Then there’s the continuous thought in the back of the child’s head that not believing in creationism could result in an angry god because of the literal interpretation they’ve been taught (Although this would be a less direct method).

Of course a child uncritically believes what their parents tell them. This is a build-in survival mechanism; a by-product of evolution that is (ironically) abused by fundamentalists. The problem is when the uncritical acceptance is carried through to adulthood because the child was taught that they shouldn’t question religion.

I realise you didn’t say that it was possible to indoctrinate into atheism. I just thought the comparison was a bit silly because atheism doesn’t have a doctrine like the others do.

I entirely agree with your definition of creationism. Shadow Minister has said very well why I have a problem with the term “evolutionism”. It’s an invalid term as far as I’m concerned. I can think of no one - not even someone like Richard Dawkins - who believes in or practices “evolutionism” as you have described.

I admit that my third last paragraph was not as clear as it should have been. Essentially what I was saying, was that had it not been for the place that religion has established itself in society, and the undeserved respect that it has (and thus our immunity to abhorrent religious teachings such as telling a child that they potentially face an eternity of hell if they stray), I see no reason why telling a child such a thing would legally be considered psychological abuse, as it has been know to cause anxiety problems and is an abhorrent thing to do.

Religion is not completely “untouchable”, but as I just said, it has itself an undeserved respect. We’re not really supposed to question someone’s faith simply because it is their ‘faith’. On top of all that, churches remain tax free for absolutely no good reason at all.

You may accept that the concept of ‘hell’ is an outdated bit of mythology, but you are in a very small minority there.

AdamD (among others) apparently believes that if you do not believe in evolution, you are a fool.
Runner (among others) apparently believes that if you do not believe in creationism, you will burn (literally, BURN) in hell.
FOREVER.
And this will be the act of a benevolent, loving God.
Personally, I'm quite proud that Australia does not (even) have the death penalty.
The Christian God is not a Christian.

AdamD,
I liked my definitions of evolutionism and creationism because they emphasized where both these extremes - examples of both abound on this forum - were wrong. You do not like, them, OK. What you referred to as evolutionism is not what I had in mind, so let us skip the word at all. Similarly creationism, and just keep the two extremes - those who use their belief in God to oppose the scientific theory of evolution and those who use the scientific theory of revolution to oppose the possibility of a religious belief in a Creator God - unnamed, as awkward as it is to refer to positions that do not have simple names.

I agree that Dawkins would not like to be called an evolutionist - your definition or mine - the same as the Pope would not like to be called a creationist. John Paul II allegedly wanted to use the Big Bang as an explanation of how the world was created, until cosmologists persuaded him that it would not work. Richard Dawkins uses neo-darwinism as an explanation why the world could not have been created, but nobody seems to have explained it to him that it does not work. So Dawkins comes closer to what I called an “evolutionist“ than JPII to what could have been called a “big-bangist”.

I am not sure what experience you had with religious education of children at home: it sound like something from the far away past, at least as far as the mainstream denominations are concerned. Looking at the Sunday church attendance (in Australia or Europe) it does not seem to me that many young people had been brought up “not to question religion“. It would rather suggest that too many have been told (by school, by the media) not to question the incompatibility of religious orientation (faith) - or even memebership of a Church - with a scientific outlook.

The ATO would not provide tax exemptions for religious organisations unless it though it beneficial to all Australians. However, that is a different bone of contention.

George wrote: "The ATO would not provide tax exemptions for religious organisations unless it though it beneficial to all Australians."

Dear George,

I think you have an unreasoning faith in the ATO.

The Tax free status of the church dates back to the time before church and state were separated.

It is time to dispose of this anachronism.

George,

What on earth is neo Darwinism?

Also while evolutionism as defined only applies to a tiny fraction of those that believe in evolution (perhaps < 1% as I have never met one) and is rejected by most of us that simply believe that evolution is a sound scientific theory, Creationism has a vast and malignant following that are not content to keep their beliefs to themselves but feel obligated to impose it on others.

Dear George,

Yes, I do like your definition of creationism. I was, at first, a little surprised to see you use a term like “Evolutionism” (and now “Neo-Darwinism”), because they are terms that are now predominantly used by creationists in a desperate attempt to degrade evolution and those who accept it. You’re more intelligent than that.

In regards to Dawkins, I actually said that I don’t see even him fitting your definition of “Evolutionism”. Like Shadow Minister, I do not know of anyone who fits that description. Not on this forum; not anywhere.

Yes, there are extremes on both sides. But it sounds as though you not only believe that there is an equal amount of extremists on both sides, but that the extremism on the atheist side (nowadays - not including Marxism) is actually comparable to the religious extremists. All I can say is that I strongly disagree. Atheism alone simply does not have the power to delude that religion has (this alone should ring alarm bells to any intelligent person like yourself), and we can see this on these forums.

I have to agree with david f and Shadow Minister too on the taxation issue. But you are right, that is a different bone of contention that I do not wish to go into here.

As for my upbringing, you are way off the mark I’m afraid. I attended a boringly average and traditional protestant church and my parents never forced their beliefs on to me. They were very loving and accepting of whatever I believed. They did, however, tell me that I shouldn’t question god’s existence. It made sense to me at the time, but I soon grew up and realised why I wasn’t supposed to question god’s existence.

(Cont’d)