here's a quote from jfk's campaign, which seems like a good description of how a nation should be run, if the national aim is justice and simple fair play.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Kennedy told the Houston ministers, "where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials."

here in oz, very different views have prevailed. i suspect that diverting public funds to religious institutions is divisive. i strongly suspect that diverting public funds to private schools is even more divisive. yet it is winning politics in a parliamentary state. it's a perfect example of special interests feeding off the common purse: parliamentary politics in a nutshell.

if you wonder where your taxes go, they are bled off into many special interests to re-elect pollies, the residue is spent on the nation.

Demos

If the State system was not so hopelessly flawed I and many others would probably agree you. The fact is that the State system has been hijacked by green worshippers and feminist. That is not a very attractive option even for many non believing parents. Many have voted with their feet not wanting the fruit of this philosophy poisoning the minds of their kids. I can't blame them.

Demos

Your thread prompts a vague memory of mine when in the 60s in NSW, all private schools threatened to shut down and instruct their pupils to turn up at state schools for tuition. More than likely it was to do with insufficient government grants.

Since state school education systems at present are a mess, imagine thousands of private school kids enrolling en masse there. What a nightmare.

Therefore I am not opposed to recurring government grants for private school tuition. I believe it incurs the least stress on the public purse.

However, I am concerned over religious and special groups infiltrating and influencing members of our houses of parliament and receiving special favours and public money as a result of their "charity" status.

The multi-million dollar establishment, Hillsong, comes to mind. No doubt they are enjoying their tax-free status and the generous "plate" collections (cheque, credit card or cash) from their sycophantic, adoring parishioners.

Praise the Lord - hallelujah, hallelujah!

While I agree fully that politics and religion should never mix, the only way to safeguard this is to have athiest politicians. Then none would follow any religious agenda based on their own beliefs and convictions. The down side is that this would attract more leftists into politics.

People upholding Christian or Islamic values could not allow their children to be indoctrinated in atheism. Atheism is just as harmful as any doctrine of human behaviour based in Theism or Buddahism. Examples are demonstrated in the former USSR, China and North Korea where the State endeavour to eradicate any form of faith other than Atheism.

Demos it is simple and staright foward. Religion in politics is corruption. Religion is a politicalloy correct word for superstition and it goes against the role of a representitive in a democracy to enforce his or her taboo's and rituals onto innocent people.

I truley believe there is also an intellectual competence issue associated with politicians who allow their superstitious beliefs dominate their lives. We as a community would ask that somebody who suffers a mental illness who suffers delusions and hallucinations to step down as it would effect their capacity to do that job (unless it were controlled by medication). Yet the belief in God and the belief in stories such as those in the Bible or Quran or Hindu scripture is no different. How can a person be trusted to represent us when they listen to voices in their heads, look for signs in random patterns to make decisions or follow orders from ignorant priests who's job it is is to serve the interests of another organisation , a church?

Religious people will always dictate to others but will never listen and this has been strongly demonstrated by both religious leaders and leaders who are religious.

A persons superstition should not matter in private but religion rightfully is not tolerated in the workplace and it should not be tolerated in the political workplace.

Philo, I don't know about being indoctrinated into atheism. I found atheism to be the best path in life when I rejected all religion and followed logic instead. I didn't need a crutch to get through life.

How is atheism harmful? The truth makes you free.

Jack it sounds like you and West have a real proplem and are fighting a lost cause. Both Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Rudd have religious convictions. West's Politics actually identifies his religious convictions. Both Politics and Religion are based in opinions and values of conviction. West is on a mission to indoctrinate with atheism.

Jack what you abandoned I suggest was not a true discovery of God.

Goodness, Philo! - 'both politics and religion are based in opinions and values of conviction'?
You write as though you have zero awareness of the difference between dealing with the real world and dealing with one thrust upon us by our forebears and their - yes, it can't be gainsaid - superstitions.
I'm sure you do realise the difference, so you should probably not try to make a philosophical point out of so spurious an argument.

Philo, again I must clarify that no-one indoctrinated me into atheism. It was an educated decision based on my own life experience and observations. I put scientific discoveries and theories (evolution etc) ahead of superstition and handed-down stories.

How do you see this as a problem? Or a lost cause?

Religion has been one of the major causes of conflict for most of recorded history.

As for Howard and Rudd having 'religious convictions', why should that make any difference to my beliefs? Not all politicians seem to have to bare their holiness to us. Funny how the ones that do so come out at election time.

Politics includes laws on human behaviour and their application and enforcement in a society. The constitution of that society will determine how they will live together in anarchy, or for harmony, justice and mercy or some other value system. That society will be based upon value judgments on what is suitable behaviours.

For instance: On what occasions if any is the death penalty applied?
When one steals land?
When one steals property?
When one steals someone else's wife?
When one attempts to changes a tribal opinion?
When one defects to another tribe?
When one plans the overthrow of government or rules of that society?
When one murders another in that society?
When one plots with a neighbouring tribe?
There are no rules and killing is normal behaviour?
The death penalty is never applied under any circumstance?

In all these cases they are based upon a value system. Religion is the value system upon which a society functions. In the above example these are opinions or a set of values about an offending human life [if considered offending].

Jack,
Upon what scientific evidence did you conclude there is no God? God is not formed by chemistry. God stands outside any formed matter, time and space. God is spirit revealed in character, attitudes, behaviours, wisdom, insight, primarily in the history [HIS STORY] of human behaviour.

You tell me what behaviours determine your admiral values or offend your judgments and I will tell you what religion you are.

Philo, existence of God is illogical. Who made God? Why? How? When?
Where is he?

As for your last part, what are you trying to prove? I have no religion. Atheism is not a religion, it is an absence of religion.

Here's your scientific evidence - the religious are continuously moving the goalposts. They refused to believe the world was a sphere for centuries, then accepted it as fact. Then God was floating above the Earth until we had space travel. Now the religious are grudgingly partly accepting the theory of evoulution. What will the next step be..God used evolution to create man?

Jack the lad,
Your ignorance and immaturity of your own existence is showing.

I'll ask you one question. Why are you here? Answer that and you will identify your religion. A religion is a system of beliefs and practises on how you feel your person and society best operates.

Tell me what value does your personal life hold in the universe?

Also from my previous posting - on what occasions would you see fit to take anothers life?

Is your mind totally self absorbed or does it have a relationship to a community?

Theism deals with the existence of God, not religion. Though in theism it involves a set of religious behaviours that exemplify the nature of the God / gods you believe in.

What occupies your mind and what are the rituals of your life? That is your religion - your beliefs - your behaviours. Because it may be different to mine it is your world view - your set of practises. Your religion.

So Jack you believe your atheism has no values, no rules of behaviour, no guiding principles. Then you believe in self absorbed anarchy, reactionary undisciplined behaviour and total disrespect of others in society.

Religion is the status of values upon which a functioning society stands. So you are an anarchist, not far removed from the cave dwellers.

Philo

Jack the Lad probably has the same God as I.

My God is called "Conscience."

Conscience loves goodness and seeks only to do the right.

Some humans have a need to converse with mystical supernatural deities and a further need to adhere to the dictates of their holy books, which were actually written by mere mortals who claim to have had a hot line to heaven.

Conscience is guided by principles, handed down by generations and requires no scripts or assurances from supernatural deities.

"Religion is the status of values upon which a functioning society stands. So you are an anarchist, not far removed from the cave dwellers."

"Cave dwellers" eh, Philo?.

Ethics and kindness are the only requirements for evolved members to function in a successful society.

You may make much of your good deeds, however, atheists are just as altruistic as the religious.

However, many religious also contribute to a successful society whilst many fail to perform any kind deeds at all and remain on their knees praying solely for their own salvation whilst receiving favours from their influential connections.

Good to see dickie that you believe in altruistic principles of conscience. I believe then you would have a set of boundaries by which you live. Conscience gives us values those values are the nature of the god in whom we believe. The image of a man who eminates the highest of ideals of attitude, behaviours, actions, wisdom etc. To those high qualities we pay homage and endeavour to emulate.

These are the religious principles that govern the decisions we make regarding politics.

On the following what is your value of a human life and when is it appropiate in your opinion for it to be taken.

For instance: On what occasions in your society if any is the death penalty applied?
When one steals land?
When one steals property?
When one steals someone else's wife?
When one attempts to changes a tribal opinion?
When one defects to another tribe?
When one plans the overthrow of government or rules of that society?
When one murders another in that society?
When one plots with a neighbouring tribe?
There are no rules and killing is normal behaviour?
Take the life of an unwanted child?
Take the life of an aged and demented person?
Take the life of a deformed baby?
The death penalty is never applied under any circumstance?

In all these cases they are based upon a value system. Religion is the value system upon which a society functions. In the above example these are opinions or a set of values about an offending human life [if considered offending].

Philo, you really cracked me up when you accused me of 'ignorance and immaturity ' because of my atheism. I'm not the one relying on glorified fairy tales to justify my existence. Why am I here? You'd have to ask my father. As he's six feet under, maybe your god could resurrect him and ask him. What value my life to the universe? In the big picture, not a lot. The only time that I, personally, would take a life would be in self-defense ao at war.

As for 'So Jack you believe your atheism has no values, no rules of behaviour, no guiding principles. Then you believe in self absorbed anarchy, reactionary undisciplined behaviour and total disrespect of others in society.' - where did that come from? How do you infer these accusations? What's your basis?

You clearly live in a fantasy world. I suppose that's what blind faith does to you.

Jack,
You still haven't grasped what the term "religion" means.

You stated you have "no religion". That means no defined or ordered principles upon which you live. Such persons are anarchists. At least dickie identified his religion as - conscience. Though conscience needs educating in what is an acceptable behaviour in the society. Defining when killing is acceptable in one way to identify your values of a life.

Some people's consciences are offended if the death penalty is not applied in many of the cases identified above. It depends upon the values they have been raised with. One person's conscience in a civilised society is not always the best arbiter of justice. For if such were the case there'd be on criminals. Criminals feel justified in the actions they perform. In our society there are many groups who uphold death as a way of dealing with problem people. They have no guilt when implementing the death penalty in many of the above cases. Their conscience is perfectly clear. There are those that can euthanasia the elderly, abort unwanted children, kill with honour those family members that defect from or marry outside their world views.

Politics is about one's religion [principles and values of life]. They are inseparable as one's religion determines the nature of the laws you will implement.

As you stated you felt justified to kill if you were at war. This is not that simple, as you could be the aggressor or the defendant. The threat could be from a child soldier or a trained elite. Australian soldiers are primarily trained to minister peace not killing. They do kill in defence of their mission. So you see it is a political decision on what value they place on a life. The value and sanctity one places on a life will determine how one will treat an offender. That is why we adhere to the war crimes Act. Every life has value even if an opponent. That is why I have Christian friends who were aggressors against Australian soldiers in the Saddam Hussein Gulf war invasion of Kuwait.

Philo, I was brought up with religion, so I 'grasp' what it means. I was taught that those of the other religion, in the same community, were the enemy, even though all our ancestors had been there centuries or more ago. That's what religion does. Same name, same face - the beatiful Celtic race. But hating each other.

Atheism does not equal anarchy. What naivity! I live to harm no-one who does not threaten to harm me. I brought up a family. I served my country. What have you done?

'Australian soldiers are primarily trained to minister peace not killing.' - is that why they changed from the SLR to the Steyr? What comics have you been reading?

'Christian friends who were aggressors against Australian soldiers' = traitors.

Will you guys start speaking the same language so your dialogue has purpose.

Philo,

I'd be grateful if you would email.

Jack the Lad,

I believe Philo is playing intellectual games. What he is saying might make more sense if you view it like that. I believe he is emphasising the dictionary definition of religion rather than the common usage.

Are you sure that celts from the other religion were hated because of the religions? Is it possible that it might have related to the war with England a long time before that led to the division of Northern and Southern Ireland? Is it possible that it might have related to those who were more partial to England going off to fight for her and returning to find that their jobs were filled by people who were less partial to England? Is it possible that those who were less partial to England were resentful of having English soldiers who weren't always nice to them in their home towns? Could it be that two groups that had a series of ongoing sources of grudges had those religions because those who embraced Anglican England became Anglican and those who rejected England stayed Catholic?

In other words is it possible that the religion is more the marker of the group that is in conflict rather than the reason for the conflict?

mjpb,
You are correct. If we are talking about religion then define it. If we are talking about politics then define it. If we are talking about Theism then define what we mean. Theism is the antithesis of atheism [belief in God] not religion.

As I have said before Buddahists do not have in their religion a belief in gods / god. They uphold a set of values they believe give life meaning and harmony.

Jack's view of religion as with his experience of God is merely reactionary more than an intelligent search for meaning and spiritual relationship. There are many views of Theism in the world it is just that he has not found a real answer. There are very few real atheists. Most often atheism is a form of rebellion to others quaint beliefs and practises, and there are many of those

Religion is a classification of a formalised union of people who share the same taboo's and rituals and idol fetishising. God is a psychological projection based on the notion that the individual that believes is the centre of the universe. Faith is superstition and although people report as having a common faith , like praying to Jesus will make them immortal or smashing a mirror will bring seven years bad luck , I can say I have never met two people who believe in the same God. Every mind believes in a different god.

Not being superstitious allows me to see the forest and the trees. I can have no doubt that God is the self worshipping the self and thus fantasising an over importance of the self in the fact that one exists ( a quirk of physics). For I have never come accross a religious person who will listen to another human or see another human. Hence the vile crimes caused by the belief in god since the invention of god.

Futher to it no god has ever declared his/her/its existence and it follows no god could ever have then declared itself as head of any religion or belief. This is the price the believer pays for creating an illiterate god.

It stands as long as god is claimed only by humans and held as a convieniantly elusive and enigmatic creature that exists only on the premise of magic that something so dubious as a god is not healthy and is indeed a disease in a democratic government which must be based in free and true information. The opposite to religion which requires deception to exist.

Philo I must also reply to you. You claim John Howard as good for the single reason he believes in an invisible magician. so therefore you say being stained by the Bible which itself holds no good values and no decent morals he Howard is a good sort , even though Howards diety as claimed in the Bible is himeslf anevil monster , Howard is good?

I put it to you that your loyalty to your superstition colours your political view. I judge Howard on the effects of his policies on the Australian people and its future generation and how when he becomes aware of his mistakes he had countered his ill effects. For that alone Howard was the worst Prime Minister in Australian History and the destruction he brought upon Australian people and the environment which sustains life , by his contempt for Australia , the man is in my opinion rotten to the core and led an immoral life through his actions. Having said that I realise he was not in his right mind at the time , because he was a slave to superstition and could not control his addiction to occul;t beliefs, the belief in god.

Needless to say I was never surprised having known the contents of the Bible.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer. The great variety of religious behaviour and belief makes it difficult to say exactly what "religion" is. Many definitions have been offered in the past, but most of the ones we are familiar with have been biased by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas about religion.

It is widely believed that there is a "wall of separation" between church and state, but this view is largely a myth. The implication is that the state, out of respect for the principle of freedom of religion, may not favour or penalize one belief relative to another.

In practice, civic affairs and religion have long been closely intertwined. We all think of Australians for example as a 'godly people.' Religion is an element in oaths of office, court-room procedures, and indeed all formal public occasions. Even the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides give a "God and country" oath,a phrase that implies, to say the least, a compatability of interest between the two.

John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech, for example, captures the idea that America's social order and historical mission are specifically sanctioned by God:

"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own..."

Such sentiments are not allied to any specific faith or political program; they are sufficiently broad to be acceptable to almost everyone.

As far as supporting private schools from the public purse. I don't have a problem with that. People who choose a private school are entitled to government support. They pay taxes same as the rest of us who work. And private tuition involves much more than the government subsidies that are granted.

West you obsessive bigotry and ignorance is showing. When you can talk realism with balance I will begin to respect your opinion. I could'nt be bothered answering your post.

mjpb, I think you're right that Philo is playing games. I wouldn't call them intellectual - far from it. He thinks there are 'very few real atheists'. I know there are no gods - no supernatural. In ancient times these were handy to explain the unexplained. As science advances, another unexplained phenomenon bites the dust and religion retreats another step. Can anyone say that the reverse also happens?

The English did cause the original divisions in Ireland. When they settled Scottish Protestant families in Ulster, the country was almost all Catholic. The majority of the republican movement was Catholic with a few honourable exceptions such as Wolf Tone and Michael Collins while the Loyallists were almost all Protestants. By modern times, both sides were characterised only by their religion.
Going further back, if Ireland had not been converted to Christianity, the future divisions couldn't have taken place.

Another example of religios division is that of Serbia and Croatia where, originally the people were divided into Catholics and Orthodox, degenerating into ethnic conflict.

As Philo thiks that atheism is worse than any religion, what if I convert to Odinism and kneel before Mjollnir (Thor's Hammer)? Would that make things better? He needs a crash-course in realism.

Philo, I asked you on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 8:33:19 AM, What have you done?
Or do you only ask the questions?

Jack,
Some people only see their own points of view, and cannot inquire the relavence of others points of view. They are brain-washed into a conclusion and cannot question their own opinions. The topic is the relationship of religion in politics. The posed questions involve religious values upon which many laws and their punishments are formed. My point was to demonstrate that both religious values and politics are interdependent upon the values one holds. Politics is the administration of values for a society.

Being comic infantile in an attempt to denigrate others positions only damages one's self not the genuine position of an opponent.

Philo, thanks for your clarification of a reply...not! My point was that, while you ask many questions, you avoid those directed to yourself. You are still guilty of that.

I don't see how you can accuse anyone of seeing only their point of view when you refuse to accept that countless many people are real atheists and have no supernatural beliefs.

You appear to be a victim of your own accusation. BTW, what was 'comic infantile'?

Jack,
In reading your post on Wed one would assume you were merely asking a retorical question. "I brought up a family. I served my country. What have you done?"

I am a relatevly speaking a high profile person in this part of town and quite well known outside this forum. As a family man now with several grandchildren whom I love and desire to protect their future. I've been a sucessful farmer in several fields and an engineer of several products used in building. Iv'e been a political activist against the destruction of the local environment and for the protection of innocent life. I've been a educator of Christian principles to hundreds of young and now sucessful people.

Jack the Lad,

I note that I am a Christian. It is unclear whether or not you realize that.

I believe that I understand where you are coming from but believe there is more to consider. That doesn’t mean that I assume you are going to convert at the drop of a hat. However I believe that your questions can be answered differently and want to do so.

“Philo, existence of God is illogical. Who made God? Why? How? When?
Where is he?”

If that is illogical then the same could be said about your own dogmatic position. Who made the universe or the big bang? Why? How? When? We answer “God” and you can ask those questions a step further. Until you can give answers a step back do you think that that approach debunks our belief? With a belief in God it is easier to answer such questions. We can say that He is outside of time and space. Without God can you answer the questions a step back?

”Here's your scientific evidence - the religious are continuously moving the goalposts. …”

“In ancient times these were handy to explain the unexplained. As science advances, another unexplained phenomenon bites the dust and religion retreats another step.”

Please note two things:

1. Your perception of the interplay of science and religion makes a lot of sense but don’t lose sight of the fact that science is a medievally sourced artifact of the Christian religion. That science has proved workable at all affirms the Christian faith.

2. Many Christians see ourselves as pilgrims of truth so it doesn't cause us concern. We have revealed truth and humans minds seeking to discover it in its fullness, clarity, and beauty. We are relentlessly in search of truth (hence the initiation of science for truths in the physical universe). I can imagine the difficulties of someone with their skeptical spectacles on grasping the difference between what I am saying and blind faith but I ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt and give it some thought.

CONTINUED

2. (continued)

Note that discoveries that have improved our understanding have not removed any essential ethical precepts or the importance of God. We now have an accurate knowledge of the shape of the earth but we still disapprove of rape and adultery, for example. I suspect science will never justify overturning the clear word of God. Regardless of mistaken assumptions we have made the Bible is silent on the shape of the earth and many fine details. Again that is why we have science.

”Going further back, if Ireland had not been converted to Christianity, the future divisions couldn't have taken place.”

Are you sure it wouldn’t have just changed it to pagan and Anglican again as markers rather than causes?

”Another example of religios division is that of Serbia and Croatia where, originally the people were divided into Catholics and Orthodox, degenerating into ethnic conflict.”

I thought it was over land with Serbia wanting it all together and Croatia wanting independence but don’t know much about it.

”As Philo thinks that atheism is worse than any religion, what if I convert to Odinism and kneel before Mjollnir (Thor's Hammer)? Would that make things better? He needs a crash-course in realism.”

I’d answer yes and no. I don’t think it would help because you have a Christianish upbringing and, I believe, sound ethics. Having slipped out of Christianity I don’t believe Odinism would help. You have all you need. Whether or not you bridge the gap between you and spiritual fulfilment will depend solely on your reasoning.

However if you had never had Christianity I believe Odinism might be beneficial. Religions typically point to God often in a very culturally based way. For example, kneeling before a symbol of Thor would help you realize that there is something greater than yourself, and the religion would help you: realize the fact of the eternal soul, love God’s creation, appreciate the value of truth, and the value of life etc. all helping prepare you for the saving Word of Jesus Christ.

mjpb,
I did note your email in an earlier post as watashi@live.com.au, where you inquire about my objection to anal sex. Is that what you wish to discuss?

Philo, my question trhat you took as rhetorical was aimed at you because of your accusation that I was morally barren if I had no religion. Also, you think that my choice not to believe is based on ignorance and immaturity and causes me to believe in 'self absorbed anarchy, reactionary undisciplined behaviour and total disrespect of others in society'.
I merely pointed out that I have lived a reasonably normal lifestyle, in fact I heven't even had a criminal conviction in all my life. Then I passed the ball over to you.
You really lost it when you wrote that my lack of religion makes me an 'anarchist, not far removed from the cave dwellers.' If that's the attitude of the piously religious, you can definetly keep it. I pulled you up on these statements before but you chose not to attempt to justify them.
You still haven't explained how I am 'fighting a lost cause' or how I was 'comic infantile '. Maybe you never will.

mjpb, when you wrote 'Who made the universe or the big bang? Why? How? When? We answer “God” ' did you mean that the religious community now accept Big Bang theory and attribute it to God? If so, that's what I meant by moving the goalposts.

I can't answer how the Big Bang (if it occurred) came about. It is only a theory but one that many scientists can promote in understandable terms. When it comes to religion, we are expected to accept the concepts on faith.
I don't understand your idea that science is a 'medievally sourced artifact of the Christian religion'. The ancient Greeks and Chinese were involved in scientific studies long before the Christian era.
The Serbs and Croats have a common ancestry (all Slavs) and their languages are of the Central South Slavic branch. The division of the people was caused by their choices of different forms of Christianity as, ethically, they are very close.
As an athiest, I can 'appreciate the value of truth, and the value of life'. In fact, maybe I would value life more than someone religious as I know that there is no hereafter and I only have this one chance on Earth.

Jack there is no need to be defensive. I was demonstrating what is the conclusion of your claims. No system of values to discipline and form your life around as I said, 'self absorbed anarchy, reactionary undisciplined behaviour and total disrespect of others in society'.

I knew you would not agree to this being the foundation values of your life. Of course you have a religious code of conduct. It is just that you deny being religious. You haven't thought through your values.

For many years it was widely felt that as science progressively provided rational explanations for the mysteries of the universe, religion would have less and less of a role to play and would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.

But there are still gaps in our understanding that science can never fill. On the ultimately important questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the nature of morality - science is utterly silent and, by its very nature, always will be.

There are very few citizens of modern societies who would utterly deny the possibility of some higher power in the universe, some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay.

As for religion in our Australian society... Well, our National Anthem used to be, 'God Save The Queen.' And we still use the Christian Calendar. Christmas and Easter are still public holidays...

There is also no evidence that public belief in some supernatural, transcendent reality is disappearing. Recent polls show that three-quarters of the Australian population know their astrological 'sign,' and 25% believe that their lives are governed by the stars.

In acknowledgement of widespread superstition, airlines have no row thirteen, and high-rise buildings have no thirteenth floor. Millions believe in one or more of such practices as fortune-telling, palmistry, numerology, hexing, tarot-card reading, and seances with the dead.

Many people, too, adhere to an 'invisible' or 'silent' religion, acknowledging a supreme but unknowable force in the universe. And new sects, and cults appear in inprecedented profusion, offering the prospect of further religious growth in new directions in the future.

Mjpb on the question of who made god the answer is obvious. It depends on which god you are talking about but in this case the western christian god was invented by the Council of Nicea out of a Frankensteins Monster of pety cults which believed in everything from a homosexual Jesus to a talking mushroom and a large dose of the cult of Mithras tagged onto a Greco stylised 2nd Century Jewish God Mark VI.

Philo your bigotry against all those who do not share your superstitions is exactly what I am talking about. I shall not be insulted by you as I will take into account how your beliefs affect your behaviour. Both of which confirm all of what I said earlier.

Foxy the function of religious schools are firstly to make as much profit for the institution and the second function of religious schools is to indoctrinate children into superstition. From experience and the skills of young workers with the exception of one or two most religious schools have a very low educational standard. However they lack in education most specialise in discipline which is why religious schools are synomonous with dumping problem children. In their defence that is a two edge sword because those schools are profit orientated little resources are dedicateed to hiring professionals who can cope with such children. The other side is they churn out disfunctional citizens who represent the so called faith.

Private schools should have tax payer charity but religion should be banned from those schools and those schools should be compelled to raise their standards and provide services for the children.

It is a complex situation as it is the parents fault in the first place for using education resources to 'sort' their children out because of bad parenting and using education resources for what is in reality babysitting.

Philo, was I being defensive or was I correcting you for making silly, unfounded accusations based on my lack of religion?
You are still insisting that I have 'a religious code of conduct.' and that I 'deny being religious'. How can I prove you wrong? I could do as Mussolini did and state that if there is a God, he should strike me dead now to prove his existence. But your blind faith would not accept that and find an excuse for the non-event of my not being struck dead. I have many times denied God's existence in the presence of religious leaders who were unable to convince me otherwise.
My values of life are based on common sense the will to do no harm except in defence, and morality. Foxy poses the question of whether science can explain morality. It would appear to be the human condition, arising from the first peoples who had to learn to share resources, live and work together to survive. This preceded religion.
The dates of Christmas and Easter were pinched from earlier religions (solstice and equinox) as was the 'Trinity' (Celtic magic number three).
I'm sure that Philo will come back with more accusations of my denial that I am really religious. Have to go now, time for church.

Dear Jack,

Just for your interest ... Some form of religion has existed in every society that we know of.

Religious beliefs and practices are so ancient that they can be traced back into prehistory, perhaps as far back as 100,000 years ago.

Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time, it seems, had some concept of a supernatural realm that lay beyond everyday reality.
Among the fossilized remains of these cave dwellers, anthropologists have found evidence of funeral ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts that were buried with the dead, presumably to accompany them on the journey to an afterlife.

I congratulate you Jack that you have based your life on the principles of thought and conduct. That you have reverence for life, truth, and tolerance of other beliefs. This type of religion is found predominantly in Asia; the best-known example is Buddhism, which is concerned with the attempt to become "at one with the universe"
through many years of meditation.

During the past two decades some versions of these Eastern religions have attracted interest in the West, especially among young people.

Thanks Foxy! Though Jack will continue to deny he is religious because in his thinking the word "religion" has a stigma attached. Though West would more vehemently protest that he is in anyway religious. He has a fanatical system of beliefs that he wishes to be enforced upon every child.

West does not accept a democratic system of education provided for by parents taxes. He believes in a dictatorship where taxes are taken by the State from parents who hold democratic principles. He does not allow the rights of independent beliefs to be taught to children. In his view the State should only dictate upon every student his thought agenda based in atheism. This was the system of the old USSR and China. An opressive system where parents were stripped of the rights to educate their children. Children became the property of the State.

West believes in an atheistic socialist Republic - that is the basis of his world view and religion. These are the guiding principles of his agenda, his life, his actions, thoughts and personal mission.

There have been some beautifully crossed wires in this thread, ensuring that everyone can ride their own hobbyhorse without fear of being unseated.

Foxy asserts:

>>For many years it was widely felt that as science progressively provided rational explanations for the mysteries of the universe, religion would have less and less of a role to play and would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition<<

Science deals only with observable phenomena. It can tell you how a human being has been put together over the years, but cannot explain its purpose. The question "why" can only be approached through the exact opposite of science, i.e. raw, naked, untrammelled belief, unadulterated by facts of any kind.

Science and religion work along parallel, i.e. non-intersecting paths. Both seek "truth", one using facts, one not. Neither is better or more valid than the other, since they are used for entirely different purposes.

>>Religious beliefs and practices are so ancient that they can be traced back into prehistory, perhaps as far back as 100,000 years ago.
Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time, it seems, had some concept of a supernatural realm that lay beyond everyday reality.<<

This is simply another version of Philo's "we're all religious really".

Everyone - including, quite possibly, those Neanderthals - has at some point looked around them and pondered the questions "how did we get here", "what are we doing here" and "why the..."

No-one has yet provided an answer.

Religion is the generic word we use to describe those people who believe they know the "why". Non-religious people are comfortable in the knowledge that the answers will not be available to us any time soon, possibly even not before this tiny insignificant planet of our incinerates.

Religion provides solace for people who need answers, or at least a level of certainty and security to get them through the night. Not everybody needs it, not everybody uses it.

To pretend that merely thinking about life beyond what we can see and touch renders us all somehow "religious" is simply laughable.

Philo,

If you wouldn't mind.

Westy,

Good to see you again. I haven't enjoyed your loveably eccentric presence for some time. It certainly adds a spice to these chats.

Jack the Lad,

If your goal is truth then moving uncertain goal posts can be desirable. Certainly there are issues about the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ and ethical standards that cannot be limited (/moved) without being lost but our undertanding of the physical universe is growing and that is positive. The Bible just doesn't go into detail on that. That is why we have science.

"I can't answer how the Big Bang (if it occurred) came about. It is only a theory but one that many scientists can promote in understandable terms. When it comes to religion, we are expected to accept the concepts on faith."

Absolutely correct. Scientists are just people with current theories. Jesus came to earth, died, and rose from the dead after claiming to be the Son of God. It makes more sense to have faith in His teachings than scientists' current theories. That is not to say that the current theories have no value.

"I don't understand your idea that science is a 'medievally sourced artifact of the Christian religion'. The ancient Greeks and Chinese were involved in scientific studies long before the Christian era."

A number of peoples had all the necessary ingredients to commence science but Christians kicked it off as it was consistent with their theology.

If the conflict was caused by the religion of the Serbs and Croats not the Serbs desire to claim all territory and a Croat desire to be separate then could you go into more detail? How did the religious conflict commence?

"As an athiest, I can 'appreciate the value of truth, and the value of life'."

I'm happy to suggest that your Christianish background instilled these truths within you. Notwithstanding your quip purely atheist societies to date have had scant regard for the value of life.

Philo and Foxy, I think that I should be the judge of what I do or don't believe. I am certainly not in denial nor am I thinking of becoming a Buddhist no matter how similar their values may be.

Much of human history has been dominated by bloody wars, culminating in the Great Brothers War that stretched across most of the last century. Would a God that supposedly loved his creations have allowed that with all the misery and agony that it entailed? I don't see a stigma attached to religion yet I believe that Philo sees such a stigma attached to atheism to the extent that he seems to be in denial of its existence.

mjpb, 'Scientists are just people with current theories. Jesus came to earth, died, and rose from the dead after claiming to be the Son of God'. I see that as theory also. The only 'proof' is of writings from 2000 years ago.
How about Pythagoras as an example of pre-Christian scientists?

When the South Slavs were converted to Christianity, the split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches had not occurred. After the Schism, each church influenced one group or the other. While being of the same ethnic stock, by then Serbs and Croats were living as individual proto-nations (just like Norway, Sweden and Denmark or Scots and Irish), but the Serbs came into the Orthodox sphere of influence while the Croats came under Rome. To further confuse that region, Bosnians are also of the same ethnicity but were converted to Islam after the Ottoman invasion.

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a purely athiest society. Even in Communist countries, religion still exists as is obvious by the rapid rise of the Russian Church after the 'collapse'. I still maintain that religion is not the basis of my values. When I gave up any religious beliefs, I kept the same values as before from a humanist view.

Pericles, It is good to see you believe the conclusion the 2000 year old text of the Bible gives to the Earth. Obviously you believe the Bible gives the answer to the finality with certanty of our planet. At least I know it will not be tonight and I can place that in the events the Bible also outlines of the end of this planet.

You said, "Non-religious people are comfortable in the knowledge that the answers will not be available to us any time soon, possibly even not before this tiny insignificant planet of our incinerates.

Religion provides solace for people who need answers, or at least a level of certainty and security to get them through the night. Not everybody needs it, not everybody uses it.

To pretend that merely thinking about life beyond what we can see and touch renders us all somehow "religious" is simply laughable."

I hope you are still laughing. Your system of belief is that there is no room for belief. One's immagination is merely a fantacy unfortunately for you yours has been coloured by Christian escatology.

jack,
Your former religion is still intact. The set of beliefs that formerly set your values and upon which you now live your life remains. What changed is your theistic view.

For me there one who is ideal. Whose character is made in the image of perfection to whom I admire - aspire as the perfect man - our God. For me there is an example to aspire too whose character is perfect, whose actions are pure, whose wisdom is inspirational. That holiness is my God. His love, justice and mercy is perfect.

Philo, it is particularly sad that you find it necessary to twist the meaning of everyone's posts in order to make some point or other. It is a sign of insecurity, and that is not a very good look.

>>Obviously you believe the Bible gives the answer to the finality with certanty of our planet. <<

Contrary to your supposition, I have absolutely no idea what "answer" the Bible gives to the end of our planet. What I do know is that scientists can model the gradual process by which the earth will experience "heat death", first boiling off the oceans in about 1.1 billion years.

I would nevertheless be interested to hear your Biblically-inspired version, so that we can compare the two.

>>Your system of belief is that there is no room for belief. One's immagination is merely a fantacy unfortunately for you yours has been coloured by Christian escatology<<

Absolute rot. You are trying here to equate belief with imagination and fantasy, which is your construction, not mine.

Belief in the "spiritual" - which is code for things that you cannot prove through science - plays a massive part in the lives of vast numbers people. I neither denigrate this or dismiss it, it exists today, and has been a part of the evolution process for millennia.

The fact that I choose not to believe in the peculiar form of spirituality called religion does not indicate that I don't acknowledge its existence, nor that I see there is no room for it.

Incidentally, you might care to explain how you reach the conclusion that my imagination has been "has been coloured by Christian escatology [sic]" In the context of your post, it doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Jack the Lad,

"How about Pythagoras as an example of pre-Christian scientists?"

I believe the word science gets applied too broadly to the activities of ancient Greeks. Their empiricism lacked theory and their abstract assertions were removed from observation. Brilliance may have been displayed but real science was not.

The co-author of Principia Mathematica Alfred Whitehead noted that medievalism contributed to the formation of the scientific movement due to the medieval insistence on God's rationality. "Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vidication of the faith in rationality". This attitude was still clear in the sixteenth century when Descartes supported his search for natural law with the assertion that laws must exist. God "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible" with the infrequent exception of miracles.

"When the South Slavs were converted to Christianity..."

But what caused the wars?

"I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a purely athiest society."

You are probably correct but in communist countries where they had a habit of slaughtering Christians it would tend to function as such.

Did you know that about the 14.5 million Ukrainian Orthodox Christians were butchered by Communists as part of an estimated 30 to 40 million people who the commissars slaughtered in the Soviet Union? Most of those killed were believed to be Christians.

"I still maintain that religion is not the basis of my values."

I obviously can't argue that too strenuously but someone who would argue strenuously on things that they shouldn't is desperately snooping around in here for ammunition. If you visit that other forum you will see what I mean. Just so you know.

mjpb, considering that the Pythagoras theory is still one of thew cornerstones of mathemetics, I would say that it is 'real science'.

Tyhe Bosnian wars were a revamp of the Balkan War of 1912. The groups viewed each other as ethnic rivals although only their religion was the main difference. Tito's Yugoslavia bound them into one nation but this disintegrated after his death when Milosevic wanted a 'Greater Serbia' and the Croats and Bosnians wanted independence.

While the USSR was technically athiest, it was amazing to see how many returned to religion at the fall of Communism. I would bet that many of these 'converts' were ex party apparatchiks and commisars.

Jack,
It is interesting to note from your comment of the USSR returning to their faith that the kiling of christians has now ceased. Atheism was the corruption that undermined the peace and security of the State.

I want to assure those that wish to degrade me as being insecure. That I am very secure in what I believe, and my understanding of both religion and political philosophy.

I want to restate my position.
Religion and politics are both based on values - points of view.

Religion is the values that govern one's personal attitudes and behaviours. Politics is the endeavour to enforce by laws those values upon a society. Democracy means the majority values accepted by the people become the Government.

Because Governments are now entering into legislation on attitudes a values [for or against personal religious values] it is removing more of our personal democratic freedoms. There is currently no pure secular democratic State in Australia as the State enforces more of minority citizens religious points of view upon its citizens. Governments are now establishing a religon that does not represent the majorities values..

Politics will enstate into law the social values one believes in [i.e. its religion]. The colour of one's values will determine what type of laws are effected. Religion and politics are totally interrelated and those that deny it do not understand political philosophy.

What you believe about reality will govern your values, as you try to harmonise your reality with behaviours that give the best outcomes for yourself and society.

Nice sidestep, Philo, but spectacularly unconvincing.

>>I want to assure those that wish to degrade me as being insecure. That I am very secure in what I believe, and my understanding of both religion and political philosophy<<

You may feel secure, but everything you write indicates to the contrary.

>>Religion and politics are both based on values - points of view<<

You try to equate values, which are to most people deeply-held understandings of the boundaries of their own behaviours, with "points of view".

Do you really believe they are the same? If you do, I feel sorry for you. But if you don't, then it is just another example of how you try to move the argument into trivial territory. A strong sign that you are uncomfortable dealing with like-for-like discussion.

By equating the two - "values" and "points of view" - you are able to make a case for politics and religion having the same foundation. Which is, of course, utter nonsense.

A casual glance, or even a detailed analysis, of the campaigning that went on at the last election will tell you that religion is specifically shunned as a selling-point to the electorate. When it did raise it head, as in the various one-off visits by the key candidates to one church or another, it was rapidly downplayed.

What is true, of course, is that values underpin politics in the same way that they underpin our daily lives. Doing bad things is considered unacceptable by a significant proportion of the population, be they religious or not. It is however a post hoc, propter hoc argument to suggest that religion therefore forms a key ingredient in politics, or that the absence of religion indicates an absence of values.

>>There is currently no pure secular democratic State in Australia as the State enforces more of minority citizens religious points of view upon its citizen<<

Sorry, that is pure paranoia. If you really want to show that you are "very secure in what I believe", this isn't the way to go about it.

Pericles,
Your belief of how the human mind works demonstrates total ignorance to what is religion. Religion is the values that motivate human behaviour. Your self determined position that religion equates to mere superstition is absolute nonsense. Laws are made upon what are the values of that society.

For instance our society has determined that the first day of each week is a sacred day, so laws were made to reflect that practise. Our society once believed the inhabitable Earth was created in seven days, so that is how we got seven day periods.

People were once forbidden to work on the seventh day under Israeli laws. Christianity relaxed that position and made resurrection day the sacred day - who under the Roman influence adopted the name Sunday.

Our employment laws still reflect respect for that period of time. Religion is exactly what politics is about. Try taking those days away from our society and you will reap the backlash.

Ok just to keep focus of this thread,

Philo you need to look up bigot in the dictionary , it is a case of you the pot calling the kettle black. Dont worry I take no offence , the hearet and soul of Christianity indeed its very essence is bigotry , for the idol which is the christian god is degraded to nothing more worthy of a judge imbued with the prejudice that favours taboo and ritual practitioners and total bigotry against everybody else.

Calling me bigot is in the tradition of that crazy 20th Century Christian Politician and philosopher Adolf Hitler who spelled out in his various writings inspired by various popes being a good Catholic boy on the same sort of things like accusing victims of being criminals and pacifists being terrorists. Ok lets not bring the holoacaust , inquistion, witch hysteria, 30 years law or the execution of those blaspheming mourners into it and lets not mention the children over board , those evil aliens who fled with their own children only to use them as floaties half way around the world. I understand where you are coming from, you cant expect to be aware of beyond the horizon when you dont believe the horizon is there.

Now I forget who brought the Soviets and Maoists into this? No matter , you got to know what you believe in guys , Jesus taught Communism , its in black and white, the only true Christian is a communist, all others are nothing more than pop culture.

mjpb that Jack the Lads morals are from Christian ancestory is total garbage. First off a good person will not need moral guidence from a book only a bad person will seek moral guidence from a book. When you are cool life works mostly well , when you are smart you know it will be up and down. A bad person will not change and I could give a roll call of a thousand christians who I am personally certain will remain bad no matter what they believe in. Besides the Bible onlt doles out Taboo's not morals and morals are different depending on culture. Secularists never commited the pure evil of witch burning of the dishonesty of claiming to represent a universal god.

Foxy is saying that because some apes are superstitious then all of us believe in God , Philo is trying to make that claim too , but such a claim is false. What they are saying is typical though understandable , because they believe in deities then they cannot understand how nobody else can too. I can only assume and I mean no offence to Foxy and Philo by this is that religious people do not mature their understanding of the external world from when they are small children. As psychologists note , babies see other people as physical extentions of themselves. I am not calling you two babies, this sort of thing is common , many people do not emotionally mature , ethically mature , or mature motor skills and such, most people are infintire in at least one respect I would imagine, but in this case you two do present strong evidence supporting this , because in all reality I do not have any belief in magic , magical creatures including gods. I am not unique , I know many others so it is then a fact of life the belief in god is not universal.

Also foxy your argument falls short because everybody who believes in gods or other mythical creatures believe in different things.

Dear West,

If you're going to attribute something to me, please read all of my posts on this subject before doing so. I'm not stating what I personally do or do not believe - I'm talking about religion - generally.

As I've stated quite clearly religion is a universal social institution, which takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rutuals, or solemn prayer. The great variety of religious
behaviour and belief makes it very difficult to say exactly what
"religion" is. Many definitions have been offered in the past, but most of the ones we are familiar with have been biased by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas about religion. These ideas are based on a number of central beliefs: that there exists one supreme being or God; that God created the universe and all life and takes a continuing interest in the creation; that there is a life hereafter, and that our moral behaviour in this life influences our fate in the
next.

In cross-cultural terms, however, this particular combination of beliefs is unusual. Many religions do not recognize a supreme being, and a number do not believe in gods at all. Several religions ignore questions about the origins of the universe and life, leaving these problems to be dealt with instead by nonreligious myth. Many religions assume that the gods take little interest in human affairs.
Some have almost nothing to say about life after death, and many - perhaps most- do not link our earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.

Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of Western religious tradition alone...

That's the way Foxy, keep the mindless irreligious defencless. They cannot mount a logical argument giving a true definition of what is "a religion". As we have been taught in our Churches that our core beliefs sum up who we are as humans, and determine what we do, and how we live in and politically construct our society. Beliefs based in an opinion for example of "what is the value of a human life". Answer that religious question and you begin to understand the persons religious values.

Our western society is built around entrenched Christian religious values. That they cannot accept. Two primary principles of Christianity are love and forgivness. The acceptance of those that fail in their real image of God, like we all do. Those that can accept forgivness for their failures. These attitudes are worked into how we ought to live and accept each other. West has a problem accepting himself and the religious reality that surrounds him. He is in denial of others reality. We must pray for him.

Foxy, I was intrigued by your statement:

>>As I've stated quite clearly religion is a universal social institution<<

Philo then weighs in with a whoop and a holler -

>>That's the way Foxy, keep the mindless irreligious defencless. They cannot mount a logical argument giving a true definition of what is "a religion"

If I understand this correctly, Philo is suggesting that it is the "mindless irreligious" who cannot provide a true definition of religion. But as Foxy points out, even the religious are finding it impossible:

>>Many religions do not recognize a supreme being, and a number do not believe in gods at all. Several religions ignore questions about the origins of the universe and life... Many religions assume that the gods take little interest in human affairs... Some have almost nothing to say about life after death, and many - perhaps most- do not link our earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.<<

That pretty well covers how religions differ, but it doesn't get an awful lot closer to providing anything positive to cling onto, does it?

Is the observation "religion is a universal social institution" intended to be a definition, perhaps?

If so, it leaves out an awful lot that religionists tend to get quite worked up about. It mentions nothing about spiritual vs. temporal, nothing about beliefs, nothing about worshipping, praying, genuflection, animal sacrifices etc.

So Philo, maybe it's up to you: can you perhaps "mount a logical argument giving a true definition of what is 'a religion'"?

Bet you can't.

At least, I bet you can't without contradicting Foxy's dissertation.

Dear Pericles,

I didn't realize that this was going to be a dissertation on the subject. Seeing as we're only allowed 350 words I'll try to keep it simple...

You want religion defined - ok. Here goes. Religion is a system of community shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural realm.

A single feature is common to all religions: a sharp distinction between the sacred and the profane. The sacred is anything that is regarded as part of the supernatural rather than the ordinary world; as such it inspires awe, reverence, and deep respect. Anything can be considered sacred: a god, a rock, the moon, a king, a symbol such as a cross.

On the other hand, the profane is anything that is regarded as part of the ordinary rather than the supernatural world; as such it may be considered familiar, mundane, even corrupting. Of course, the profane, too, may be embodied by a rock, the moon,a king, or a symbol.

Something becomes either sacred or profane only when it is socially defined as such by a community of believers.

A religious community always approaches the sacred through a ritual - a formal, stylized procedure, such as prayer, incantation, or ceremonial cleansing. Ritual is a necessary part of religion because the sacred has extraordinary qualities, and must be approached in a carefully prescribed, reverential manner.

So, again I repeat that religion is a system of community shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented towards some sacred, supernatural realm. The phenomenon is of such universal social importance that it has long been, and remains, a major focus of sociological interest.

I won't go into the various different religions by classifying them, there are a series of basic types according to their central belief:
simple supernaturalism, animism, theism, and transcendent idealism.
These are merely artificial categories, of course, and not all religions fit neatly into this classification.

I trust that this has answered your question. If it hasn't I suggest
you take a book out on the subject from your local library.

Thanks Foxy, your new definition, complete with the bit about the supernatural, seems to fit the bill quite nicely. I could argue the toss for a while about your pummelling of the word "profane" - I am not sure that I have ever heard of a profane rock, for example, and would strongly doubt that "anything" has the characteristic of profanity - but by and large it seems pretty workable.

What is interesting to me is that it also quite neatly takes the wind out of the "atheism is a religion" sails that we see so often filled by some gale-force huffing and puffing on this forum.

Atheists, by definition, accept no god, no supernatural, no sacred and no profane. The absence of belief in the sacred cannot connote its opposite without overturning the entire concept of logic.

And most telling of all, they do not group together in "community shared beliefs and rituals."

So, my thanks for helping put that old "atheists are religious too" canard to bed, once and for all.

I doubt that atheists are irreligious, profane and do not have a set of beliefs that form their thinking, conscience, motivations and behaviour. "Religion" in today's terms means a personal formulated set of beliefs that form one's values, guides one's conscience and governs one's behaviours.

I find even some atheists I know treat their health as sacred, or the environment, or some other object. It may be their car, their girlfriend or wife. The sacred does not have to be supernatural or superstitious, it just have to inspire deep respect and thoughtful devotion. It is what people actually believe is the reality.

Religion is defined as "A World View", a view of the world and how it operates and how we operate in it to create for us a better personal outcome or cooperative society. To some fanatical religions they may feel to kill their opponents will create a better world. Socialist atheism was enforced to substitute other religions which was denied in countries like the USSR, and still in China and North Korea.

Thanks Philo. I'll leave you and Foxy to argue what religion may or may not be.

>>"Religion" in today's terms means a personal formulated set of beliefs that form one's values, guides one's conscience and governs one's behaviours.<< - Philo

>>religion is a system of community shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented towards some sacred, supernatural realm.<< - Foxy

Personally, I lean towards Foxy's definition, the community part seems to make it somehow more complete than just a personal value set. It would seem to be important that in order to have a religion, you need to agree on what those values are, rather than simply keep them to yourself.

>>The sacred does not have to be supernatural or superstitious<< - Philo

>>The sacred is anything that is regarded as part of the supernatural rather than the ordinary world<< - Foxy

Again, I think Foxy is closer to the mark.

Anyway, have fun duking it out, you two. I doubt you'll ever agree, and I suspect a compromise is pretty much out of the question too.

Goodwill to all.

Current schools of religious studies define religion on the actual experiences of beliefs and attitudes.

For instance:
Pericles,
You currently hold a set of beliefs based in theory that you hold with passion and believe they give you the correct answer to all reality and to your life and shape your experiences. That is exactly what religion is and does.

It is theories of how the Earth came into existence, theories on how life began, theories on how we got here. Theories on good health and social well being. All these theories form your world view. They form your values. These are the basis of any religion. It is just that you reject most other religions except your own as true. You consider them all superstitious fancy.

I might add, I also consider most theory on random mindless accident as giving us no reason for our being is superstitious irrationality. I believe there is clear direction, purpose, and a spiritual mind behind all reality.

Paul at his trial defines the observance of Jewish laws as religion in Acts 26.

26: 1 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, you are permitted to speak for your self. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:
26:2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before you touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:
26:3 Especially because I know you to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.
26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers:
26:7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

Again Paul’s defines his former life under Judaism of law keeping as religion in Galatians.

1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
1:14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

James the family brother of Jesus defines true religion as caring for orphans, widows, and living a pure life.

James 1:26 If any man among you seems to be religious, and does not control his tongue, deceives his own heart, and this man’s religion is vain.
1:27 Pure religion that is undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

From ancient times laws for living were considered religion. To be continued later:

I hesitate to tell you this, Philo, because I know that it doesn't fit with your neat and orderly image of what life is all about.

But you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

>>Pericles, You currently hold a set of beliefs based in theory that you hold with passion and believe they give you the correct answer to all reality and to your life and shape your experiences<<

That is totally diametrically opposite to the reality.

As I have mentioned on this forum a number of occasions, I am blissfully aware that I know very few - if any - of the answers to life, the universe and everything. I understand a little of the scientific background to our physical being, but have absolutely no answers to the philosophical and spiritual question "why do we exist?"

I am so completely convinced that I know so little, that I reject all attempts to invent a middle-man, or deity, that oh-so-conveniently becomes the answer. Note, believing in this deity doesn't actually answer any of the questions, it simply replaces them.

My "beliefs", Philo, rest on the simple premise that I don't have any that actually answer questions. I have beliefs in the sense that I can tell wrong from right and good from bad, but not in the sense that they obliterate any need to keep questioning and learning.

The single most disturbing trait of religionists is that they know they are right.

The only thing that I, on the other hand, know for absolute certain is that during my tiny life span on this tiny planet in one galaxy out of billions, I will never be sure that I am right about anything.

It's something that is actually very refreshing and liberating to be aware of, even though many people find the concept disturbing and fear-inducing.

Have a great day.

Clearly religion is an organised set of taboo's and rituals shared by a group of people under the leadership of a presiding occultist most often formulated in a group of material orientated institutions. Religion requires the construct and then worship of a mythical and occult Phantasmagoria. That which is done "religiously" is merely religious like, ritualised , operated without thought or reason. Holding ideas , people or material items as important cannot be argued as being religious. Because religion requires a commitment to the denial of logic and nature it cannot be compared with the fan(dom) of a football fan , who if mentally healthy does not imbue his club with magic although his enthusiasm may resemble religiousness.

To mix religion with politics is Religiousism. The wicked conspiracy to dominate people who do not share the inane superstitious beliefs of the faithful in order to reinforce the belief in god in an obvious godless universe. Thus also an immoral act.

The need to mix religion with politics is an admittion that god does not exist. If a person seriously believed in god then gods agenda would not have to be taken out of gods hands.

With the impotence of god in regards to events such as bird flu and tsunamis it stands ironic that superstitious politicians and those mystics who refer to themselves as clergy throw more egg on gods face as well as their own.

I laughed so hard it hurt when I read the anglican archbishop has called to pray for a cooler earth. Churches have denied global warming for over a decade and suddenly because the media have decided to change horses we need the magic spells of prayer to save humanity. If prosperity cults like Hillsong who's Jesus is some form of Credit Card were to denounce their lust for megaconsumption, the carbon savings would be more than for a normal individual.

I fear for the bats for god has not saved the world and as prayer is apparently false magic no doubt some bishop will be calling for the boiling of bats wings and mouse tongues to evoke god to get off from his impotent backside and show those who are laughing it all wasnt just a silly game of Dungeons and Dragons.

The term "Religion" to some merely represents mythology or superstition. Such a narrow definition does not represent the tenets of religion. Atheists have been brainwashed to believe religion only represents superstition. The term Religion bears a wide range of philosophical principles including national and social laws, and personal guidance principles.

Some atheists are smarting because we currently celebrate the birth of Christ and are given holidays [holy days] at this time. Our whole of life is oriented by a seven-day cycle - a principle of “God ceased from his work on the seventh day”. Our work practises, holidays, seasons are oriented around a religious Calender.

It must be distressing to atheists that they have so little power to change and control others thinking and our Calender. Happy 2008 - sorry you atheists - 2008 represents a period of time since the birth of Christ. What year is it for you? Sorry you will have to submit to our religious laws. You see we control your life, your work, and your weekly orientation.

Philo, I get the strong impression that you are clutching at straws. Is it because you feel threatened?

I hope not, because there is nothing in atheism per se to be afraid of. I for one find it quite understandable that a human being might be so overwhelmed by the scale and grandeur of the universe that they need to invent some external force in order to make sense of it.

I was particularly intrigued by this:

>>Atheists have been brainwashed to believe religion only represents superstition<<

Most atheists of my acquaintance quite understand that religious folk are sincere in their beliefs. And I have to say that in my own small way, I retain some superstitions from my youth - I will always put on my left sock before my right, for example - and quite understand that religion occupies a different space entirely.

But you have to admit, in your private moments Philo, that claiming that our "work practises [sic], holidays, seasons are oriented around a religious Calender [sic]" is just a little on the presumptuous side.

The seven-day week was recognized by Hindus and Babylonians, as well as in Roman times, before the Christian era.

The Christmas holiday was chosen to coincide with Saturnalia in order to persuade pagans that they could still celebrate - the "spin" that it was Jesus' birthday was pasted on to give it some pseudo-Christian significance.

>>It must be distressing to atheists that they have so little power to change and control others thinking<<

Not at all. No atheist that I know of even thinks that way - most have not the slightest interest in converting others to atheism, for example.

>>2008 represents a period of time since the birth of Christ. What year is it for you?<<

I'm happy with 2008 CE, thank you, even though it is inaccurate to say that 1 CE was the year of Jesus' birth. But it's just as good as 2757 AUC.

>>You see we control your life, your work, and your weekly orientation<<

Yeah right. Who are you, the Borg?

Pericles,
So you acknowledge that religion reigns supreme in your everyday life after all your denial.

The seven day creation story is as old as civilised man and found in Chaldean records before 3000 BC. The Hebrews made Saturday [Roman name] of the seven day cycle their day of rest The Sabbath was written into their laws about 1300 BC as a sacred day after their release from Egyptian slavery.

It would appears you only answer Christianity as a religion, as in your answer you ignore the fact that the ancient texts you use were polytheistic. Ancient national laws were religious in principle see Hamurabbi laws they were guarded by the gods. Laws are still essentially religious in principle. The care of orphans and widows have always been primary requirements of religious laws. They still have not changed.

Philo, explain how this works:

>>Pericles, So you acknowledge that religion reigns supreme in your everyday life after all your denial.<<

If you choose to define religion as "anything to do with time, place and existence", and if you choose to call providing commonplace landmarks and reference points as "reigning supreme", and if you call choosing not to share in any of the multifarious belief systems that ooze from the pores of society "all my denial", then I guess you might be close.

But why the panic? I am not in a position to threaten your way of thinking, relying as it does on a belief in a deity. Why do you find it necessary to dissolve into a slanging frenzy every time you post?

Might I suggest that it is an outward manifestation of your inner insecurity? That certainly would explain why you never respond to direct questions. Here are just a couple from earlier this thread.

"I would nevertheless be interested to hear your Biblically-inspired version [of the death of the planet], so that we can compare [with the scientific model]."

"...you might care to explain how you reach the conclusion that my imagination has been "has been coloured by Christian escatology [sic]"

"Do you really believe they ["values" and "points of view"] are the same?"

"So Philo, maybe it's up to you: can you perhaps "mount a logical argument giving a true definition of what is 'a religion'"?

I'm sure you must get satisfaction out of this form of semi-intellectual bluster, Philo, but it totally escapes me. I have worked out that i) you are religious, and that ii) you want everybody else to be religious too, so iii) you invent a definition of religion that encompasses all human social activity, then iv) spend countless posts nagging atheists that they are in fact religious, and therefore had better start worshipping something, quick smart.

But no amount of weasel words will change base metal into gold, Philo. At the end of the day you will still be left with an argument closely resembling a lump of lead.

Pericles,
Where have I said? "and therefore atheists had better start worshipping something, quick smart." I assumed you already do!

Otherwise it must be a boring life to have no character traits or principles to admire, aspire too or to consider adoreable, or worthy of praise. How sad if one considers nothing is valuable and to have no feelling of guilt or sorrow when you have violated a better judgment and offended another. These are the basic things religion deals with.

There are several Biblical texts that indicate the Universe (milky way) will implode upon itself as a scroll rolling up. The apostle John in his vision of Revelation 21 identifies the Earth passing away by fire.

This is becoming bizarre, Philo. Where on earth do you get these ideas from?

>>it must be a boring life to have no character traits or principles to admire, aspire too or to consider adoreable, or worthy of praise. How sad if one considers nothing is valuable and to have no feelling of guilt or sorrow when you have violated a better judgment and offended another. These are the basic things religion deals with.<<

It has been mentioned before, but it clearly needs to be carved in tablets of stone before you understand it...

Religion may deal with "these basic things"

But it does not have an exclusive franchise on them.

There is nothing about atheism that disqualifies it from these basic traits and emotions. If you believe otherwise, then you are a most severely deluded person.

It is of course entirely possible that you believe none of this at all, and are simply making increasingly ridiculous claims, simply to get a reaction. In which case, I've been well and truly sucked in, so you can stop now.

Have a great day.

I recognise your denial of what religion means. You have personally compartmentalised your definition into a box so that it means somthing of which you strongly disagree. To you it is convenient definition of the superstitious beliefs of people. You fail to agree that your own philosophic World view is exactly your personal religion.

Obviously you have no idea what is taught or practised among spiritual people to whom the whole of life is framed around their religion. You deny love is an essential teaching of Christianity and is essential part of the Christian religious practise. Your definition fails to accomodate all religious practises, and only defines what you consider superstitious, so it suits your political cause to berate people of religious principle.

Your religion identity is more than atheism, and you fail to recognise religion is what defines your spirit. For my definition you are religious - upholding a strong set of spiritual principles.

Looking more like a troll every post, Philo. But what the heck.

>>I recognise your denial of what religion means.<<

Disagreeing with you does not constitute denial, nor does it mean that I am necessarily wrong.

In fact, the opposite is more likely, given the vagueness of the arguments you have put forward.

>>To you it is convenient definition of the superstitious beliefs of people<<

Or, to use Foxy's words, "religion is a system of community shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented towards some sacred, supernatural realm"

>>You fail to agree that your own philosophic World view is exactly your personal religion<<

The reason I fail is because my "philosophic World view" fails the Foxy test. My world view is not part of a shared community. It has no rituals. It does not believe in a sacred, supernatural realm.

>>You deny love is an essential teaching of Christianity and is essential part of the Christian religious practise.<<

Nope. Never have, never will.

What I do deny is that love is the exclusive property of Christians, which for some reason you find difficult to understand.

>>it suits your political cause to berate people of religious principle<<

I do not berate. I accept the need that some people find for solace in belief in a god, and for the comfort and fellowship of like-minded people. The fact that I choose not to join them is not an act of aggression.

>>Your religion identity is more than atheism, and you fail to recognise religion is what defines your spirit.<<

Evidence, please?

>>For my definition you are religious - upholding a strong set of spiritual principles.<<

So long as you understand that this is entirely your own personal definition.

If it makes you feel happy to believe that I am religious, that's fine, it doesn't hurt at all.

But do not try to generalize and draw broad conclusions from your misperception, because they simply will not stand up.

Religion is essentially about actions that define the spirit of a person to others, his character as lived out, his values as lived out in action. To the individual it is the inner spirit that defines the attitudes and behaviours.

Some religions also involve belief in theism those beliefs ranges from gods as actual spatial beings, to God as the highest ideal behind all reality in whose image we were meant to live.

The small Church I attend support as part of its programme the development of improved agricultural programmes in Indonesia, Settlement of Muslim refugees in Europe, teaching local school children landcare programmes, and the development and use of creative shills to assist the homeless in Africa. All these we consider a part of our role in doing Gods work in the World. Caring for the poor and homeless is what the NT considers pure religion.

I give up, Philo. If you are going to redefine religion each time I question your previous attempt, we are going nowhere.

>>Religion is essentially about actions that define the spirit of a person to others<<

Yet another unworkable example.

How does this stand up if, say, the "actions that define my spirit" include running a protection racket? Do I then have to declare on the census form that my religion is mafiosi?

Or if the "actions that define my spirit" include extensive charity work and a selfless devotion to the welfare of others, but excludes the concept of a deity? When faced with the question "what is your religion" on the census form, what do I write?

By scouring the four corners of your imagination for ever broader definitions of religion, you are presenting an ever weaker argument. And my question remains - why are you doing this? What is it about the word that gets you so agitated that you need to pin it as a label to all and sundry, whether or not they believe in the supernatural, or the afterlife, or the forgiveness of sins, or the existence of any form of superior being?

I've said the same thing so many times that I am beginning to bore even myself, so I'll quit now.

Have a great, supremely religious day.

Wrong Philo, religion is organised superstition, it is no more than that. Latest events in Pakistan demonstrate the repulsiveness of religion when it attempts to become involved with politics. The 'Brand' of the religion makes no difference as Christianity has demonstrated through the Anti Semitism of Nazi Germany , White supremecy politics of the KKK, the evil that was the self claimed benevolence that led to the stolen generation, the vilification of rape victims of Nicaragua, the persecution of homosexuals in the U.S. The justification of 19th century slavery, witch burning , pagan persecution, and much besides. Of course too Shintoism, Budhism and hinduism both have motivated, wars and autrocities in central and East Asia. The idea of spirit is an articulation of selfishness which dreams to attain the evil of domination.

I am against the corruption that is religion involved in politics, not as an Atheist or an anti-theist or an non-denominationalist but as a firm believer in Democracy. Religion is the polar oppositte of democracy. Religion is in all essence Facism.

Poor frantic West demonstrates exactly his brand of dominating religious confused ideoplgy. He says he upholds democracy in one sentence "as a firm believer in Democracy" and denies it in another "Religion is the polar oppositte of democracy". West is rather an impulsive dominating angry man. He has no place for others opinion - just his own.

Religion is the personal values that make us human and distinct from other forms of life. That some prefer to be angry sadists who wish to impose their sad values on others is rather tragic. A value system that impose death upon the innocent unborn, the filth of anal sex upon a healthy society, and macarbe science to suit their immoral and vain ends. Dr David Nicholls, there appears something rather psychotic in Wests response that needs counselling attention! His experience with Religion has so distorted his view of reality.

Philo your religionist propaganda is tired and defunct.

I have questions for you, how is it you must fight against democracy and freedom in order for your cult to take over, why is your god not capable of doing so himself? Why didnt god simply create normal people in chains and Christians with savage dogs for hands?

If freedom and democracy is blasphemy then why does god need you to figtht for him rather than leaving such to the likes of you?

If Jesus teaches morality and you behave this way, what is the point of Jesus if your behaviour is the outcome?

Why must Australia submit to the Christian yoke when every instance of Christian domination has meant terrorism and failure?

Do you honestly believe that Christians taking out their frustration that god does not exist on all other people is spiritually rewarding? What if Australians do not submit to Christian domination? What aqre your plans for this insubordination?

How is the spirit not self obsession ?

How is faith not superstition?

Without proof of God what justification have you as Christians got for your assertion you are the master people? How can you be Gods chosen to rule, when you have not got a true god in the first place?

I think we are all aware by now that your definition of religion is all-encompassing, Philo.

>>Religion is the personal values that make us human and distinct from other forms of life<<

Unfortunately, not only I but also the Australian Bureau of Statistics disagree with you. This is from the 2001 Census:

"For a group to be included in the Australian Bureau of Statistics' classification of religion, it would have to show that there was an underlying belief system or philosophy, and that there is also some form of institutional arrangements or organisational structure"

You can bluster away all you like, Philo, but religion, in the way the vast majority of Australians use the term, involves a common set of beliefs contained within an organized framework.

Have a great day.

"Religion is the personal values that make us human and distinct from other forms of life" is Complete nonesense. Unless you are Doctor do little you cannot know that. Infact there is much evidence gathered by biologists to suggest Bovines, Primates, parrots and Canines will mourn their dead. This suggests animals are not above superstition and above delusions as your statement suggests. Through sign language conversations with Coco the gorilla testify that there is a fine line between the minds of gorillas and men.

The definition of religion has nothing to do with values, the religious differ from the normal community in that they 'must' follow precise rituals to navigate through their fantasy world of superstition , fearing the wrath of gods or broken mirrors if there is any deviation from the narrow line of ritualised life. Perhaps religion will one day be treated as an illness because what is the difference between the compusion to worship and the compulsion to gamble? That day can only come when we as a society are mature enough to admit religion is a disease the same way we have admitted that smoking is a disease. Smoking was once regarded as having health benifits.

West,
Obviously you mix with very few genuine Christians; their religion has everything to do with values and nothing to do with superstition. In fact the term atheism has everything to do with superstition and nothing to do with values.

I ask what rituals do I perform to navigate through my day to avoid the wrath of God?

What religion teaches that broken mirrors will affect one's day? You are filled with superstition and negative bigoted brainwashing.

In case you had not realised the laws on banning advertising, display of cigarettes and smoking in NSW were formulated by the notorious Rev Fred Nile. A man upholding his values that man is made in the image of God and ought to keep himself free of all addictions

Well if religion has nothing to do with values, then you have lost the debate. Because those upholding values have every right to be involved in politics wether they be religious or not. Because politics is about upholding social values. So stop denying the right of people of religious faith to be involved in politics.

Of course you won't buy that argument will you? Because Religion has everything to do with values you may or may not reject.

I suggest you try to bring in a four day working week with every fifth day a rest day so it does not represent a Jewish - Christian - Islamic view of Creation. According to you a religious superstition. I suggest you try to change the Calander to a date representing an atheists view of the world and not a reference point to Christ. You see these are laws established by religious values.

From the Melbourne AGE:
"Tony Blair was right when, on the eve of his conversion to Catholicism, he said that any British politician who talked about religion ran the risk of being regarded as a "nutter".

In this country, a politician ..who admits that their religion influences the way they vote in parliament will be accused of being a dangerous theocrat intent on introducing the moral majority into Australia.

It is obvious in the treatment of Tony Abbott, tagged by the Canberra press gallery as the "mad monk", to the way the ABC has labelled Catholic social groups, such as Opus Dei, as semi-secret organisations.

The debate about stem cell research, for instance, is often presented as though one side is arguing a moral position and the other side isn't. This is not true. In fact, the arguments from both sides of the debate are founded in ethical and moral considerations.

Morality simply cannot be taken out of politics.

The reasons why the media handles these issues the way it does is because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the separation of the church and state. The original intention of this ideal was to ensure that the government did not interfere in the affairs of the churches. It means, that the government could not institute an official state religion and that political office holders were not required to pass religious tests.

Separation of church and state does not mean, and was never intended to mean, that anyone with religious convictions was disqualified from participating in politics.

There is also a contradiction in the way the media reports political and moral statements from the churches. Contributions on "social justice" issues are welcomed, but contributions on avowedly "moral" issues are not.

The former government's positions on illicit drugs or same-sex relationships were certainly the same as those of some church organisations, but many non-religious groups held similar positions. If indeed the religious right did have the influence claimed for it, then seldom has so much influence been used to so little effect."

Continued:

"So far Kevin Rudd has defied Tony Blair's pronouncement. The new Prime Minister has proved to be no less religious than his predecessor — if anything, Rudd has been more willing to talk about religion than was Howard, most notably in his description of himself as a Christian socialist.

Having made much of his Christianity during 2007, it will be interesting to see what effect, if any, religion has on the Prime Minister's policies during 2008."

Extract from John Roskam the executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs.