Molly, I would vote according to concience, which takes into account the amazing dimensions of a new life growing in the womb. I would MUCH prefer to see that conceived child born into the world and make some childless couple incredibly happy for a lifetime, than flush a mass of wrecked human tissue down the toilet simply because some dear soul decided that this new life was an intrusion into her priority list and that suddenly the man who's life is also in that child is invisible or not relevant. So, if that vote would deny you an abortion, sorry but yes thats how it would be.
The greens policy before the last election included some stuff about making it compulsory for medical facilities to offer abortion including religious ones, because of discrimination issues. So THEIR vote, would have forced my mob to committ what we regard as murder.
I have little sympathy for the 'your imposing your beliefs on us' crowd, because that is always a 2 way street. We get it every day.

JOHN you appear to have ignored so much in your attempt to 'fit' religion into your theory. The resurrection of Christ and the conversion of Saul may not seem very important to you, but last time I checked, those events had sufficient impact on history that we now calculate our DATES from those 'insignificant' events. Its 2005 years from ?.. yes, from those external events, which you may well try to 'squeeze' into your brain chem/evolutionary theory but the image of sqaure pegs in round holes comes to mind.
I could woffle on about personal experiences, but as soon as one is removed by just one degree from the actual event, the tendency is to be cynical and skeptical right ? You are relying on 'eye witness' testimony. So, I won't waste my time.

Brett, ur Jewish ? awesome. You have an amazing heritage if you are decended from one of the tribes. Cohens are and Levi's. I'm going to VCAT to get a book by Sasha Cohen banned (gospel according to Ali G)

I've been away for a few days.

I note that noone has yet explained how self-replicating organisms first evolved.

Evolution is a non-starter - it is pseudoscientific nonsense.
It is a fairy-tale for grown-ups.

John Warren wrote:
"My reference to Aslan in the mirror was meant to make the point that his/her birth, development and death was an example of evolution just as the birth, development and death of stars is evolution in action. One can’t demonstrate anything by evolution, only understand things that start, develop and die by recognizing that they are undergoing a process of evolution."

What total rubbish! Organism growth is not evolution! And it is certainly no proof that "simple" organisms evolved into more complex ones. The genetic code in my first 2 cells is no different to what it is today.

Warren writes:
"How does our mind have all its thoughts, memories and images? I accept that it is the result of the activity of the billions of cells in the brain. If you have a damaged brain you will have damaged thoughts."

If all thoughts are simple electronic pulses and/or chemical reactions then how do you account for morality? In other words, how do we determine what is right and wrong? If my brain's impulses tell me that rape is OK then what right do you or anyone else have to tell me its wrong, or to punnish me?

While it's quite entertaining reading the godbotherers' continuing efforts to fit the square peg of superstition into the round hole of reason, I really must offer a simple refutation of one of Boaz's silly statements from his last post. As I recall, the scurrilous twaddle he presents as Greens abortion policy was based on a well-discredited article in one of the tabloid rags, which was taken up gleefully by Family First and further distorted from numerous pulpits around the country. Those people seem to have problems discerning fact from fiction in all things, it seems.

For the record, the Australian Greens policy with respect to abortion is:

"The Australian Greens will work towards:

...3.15 repealing all laws which restrict the right of women to choose abortion and which restrict access to services

3.16 ensuring access to legal, affordable, humane and safe abortion for all women, and provision of counselling pre- and post-termination."

Nothing there about forcing anybody to do anything.

Morgan

Thanx Morgan, I accept that mild rebuke :) and I did look for it in the greens policy statements but ran out of time, and went with the assumption. I was wrong. Pretty rare in my case not to have solid facts behind my woffling. As I see your statement of their policy, I can see where the story came from. "Repeal any laws which restrict access", could conceivably mean that discrimination based on religious sensibilities would be illegal, hence the 'forcing' story eh ?

But as for John Warrens approach to our brains and existence. I seriously doubt that he has considered the moral implications of it. i.e. that there can 'be' no such idea as morality with any more force than "we think this is a good idea".

But if that were the only reason for having faith in Christ, it would be rather stupid and naive. The question would always be there in the heart "I know this is just a story, but its convenient and comforting to believe it". This is the point Paul makes when he says "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we, of all men are most to be pitied". This is rather forceful and confrontational to the 'comfort religion' mentality. His reasoning here is that we are in a pitiful state, because our faith is based on the resurrection of Christ, which if just a myth, makes us a pack of dills in the extreme :)
He knew the risen Lord, encountered him so forcefully that he turned from being an SS style mass murderer to the one who wrote in
1 Corinthians 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2
And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes we speak to win an argument, rather than win a soul. Forgive us.

Boaz
But as for John Warrens approach to our brains and existence. I seriously doubt that he has considered the moral implications of it. i.e. that there can 'be' no such idea as morality with any more force than "we think this is a good idea".

Even if John hasn't atheists deal with this every day yet again do you see them running around doing anything they want? So much for needing a 'God' to act morally.

Nor can you come up for any substantive reasons why your 'God' is the real deal and not a myth like all the others.

BTW I don't expect you to reply you don't have an answer anyway.

Since we already know that a myraid of metal states and functions have their origins in the physiology of the brain, from memory to emotions it is not a big leap to include religious experience as well.

Nor does a materialistic account detract from the richness or meaning we can give our experiences, it just gives it its proper context and those of us that can deal with it just go on enjoying our lives.

Neohuman,

Glad you agree that Warren hasn't thought about the moral implications. You are right that atheists/materialists don't go around doing what they want. They are of course being inconsistent. So why is that?

Answer: Because their materialist worldview is unliveable. It leads to absurdity.

You wrote:
"Nor does a materialistic account detract from the richness or meaning we can give our experiences, it just gives it its proper context and those of us that can deal with it just go on enjoying our lives."

So you don't see any problem with a paedophile gaining a richness of meaning from his experience of molesting a child if he can deal with it and go on enjoying molesting children?