as runner so mirthfully put it.

"Andrews wants the irrational idiotic immoral ideologies of secularism brainwashing anyone who can think."

Oh, those awful secularists! Stomping all over runner's moral consciences! Is there no surcease to their headlong pursuit of ideological putrefaction?

Permit me to apologise for my rampant hyperbole but runner's closing sentence aroused an involuntary guffaw again and provoked me to satire. Poor runner, he really is a fruit-cake.

Some atheists here are clearly missing the point when they say schools shouldn't receive government funding if they want to be discerning in whom they would employ.

Bill M has well shown up the nonsense and inconsistency in this thinking by pointing out that it somehow isn't going to apply to political parties, for instance. The Labor party won't be forced to employ Liberal voters. Yet political parties do receive a lot of tax-payer funding. There are lots of groups across the spectrum that receive much government funding, yet the Andrews Labor government is aiming its guns squarely at Christians.

I don't see how any Christian or anyone keen on our civil freedoms could want to vote Labor in Victoria.

Most Christian tax payers would gladly receive zero tax dollars given towards their private schools if in return they could get a tax credit or proportional reduction in their tax levy. Yet our state doesn't work like that. No government currently would accept that. They want the Christians' tax dollars.