Paul, ya dill. The sentence you quoted was from Banjo.

BTW I never said Trump was God. He's much more important than that!! Although Niall Ferguson did opine that Trump's comeback was the biggest since Christ's resurrection

Hi Banjo

I agree with much of what you say, and will happily accept the wording “in Roman Catholicism, the priest is believed to be an intermediary ...” I try to avoid presenting desires, suppositions, and opinions as established facts.

The existence (or otherwise) of God is not something that can be proved like a mathematical equation or scientific hypothesis. But this does not mean that people of faith should not be able to act as individuals or in communities in accordance with their beliefs, or to participate in public debate and policymaking in ways that are influenced by those beliefs.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made what I find a useful distinction between “procedural” and “programmatic” secularism.
http://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-graded-levels-of-christian-allegiance/

“Procedural” secularism says that no religion or denomination is our official or state religion, and public policy should not seek to advantage or disadvantage any religion or religious group. I fully support this. “Programmatic” secularism says that religion is a purely private and personal matter and has no place in the public sphere. I don’t support this. For many people, faith is important in shaping how they see the world and society, their morality and values. Being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist is not just about what people think and feel; it’s about who they are and what they do.

Other posters have noted that religious rights and freedoms are a subset of broader rights and freedoms that apply to us all as individuals and groups. I don’t think religious considerations or organisations deserve any more, or less, respect than non-religious ones

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« " To the best of my knowledge, nobody in this great wide world has, to this day, proven beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is a God or gods."

Nor has anyone proven beyond all reasonable doubt that there ISN'T a deity. »
.

That’s correct, mhaze. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever proven nor disproven the God hypothesis.

The origin of the concept dates back to primeval man as an explanation of natural phenomena such as lightning, thunder, floods, bushfires, volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, and the occasional meteorite over which they had no control. They imagined there was an invisible god behind each of nature’s physical features and terrifying manifestations and elaborated a strategy to honour, worship, and placate the gods with offerings, supplications, and sacrifices – which later developed into what we call religion today.

But while it is true that no proof or disproof of the God hypothesis has, so far, been forthcoming, I’m sure you will have noted that I purposely limited my remark to the lack of proof that there is a deity – the reason being that the onus of proof is on the affirmation of [something], not on the lack of affirmation.

The affirmation that [something] exists requires proof. No affirmation that [something] exists requires no proof.

A affirms that God exists. B does not affirm that God exists. A must provide proof of his affirmation. B has not affirmed that God exists and therefore has nothing to prove in this regard – irrespective of whether he agrees with A or not.

The following version of Bertrand Russell’s flying teapot explains the famous analogical argument quite well :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO667BQ8LHA

.

Banjo Patterson,

<<On the world scene, 152 countries are described as secular in their constitutions or other official state documents – Australia being one of those countries. Another 78 countries have an official state religion – the UK being one of them.>>

So what? I live my life by my own rules and rarely think about constitutions when making decisions. I shouldn't feel forced to live according to one either.

<<Secular countries do not impose religion on anybody, nor do they prohibit anybody from adhering to a religion and actively participating in it. Their duty is to ensure that each party respects the freedom of the others.>>

Sadly, this isn't always the case. People are often restricted from practicing religion, and many activities limit others' freedoms, often negatively.

<<Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic believers as well as those who do not profess any religion or belief.>>

While this may be true, many governments ignore these protections. Look at global legislation: the violation of rights is evident. Refugees fleeing persecution because of their culture, religion, or ethnicity often face further penalties or restrictions once they reach another country.

<<It is a balancing act that is impossible to realise to everyone’s entire satisfaction and requires a concerted effort of tolerance on the part of all.>>

I agree. Protecting religious freedom is essential, but all freedoms must be safeguarded as core principles in our lives.

<<Despite Australia’s secularity, all our state and federal parliaments read the Lord’s Prayer at the start of each sitting day – with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory....>>

This ritual, performed by a small group of politicians, is largely symbolic. It doesn't reflect their actions in parliament. If they truly cared about freedoms, they wouldn’t support laws that restrict people’s lives. I don’t see these politicians as genuinely religious.

Finally, as our society becomes more self-centered, combined with a growing disregard for intellect, those who are taking action for change in challenging times need protection. This of course includes religious freedoms.

Just to clear the table, I'm an agnostic on the issue of whether there is or isn't a deity.

Its the standard argument from the atheist that God must be proven. But why? For the theist, God is already proven...to them. I know many a Christian who talks to their God daily. For them he's real and requires no proof. For them, they argue that the proof is there for you to see if you are open to seeing it. Without getting too preachy, they'd argue that if you open you heart and mind to God then you'll receive the proof. But if your level of proof is that they need to turn water into wine in your presence, or raise the dead, then your level of proof is wrong.

But the atheist community accepts all sorts of things that aren't proven but are nonetheless accepted as true without proof. Big Bang; evolution; dark matter; dark energy; life from non-life etc. Their explanation for the origin of everything is no more proven or provable than is the theists explanation, but accepted without question. Indeed not only accepted but used as a cudgel to beat those who don't accept it.

The universe being created by an immortal being is no more provable than the universe being created by an unexplained explosion. Man being the result of a bazillion random mutations is no more provable than man being created by a superior intellect.

Treating one as fact and the other as flights of fantasy to be ridiculed is clearly wrong but oh so very modern and elitist.

You say people asserting a deity need to prove it (to your satisfaction). Well someone asserting that everything came from nothing and evolved by mere chance need to prove that.

Oh, you can't? Well then, each are equally valid, or more exactly each one of us is open to choosing which of the unproven and unprovable stories best fits their understanding of reality.

I'm one of those who says a prayer daily. I also talk
to God. However, for me it's a personal and private
matter, and I don't want to convert anybody. There are lots
of things that science can't explain - such as the meaning
of life. And, for that reason religion will be around for
some time yet. As it's always been.