As expected ‘tis the season for vilification by Christianity of Atheism. Pulpits remonstrate against an evil humanity with religion the only saving antidote. What is wrong with this picture? Everything!

Humans are not inherently bad. The notion that we are in need of a set of instructions from a god enabling goodness to rule, is not only false, it has produced a self loathing civilisation trapped by its own manufactured narrow tenets. In the name of pious absolutism, hurt and oppression continues unabated, wreaking havoc on those falling outside of its arbitrary precepts.

Yes, there are good religious people, but they exist not because of belief in a supernatural realm and deity but despite such beliefs. The negatives of religion outweigh the benefits to the point of being a danger to the survival of life on earth.

Love, respect, compassion, cooperation, etc are evolutionary traits built on common desires. Therefore freely chosen Atheism is the default position for a more just and equitable society.

Atheism does not require an indoctrination process, as it contains no beliefs. Its only demand is that those with religious conviction supply evidence if they wish to manipulate the public to their way of thinking. So far, that evidence has not been forthcoming.

Contact:

David Nicholls
Phone: (08) 8835 2269

Head Office:
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
Private Mail Bag 6
MAITLAND SA 5573

Phone: (08) 8835 2269

Website: www.atheistfoundation.org.au
E-Mail: info@atheistfoundation.org.au

Dear David,

Reading your post, you sound quite embittered. I can only speak from my own perspective and experience. I grew up as a Catholic. And, I remember the times when a person who differed with the party line stole quietly away. Now faith has passed from the passive and complete acceptance of a body of teachings to the honest search for total commitment.

The world has become man-centered, meaning-centered, and the individual measures the traditional teachings in terms of personal value. Today they refuse to accept irrelevant sermons, a sterile liturgy, a passe and speculative theology which explores publicly dry and distant formulas, a law which does not explain its own origins.
Today, they demand a priest who reaches them in honest dialogue. They will not be bullied by an authoritarian demand for observance, nor by moralizing which ignores the true and complex context of modern life.

Today's believers demand a more open view of mixed marriages, a more understanding discussion of the birth-control problem and of the dilemma of Catholic education. Believers have recognized the human face of the Church which is being forced to change its expression or die. The Church cannot continue to be arrogant and inhumane.

Today you have a request for honest dialogue, an open hierarchy, a
Church which does not have all the answers or expect all of its followers to walk in the wooden cadence of frozen categories. Because today, a religion which expects its followers to march in identical step and to chant a univocal dotrine ceases to draw the modern follower.

I shall continue to be a Catholic, one who follows her conscience, and demands meaning and relevance from her church, and will not permit her God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absorbing law.

I do not fear hell because I can't fathom it. I do not seek heaven because it offers no image I can grasp. I only struggle to find myself, to love my fellow human beings, and to hope that in this way I am truly loving God.

Have a Healthy, Safe, and Prosperous New-Year!

David, - perhaps simply because of the season, you do sound somewhat bitter and twisted about things.

I do agree that its a bit much to expect the minority opinion to carry weight in legislation, but as to the opinions of others? Well, as Scarlett O'Hara says, Fiddle de dee. If certain people don't consider one inferior because of one's theological leanings or lack thereof, they will do so because of one's political affiliations, or ethnic background or sexual proclivities. It truly IS impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

I think that growing up and achieving maturity is about realising this, and having enough confidence in oneself not to get one's knickers in a knot about it. If society actually is full of "self-loathing" persons, then one just steers clear of those that one can and accepts those one can't. Sure, there will be the occasional blow-outs (had one recently) but I consider there are enough positive people - both believers and unbelievers - in our incredible and diverse universe not to lose any sleep over it.

Don't want to join any societies, organisations, cults, or clubs to prop up this viewpoint either.

"The negatives of religion outweigh the benefits to the point of being a danger to the survival of life on earth"

Some might argue you could subsitute "religion" with "human nature" and the accuracy (and indeed sense) is much the same.

It also seems to me just as realistic to wish for an end to religion as it is for a type of religion that is overwhelming beneficial, and the latter is surely easier to sell.

Is Christmas "the season for vilification by Christianity of Atheism"? I think Christmas is a time where all people could celebrate family, friends, loved ones and assess & evaluate ourselves and what we did during the past year.

Whether Jesus existed is very relevant to some and quite irrelevant to others. It makes no difference - even if he didn't exist we are discussing him anyway.

I find many athiests struggle because they can't rid themselves of the baggage that religion has created.

But why not be objective. The Christian religions have also done many good things along with the many bad things.

Not believing in evil as the Bible presents it, I choose Christmas to think of others, to help people where I can, to hope for better things for everyone. I don't pray to a God I try to bring it about via personal actions in helping people.

Religious teachings may have helped me to consider these things but I am certainly not religious and I don't trying to find favour with an alleged God is not my motive. I don't know whether God exists and I certainly can't say for sure one doesn't. To me it is a pointless argument with three answers Yes, No and Maybe!

I can't see much evidence of prayer being terribly effective "Apparently a starving child prays quite fervently" but often that prayer isn't answered unless the answer is "No go without".

And yet God allegedly helps push golf balls into holes in America and he seems to have delivered Academy Awards or Grammy's to many... Well he gets praised for it anyway.

If Athiests aim to get people to question their religion then their approach and people skills need work.

If everyone's motive was the question "Have you considered ... my philosphy"? Then I wouldn't mind at all. I could reply with 3 simple answers Yes, No or Maybe ... and choose to listen or not.

My philosophy is based on my life's experiences - Perfect!

Merry Christmas or Merry Non-Christmas everyone... I hope you have a fantastic 2008!

Good People,

Both the Pope and his Australian hatchet man, Pell, and others of the frock, have recently directly vilified Atheism. No big deal, as it is expected. Trouble is, the vilification is propagandist nonsense and totally misses the message of Atheism, which is:

Children have blank minds and can be indoctrinated into just about any religious or other system of belief. Cultural ideational expectation, adult authority, repetition and either subtle or overt threats and promises accomplish this. (Heaven and hell)

Adults so conditioned can accept these induced precepts, not on evidence but on rote induction. Adults vote.

The results include the denial of Legal Voluntary Euthanasia if required, and all people have potential need. Women afforded second class status, clearly evidenced in highly religious countries but working backward shows ours to be of the same strain. Take abortion rights: always under threat by the religious, denial of female priests, harsh prostitution laws against women and not men etc. Lesbians and gays do not have equal rights financially and socially. Christian chaplains have been introduced into State schools. Religions have numerous tax breaks, which is an impost on all citizens, even Atheists. The money thus accumulated is not accountable.

Of course, religious folk see no wrong in the above. They are used to the ways of a theocracy. In accepting such things, they certainly have failed to understand and appreciate, we live in a democracy.

This is not about bitterness; it is about social and democratic justice. Most Atheists I know, and that includes me, are far from being bitter. Their state of Atheism is acknowledged by them, and by me, as the luckiest happenstance that can occur to a human.

May the New Year be kind to you all,

David

I live in a society where religion is a subconscious fill-in for a lack of culture. It is sad to see people at religious functions becoming rather sucked in by hysteria & at the end of it all daily life with it's disregard for anything, even themselves takes over again. If there is a God I'm convinced that he/she/it does not endorse religion at all. Having faith I can understand but religion has nothing to do with any bible teaching whatsoever. Religion in my opinion was merely a very cleverly designed tool to control the masses much like sport these days. I never could & never will understand the need for hierarchy in faith. I thought in God's eyes we're all the same.

You sad lttle athiest, I suppose you grew up in a Christian Society who let you have such freedom of expression and free choice to deny the very GOD responsible for all good in your sad little athiest existence. Maybe if you grew up in Islam we would not be affronted with such a notion of Athiet. In fact we would not be suffering your idiocy at all.

Go peddle your barrow of smelly athiest prawns on the Dawkins Forum (where I go to see people sadder than Muslims). There is a place for Athiests, we have just not created it yet !!

Uninformed - Wow and your post just oozes Christianity ... You can sure feel the love that your alleged maker gave to you through his teachings and when he allegedly died on the cross.

In that answer can you point out the "Do Unto others as you would have them do unto you" OR "Love thine enemy"

See the problem with Christians is that when you declare yourself one you actually are representing Jesus Christ. You are declaring as a Christian you believe in the Lord and his teachings. When you rebuke others you are in effect "Judging others" - OOps the same yard stick will apparently be used on you.

Lead by example - and you might just show people the good that Christians allegedly believe in.

Do it not and you undermine your Christ - I doubt whether you have the divine authority to take that decision.

Finally of course the sermon on the mount by Jesus Christ himself whom you seem to follow says in Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Could an athiest be considered poor in spirit by Jesus? Oh Oh then "theirs is the Kingdom of heaven" Jesus said it NOT me!

Christians who jump down people's throats really need to ask "am I representing Jesus in the way he would want" "Am I undermining my saviour's teachings?" - Good luck with those questions!

Dear Opinionated2,

Your post seems slightly one-sided. What's with the finger-pointing
at believers? We're all responsible for our own actions. We do have freedom of choice - and that includes you... What Christians have jumped down your throat? So now you're determined to do the same, eh?

Human nature - ain't it grand?

Sorry Foxy but I don't think I was jumping down anyone's throat... I was asking the questions of a person who calls themselves Christian basing my questions on Bible teachings.

If you can point out where I jumped down their throat then fine I will apologise.

My point is quite clear .... I was attempting (using scripture) to illustrate how Christians can undermine their own belief system in the eyes of others by not following Jesus' teachings. Jesus in many areas was quite specific on these matters. Afterall "All fall short of the glory of God"

Jesus' teachings place many more restrictions on Christians than Christians seem prepared to accept.

So if an atheist states his position he shouldn't be told "Go peddle your barrow of smelly atheist prawns...." Why do you choose to correct me and not the person who typed this? Isn't defending Jesus' position on this sort of comment more Christian? - that is what I was doing.

Amazing! To quote a Christian - you - "Human nature - ain't it grand"?

Are you unhappy with my choice of Scripture? Was I offensive in any way? Re-read what I said... you seem to misunderstand the softness in which I quoted your doctrinal choice - The Bible.

I once worked with one of those seven-day-God-botherers who always pushed Christian values. Well, his christian values didn't extend to his dogs which he treated like crap. he rather slept in workshops rather than paying for accommodation. he didn't drink (because he couldn't control his temper after a couple of beers), he bought stuff for very little & sold it for as much a he could get. I have seen this kind of behaviour in people of other religions too. giving money to charity & then claiming it back in tax is the most common. very god-proper I must say. In my experience only selfish hypocrites are religious. good people have faith & treat others' fairly.

I would not join the thread starters group the hate is on display.
Yes I once was a Christian.
Never will be again, but why the hate? sorry but most who claim to be Christians are not, it takes more than mumbled prayers to Hughie.
Do not feel sorry for me, yes I know my fate if I am wrong.
But maybe there is not enough room in hell for me, some real bad men who use the name of God are booked it.
True non believers have no need to sell our side of the issues, while I would want a world that united all humans we gain nothing by using belief to divide us.
Or non belief.

David, I agree that there is no need for a set of instructions from a supernatural being. There is no need for an imaginary being in the development of morality.

Empathy and compassion are, in my view, the base of morality.
The Golden rule is universal: Do onto others as you would have them to do onto you.

I haven't found that people who believe in supernatural beings have better patterns of moral judgment than people who rely more on reality and rational thinking.

Having said that, in my daily life (outside OLO!) I haven't had significant arguments with religious people. I feel that most people, no matter their beliefs, can get along fine and most accept that some people do not share their view.

The only recent incident I had was when I discovered that all people in a meditation class I took had some kind of belief in supernatural beings. (Gods, spirits, healing guides...name it!)
When it was my turn to talk about supernatural experiences and I said I believed in nothing supernatural, they concluded that I needed some spiritual growth to become more open minded!

I felt more amused than insulted; it was like I was the only sober one at a drunken party with people who all thought I needed a drink to become 'normal' :)

I think that the vast majority of Australians who celebrated the Christmas holiday the other day did so with very little reference to its Christian aspects. Certainly, I can't think of anybody in my fairly wide circle of friends, family and acquaintances who would have attended a church on Christmas Day to hear the remonstrations from the pulpit of which David writes.

In its secular observance, involving gift-giving, feasting and gathering together with family and friends, I think that Christmas is reverting to its Saturnalian roots - except of course nobody worships Saturn any more. Sure, a few fundies might rattle on about putting Christ back in Christmas or some such, but who listens to them?

I attended Church on Christmas day and the word "atheism" was not even mentioned. So I don't know why David is so upset. If David attended Church he might find there was more positive things talked about.

If atheism was in some places discussed then certainly David has his pulpit here on ONF bagging Christianity. So what is the point?

Dear Opinionated2,

I owe you an apology ("Mea Culpa" ...). I did misread your previous
posts. After re-reading them - I admit they are not offensive in the least, and valid.

Thank you for being so patient and understanding.

As far as religion is concerned I guess people will continue to argue
heatedly on the topic (the same goes for politics or sport). I don't know why we can't just respect each other's point of view and get along... I think that's what I meant when I said, "Human nature - ain't it grand?"

Or put another way, "Everyone'd mad except thee and me, and I'm suspicious about thee." (or words to that effect).

oops I made a typo - it should be "Everyone's mad ...."

And I do have one final thought:

"Freedom and not servitude is the cure of anarchy;
as religion, and not atheism, is the true remedy
for superstition."
- Edmund Burke
(1729 - 1797).

Dearest Foxy,

Apart from arguing if there are any differences between religion and superstition, taking the word of Edmund Burke on such matters is fraught with problems. Dear Edmund was a firm believer in upholding traditions such as monarchies and religion as he felt safe in such beliefs. Actually, they did make him safe in his upper-class world but unfortunately, not so the peasantry who suffered terribly under both those regimes.

Would the freedoms we have today be existent if Edmund has his way?

David

That's OK Foxy... Thankyou for the apology although it wasn't necessary but appreciated all the same.

I can sometimes come across as sarcastic so I accept criticism ... I try to approach religious debate in such a way that doesn't offend anyone (I often fail)... Ha!

It seems to me that those of faith and those that label themselves atheist often are walking the same road just with different outlooks.
Both can offend each other and yet generally speaking I believe neither actually mean to offend.

Philo ... I agree ... I couldn't imagine too many Christian churches lecturing on Atheism at Christmas services... Christmas is too important a day on their calendars.

Celivia, The term open minded from my experience is often misunderstood by the person in that they think they are being called close minded. Having recently had a near death experience and other experiences in my life that would test scientific knowledge at this stage I think they were really suggesting "stay open to all things". It may be a fine line but from my experience the walk of life has many forks in the road and when you suddenly experience something that you would have argued as very doubtful... It does abruptly get you back on your journey of understanding.

Oh by the way I didn't meet God or the Devil and there was no white light calling me towards it. I just saw myself walk away from my body. I promise no mind altering substances were involved and I came back rather spectacularly!

From my experiences there are far more things that we don't know and so to think we know may be another way we self limit our knowledge & experiences through life's journey.

I hope your meditation experiences go well and that you may discover what these people may be referring to ... Even if you don't meditation is a brilliant skill in itself.

Dear David I agree wholeheartedly with all that you say.
Yes I agree with a tolerant Society that all people have a right to believe anything they want to believe. If it is Ghosts, Angels, Fairys at the bottom of the garden, Greek Mythology, Father Christmas, UFO and a divine being so be it. Personally if a politician openly believes in religous teachings then he certainly will not get my vote. To me all religous people are gullible and are unable to make their own decisions because they canonly rely on their faith. Whether they be moderate or fundamentalist they are no different from each other and unfortunately cannot move forward with their life until they see Religoos teachings as only man made that divides and rules all people and Nations.

Comrades the evil act regarding the Assasination of Benazhia Bhutto epitomises how religous teachings have an effect upon the impressionable. The victim sought a Secular Society with Justice and Fairness for all and was murdered because she was a threat. This highlights the evil of all Religous Activities. Karl Marx quotation that Religoun is the Opium of the People confirms that there can never be a truer word than any cheating of the St James Bible.

I went to a church service on christmas eve (someone I care a lot about does believe) and the word athiest was mentioned but in welcome rather than dismissal.

I don't agree with the churches message and agree that parts of the message are harmfull and agree in principle with much of the content of what I've seen on the Athiest Foundation website. Having said that I find the tone of the opening post and what content I've seen on the website as bothersome as I used to find extremist christian views when I used to believe in that faith.

The kind of dogmatic viewpoint which leaves no acceptance of the possibility of being wrong, that refuses to see any good in that which it doesn't agree with is just as harmful regardless of a basis in a belief in a supernatural friend or a certainty that such supernatural figures don't exist.

I agree that there is no evidence that a god exists but I also conceed that there are things which I can't explain.

R0bert

Why do Atheists make a point of denouncing something they don't believe in?.

I don't believe in fairies, but I ain't gonna make a point of disproving them. I just don't care.

atheists are merely the mirror image of the religious cranks. I consider myself as neither but I must say if we only followed the simple rule of the ten commandments then people would definately be a lot happier.

individual,

You really should start taking an interest in politics and its controlling forces. Your classification of Atheists as “cranks” is a poor evaluation. Atheists are merely pointing out the dangers of religion, as exampled vividly by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

I have already enunciated other problems with religion in a previous post. Maybe you should read it. You have also placed no thought into the proposition that the touted Ten Commandments can save humanity. The first four relate to a god and the rest are just simple rules of any cooperative society.

By the way, the 10th Commandment relates to coveting (Wishing for) your neighbour’s wife, slaves or oxen. This is sexist, promotes slavery and upsetting to oxen. Where is the moral message in that one? And how many people wish for a better deal? Do you? Is that wrong?

The remaining five have been in existence for tens of thousands of years. Successful countries utilise secular lawmaking as history clearly demonstrates scriptural obedience creates only disaster.

And before you hide behind the despots of the 20th century, have a think, as that is the ploy of those without a case. Any ideology forced on a population is wrong…period. This is unrelated to freely chosen Atheism.

David

Thank God for people like David and Bronco. It's long past time for losing all superstitions and joining the 21st Century. Science may not yet have all the answers but we're learning more all the time.

Seriously, religion has been the cause of most conflicts throughout history. The God of the Old Testament even encouraged his 'Chosen People' to make war on neighbouring tribes and take their land. The rise of Athiesm would be the best hope for the human race.

Hope you had a good Solstice.

Why do atheists continually refer to ancient wars as evidence of religious violence, when the great wars of the last century were secular or at least non religious in ideology. Stories are told of troops in their trenches on Christmas day on both sides singing in unison Christmas carols. Unfortunately they were employed by their secular States to kill or capture each other.

Atheism (unbelief) is the final scourge that would be enforced upon humanity by Dictators with no conscience. Atheists like David live in allusive hope science will ultimately give him all the answers. He fails to recognise a total atheistic society is accountable to no one higher than its leadership. So he imagines he can enforce his insecurity on us all.

He espouses no one else may feel secure by belief of spiritual principles as taught by Jesus: i - Love the highest ideals of character revealed to man (God), 11 - Love one's neighbour as you love yourself. Thank God for Christmas! Thank God for Christ born into a violent secular Roman Empire (where the Emperor was supreme god) with a message of hope and salvation.

Philo,

You have either not read the previous posts or your comprehension is poor. It would be a pointless waste of time to attempt to drag you out of your religious induced delusion. A small point though, it was the Romans who refereed to the small band of early Christians as Atheists. The Romans were just as serious about their gods as you appear to be about yours.

If you wish to believe that people are evil and need a superman in the sky to control them, then good luck to you. If you cannot recognise that it is the democratic system, which keeps you safe, and is in constant need of surveillance, scrutiny and criticism when required, then you are one of the problems about which we must all worry.

Christianity fought against the introduction of democracy for 1,700 years, and now tries to influence it against the informed wishes of the population. (As pointed out in previous posts)

David

David,
I merely pointed out that both, the atheist & the religious insist on putting forward their view on something they can't prove.

individual,

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but Atheists do not have to prove anything. Those promoting that there are gods have to prove the existence of such entities. This is especially so if they insist on interfering in politics and social mores with that point of view.

David

I wish that I had something really clever to say and charm all of you
into seeing that it's allright to believe( or not), in whatever you want, as long as you're not hurting anyone or doing anything illegal.

I don't believe in labelling people, mainly because I've fought against labels all my adult life. My philosophy has always been - "Live and let live." So perhaps I'm not a very good Christian, but then I've always tried to see the good in people and not to judge...

Foxy, I don't think too many atheists would claim it's not "alright to believe", though certainly plenty have concern about what those who do believe are missing out on.
Dawkin's argument against moderate religion is that it makes a virtue out of "belief without evidence", and there's enough history of what this can lead to that even moderate religion is dangerous. However, I have to say, unless there is good evidence that being exposed to moderate religion causes people to be more likely to become extremists and/or fundamentalists, it's not a super strong argument.

Obviously atheists fail to appreciate fiction, art and immagination. I suggest they watch a few good fiction movies they might happen to appreciate thing that are not so scientific. I suggest they also tell their children fiction stories - they might also become normal people.

The celebrations that happen at this time of year have been going on for centuries and in many cultures long before it was known as Christmas.

The Winter Solstice has always been a period of celebration and festivity in many cultures.
As well as the paganism of Yule, with its decorated trees, holly and other symbols, it was also the time of Saturnalia, gift-giving and mistletoe.

It’s also the birthday of several Gods: Attis, Frey, Thor, Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, Mithra, Tammuz. Jesus and Cernunnos to name a few.

Mithra, by the way, was born on December 25, of a virgin. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and magicians [magi]. Mithra raised the dead and healed the sick and cast out demons. He returned to heaven at the spring equinox and before doing so had a last supper with his 12 disciples (representing the 12 signs of the zodiac), eating mizd, a piece of bread marked with a cross (an almost universal symbol of the sun).

December 25th was not decreed to be Jesus’ birthday until the 4th century by Roman churches (or the 7th century by churches in Jerusalem).

St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople at the end of the fourth century wrote: “On this day also the Birthday of Christ was lately fixed at Rome in order that while the heathen were busy with their profane ceremonies, the Christians might perform their sacred rites undisturbed. They call this (December 25th), the Birthday of the Invincible One (Mithras); but who is so invincible as the Lord? They call it the Birthday of the Solar Disk, but Christ is the Sun of Righteousness.”

Therefore, despite the origins and rewritten mythologies, most of the customs that surround Christmas are strictly pagan in origin – including the date - and most of what’s left has been hijacked by Santa Claus and the almighty dollar.

Nevertheless I hope everybody has an enjoyable celebration - Christian, Heathen, Pagan, Heretic and Infidel alike.

That's a luxury of not being burdened with the need to convert anybody else to my beliefs.

Thanks Opinionated, for your kind words. I have given your understanding of ‘open-mindedness’ some thought and I hear what you’re saying.
Near death or Out of Body experiences are very intriguing!
I’m glad that you survived.
Although I don’t ‘believe’ in supernatural beings or life after death, I am not denying that some things, such as the OBEs and NDEs exist.
I leave space in my mind for both supernatural and scientific explanations or theories about these very complex and subjective experiences. I listen to all explanations, but haven’t been convinced of anything yet.
There are explanations for these experiences from both sides but neither can ultimately explain why or how some people have these experiences.
I’ve always had uncommon experiences myself; I hear what they seem to call ‘celestial music’ which I don’t think science can explain either. I have my own ‘theories’, which are not supernatural or mystical. I’ve never really been occupied by it or even investigated it and haven’t until recently mentioned it to some people.

Anyway, to answer people such as StG who asks why atheists would denounce something they don’t believe in, I’d say that I wouldn’t really bother talking about religion or God (since I have no problem what people believe) if it wasn’t for the fact that the doctrine or beliefs of some groups of religious people have a negative effect on the freedom or life of others.
Take issues like (voluntary) euthanasia or abortion or homosexuality for example. Although some non-religious people oppose these, it is mainly the religious lobbyists or organized groups of religious people that are out to deny people some rights. Why? Because THEIR religion makes them believe that these things are wrong. These religious groups should not have the right to impose their own beliefs on these other people, being women, terminally ill, or homosexuals.
Their beliefs should not interfere with others’ freedom to make decisions about their own lives. I have no problem with religious leaders preaching to their own flock nut they shouldn’t impose their doctrines upon outsiders.

Its just amazing!,and without putting the human race as a bunch of ignorant pond scum, and this includes me, but the fact remains the same. If you were to put more of your energies into the future, we just might be able to move on. People! you just cant live in the dark ages anymore. We all have the right to think as we will, and too think that your prospective is the right course of action, is ignorants to its highest level. So I see you cristans have a self appointed view. Stop pushing your point! A new world will soon be born soon, and have the commom sense to bite your tongue. Its going to get a lot worst before its gets better. My heart is with all living things,
and the most beautiful of all is, we all think the same, but just act differently, and this is the bridge we will all cross together. To those that follow the blind, you will have no-one to blame but yourselves.

"Atheists do not have to prove anything."
David, that sounds very much like "God exists !"
No-one can proof that God exists, that's why people have faith. No-one can prove that God doesn't exist. What have atheists got ? I wonder what that makes those of us who simply accept that there will be a moment of truth anyway.
As we both agree that religion is merely a tool I wonder what atheists believe (btw what is the atheist alternative for believe?) is a good foundation to go through life on & without conflict. I hope their philosophy works because religion doesn't. After all, it's peoples' selfishness which is the root of all disharmony. What is the atheist remedy for selfishness & solution to conflict

David, for a man who claims his atheism "... contains no beliefs", your not short of a few (beliefs) are you? eg there is no god or gods. God is an imaginary superman.

Your statement "Love, respect....are evolutionary traits built on common desires." Sounds great but what does it mean? Elsewhere you believe that we are born with "blank minds". Can't have it both ways mate.

You do a fine impression of those whose views you oppose- intolerant, quick to ridicule others, and a desire to proselytize your views.

I wonder if the Atheist Foundation isn't just some bully pulpit of your own construction for your own self aggrandisement?

individual,

“What is the atheist remedy for selfishness & solution to conflict”

Who said Atheist had a solution. What we are saying is that religion is an obvious and quantifiable problem and humanity should become aware of it and respond accordingly. If the majority of the planet were Atheists, there is not guarantees that we will survive misfortune of our own making. On the other hand, if we continue to make decisions based on ancient texts, oppression will continue and rapid extinction is very likely.

David

palimpsest,

Most, maybe all, higher animals have evolved with cooperative traits. Dogs, Kangaroos, lions etc, all display these traits in a cooperative attitude, love of each other, care for the young, friendships etc. They are innate attributes. Without them, survival is not possible. The human animal, as it has evolved in a similar manner also has these characteristics. The big but is that the young of any species can be influenced to have these evolutionary givens overridden by repetitious messages supported by culture and inducted with the authority of adult sanction. It’s a bit like patting a lion raised by humans and patting one in the wild. The instincts of kill can be overridden by interference in the young lion’s upbringing. (Most of the time)

You may consider me intolerant etc but I use words, not oppression. My previous posts point out, that religions do not just use words, they oppress many people.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc was founded in 1970, long before I joined. The job of president (And all others in it) are non paid volunteer positions. It saddens me that you do not recognise that such an organisation is definitely needed in a world beset by problems related to religion. I can assure you, self aggrandisement has nothing to do with it.

David

David, my thought is that religion is a valid attempt to answer the big questions, and is premised on the idea that "life" is something different from the physical world around us. Science gives us no better explanation of 'life' than religion does.

From the Veda on, religion tells us that thought(life) finds material expression thru desire, and that desire for the physical universe is the great mistake or 'sin', because this leads us to such acts as coveting our neighbours wifes ass.

Theology is something else again. Nothing wrong with asking the question "before the beginning was....?" and answering with "first cause, Supreme being etc". I'd suggest the trouble starts with what one does with that answer. The trouble starts when people claim exclusive knowledge or ownership of Hewie. And straight away we get bastardised religiosity. No longer a search for understanding but a reactive, protective thing.

Demanding proof of god or the spirit shows a total failure to grasp their concept. Again, the religious belief is that they are not of or 'in' the physical universe. The proof you offer for their non-existence is your own failure to conceive of or perceive their existence. ie No proof at all.

After that, can I say that I have little time for the Christian, Jewish or Islamic take on all this. Dogmatic and little more than a control thing. Although I would grant them alot more credit for the good they have done than you do.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

palimpsest,

Allow me to correct you. Science attempts to understand nature by drawing conclusions from experiment and having the results peer reviewed. It does not know or claim to know all the answers. Religion guesses because it can.

Atheists do not have a problem with people guessing about all kinds of beliefs. It does however, have a problem with religion when it attempts to impose its guessed conclusions onto the rest of the population. To do this without supplying evidence verifying their claims is arrogance to say the least.

It is highly presumptuous of you to assume, “Although I would grant them alot more credit for the good they have done than you do.” You know nothing about me and therefore that statement is only rhetorical rubbish.

I will tell you though, as a volunteer in the national organisation of the AFA I spend about 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, running it. Much of this work is counselling those negatively affected in their lives by some form of spirituality.

David

'Why do atheists continually refer to ancient wars as evidence of religious violence' asks Philo. Ulster, Kosovo, ancient?
'Atheism (unbelief) is the final scourge that would be enforced upon humanity by Dictators with no conscience', George Bush professes to be a Christian. Al-Quaeda profess to be devout Moslems.
'atheists fail to appreciate fiction, art and immagination', wrong again Philo. We can appreciate fiction, but we realise that it is indeed fiction. My children believed in Santa Claus till they grew out of it - just as I grew out of religion. Maybe you will too someday. To suggest that children are not 'normal people' unless they believe in some religious mumbo-jumbo is ridiculous. And 'what is the atheist alternative for believe' can be answered by 'we believe what we see'. When the proof is in front of us, we accept it. We could never stoop to blind faith.

Individual, '"Atheists do not have to prove anything." David, that sounds very much like "God exists !"'. It's been written before on another thread that it's not necessary to prove a negative. Your only 'proof' is an ancient book by dubious authors.

David, many a scientist has and does hold religious/spiritual beliefs. But you claim to KNOW. That's another arrogant viewpoint.

My presumptuous claim that I give religion more credit for 'good'than you is based on your belief that religion may well be the death of us all -the negatives outweigh the benefits to the point where religion threatens our existence- or some such unprovable and rhetorical statement that is opinion only. The track record of the Later Day Secularist is no better than that of religion.

There is innumerable testimony to the good that religion has done for people. Just this morning I saw on TV a young man testifying to the positive influence religion had made on his life.

I'm curious as to what form of counselling you undertake on those afflicted with spirituality. I'm imagining you performing exorcism on the possessed. Say it aint so.

palimpsest,

Please point our where I said, “I know”. Most of the Atheists I am aware of are scientific Atheists. As with all other parts of their lives, they accept propositions on the highest probability. The same as you do with the existence of fairies, flying in a plane, driving a car or eating processed food. If the highest probability was that you would die doing these things, you would not do them. When one can hide in the safety of the mind, with religion, suddenly, the rules change and highest probability is not taken into account.

About scientists: The latest survey at the National Academy of Sciences demonstrated only 7% of the respondents who answered, held any belief in a god. The general population of the USA has a 93% belief rate

The AFA has a 12 person Public Relations Team that handles inquiries from the public. As stated, some of those are in relation to the ill effects of religion in people’s lives. They cover a broad spectrum. Some are: those in relationships where one partner is religious and the other Atheist and what to do about raising children – overcoming the emotional damage of indoctrination of religion when the intellectual side is thoroughly defeated – parents concerns regarding chaplains influencing their children – living in, mainly closed rural locations where religion defines a person - young gay people, again, predominately in rural locations, seeking affirmation they are not ‘evil’ - parents concerned their child is being heavily influenced by fundamentalist religion – people from different cultures stressed by our culture, when they originate from cultures where separation of church and state is taken for granted, such as France – former priests and pastors looking for someone to talk to now they are Atheists – Atheists just wanting to know they are not alone. The list is endless but these are a few.

David

Dear David,

From reading your posts it sounds to me that your organisation does an
excellent job and helps a lot of people.

And I can understand where you're coming from. You have decided how you must live your one and only life. And you don't want anything forbidding you to be yourself.

Whereas I need to know the wonder of the Mass and the comfort of confession amid the perils of my search as I struggle to find myself.
I will follow my conscience, and demand meaning and relevance from my Church. And I will remain a Catholic

Foxy, I always enjoy your posts for their from the heart sincerity. I wish you well and hope your 'bet' pays off.

David, your posts, particularly the early ones were choc-full of assertions that carried no qualification at all. Definitely had that Colgate ring-of-confidence about them.

I've spent the majority of my life in your camp, and have stated that I regard Christianity as a cop out, and a dead end in the search for understanding, along with other religions mentioned. But life experience with prescient knowledge, remote viewing and OBE's has qualified my views.

Earlier I questioned your seemingly contradictory views re our innate attributes v's our being born as blank pages. Thanks for your answer; although I still, in my own life cannot distinguish between an 'innate quality' and my thoughts. I agree that the qualities and characteristics you describe are necessary for survival but regard them as known. I regard these 'evolutionary givens' as choices made, not some animalistic and unknown thing.

The assumption or taking on the concept of being a soul, 'in' but not of the material world does not mean I do not benefit from the sciences, only the delusional would deny gravity after all. Science is busy reducing matter to almost nothing- on the sub sub sub nuclear level they are discovering a lot more space than matter and are busy discovering what the Veda stated thousands of years ago- that thought(desire) is the mother of all invention.

Been listening to the Bob Dylan botleg series all afternoon. If there is a god surely Bob is his son?

Ha! Palimpsest, I think that your approach to Christianity is pretty close to my own - except that I think you privilege Christianity's version of religious truth over those of other religions more than I do.

I only object to religious expression when it seeks to silence more rational approaches to life - as we see very often in this forum - or when it is expressed more violently, e.g. Islamist suicide bombers or Christian fundy attacks on abortion clinics. Perhaps more saliently, I oppose the incorporation of religious ideas into State policies and practices.

Otherwise, I'm hardly a militant atheist. Hell, I was Santa Claus at my local pub a week ago :)

So... a very happy Christ-mass to all of you. Even David who seems to be in the market for the real thing.

Dear Foxy, *suggestion* :) why not be 'catholic' as opposed to 'A' Catholic? Its more Biblical. 'A' Catholic would suggest you are a member of the Church of 'Rome'.. i.e.. a 'Roman' Catholic,-whereas "Catholic"in attitude means all who know Christ as Lord and Savior are part of the Church Catholic, but they may reside in any of various denominations.

David.. your little 'poor us' direction reminded me a little of my new laptop and its included Chess game. I played it over and over and it was allll downhill.. me losing. Each time I lost it said "This will be counted in your statistics as a LOSS"...then.. wonder of wonders I BEAT it... aaah victory was sweet.. so sweet.. then the sucker said "DRAW" ! How the heck does 'checkmate'= 'draw' ?

The moral of the story of course.... not facing reality. (both you and my Chess game.) I rarely find atheists 'vilified'.. pehaps you can share a specific example?

Foxy,

I also was baptised into the Catholic tradition. (From Word Web – Catholic - A member of a Catholic church) I found I wasn’t following my conscience, but one imposed on me without my permission, when I was too young to do anything about it. I discovered a lot of what I was indoctrinated with was just plain wrong. (Read my second post for some of what was wrong) But, Foxy, whatever gets you through the night, as is said.

palimpsest,

“although I still, in my own life cannot distinguish between an 'innate quality' and my thoughts.”

Therein lays the problem with indoctrination. The blurring of indoctrinated messages and our innate nature makes it difficult to discern the difference. It is so powerful a force that even seeing it at work in other cultures does not necessarily convince one it has also happened to them.

BOAZ_David

“I rarely find atheists 'vilified'.. pehaps you can share a specific example?”

The Pope condemned Atheism recently. Following in his footsteps, George Pell was widely reported in many newspapers stating that Atheism was more than just a bad idea. To suggest that others did not take the lead from these two prominent persons would be remarkably naive. And I haven’t mentioned how the fundamentalist side of Christianity views Atheism.

As a footnote, I have been ‘denounced from the pulpit’ in the area I live. I don’t frequent many churches, but was informed by a Testra employee working on a phone problem. He thought it was terrible, whereas I took it as par for the course.

David

Hi David,
I note with considerable interest your disclosure of a Roman Catholic background.
With that, I find it easier to comprehend the intensity of your dislike for organized religion, which sadly, you seem to have expanded to include 'all' religion or expressions of it.. particularly Christianity it would appear.

Instead of becoming a Luther, and as a warrior seeking to reform the errors you detected, you became a warrior against God. This seems quite unreasonable. Is it possible that your bad experience in the Catholic Church has marred your ability to objectively interpret the evidence for Christ? Not to mention the many great traditions of the Church prior to the Roman version being corrupted by the legal acceptance of the Church after Constantine, and the subsequent lapsing into 'Power' based operation, and infallible Popes.

If only we could extricate you from your past, and with an emptied mind, expose you to the glories of the True Christ, Messiah.
I read to my family from Isaiah 9.6 over Christmas, then from John 20:31
I pray you will find the significance of those truths for yourself.

CJ.. I cannot end the year without a bit of a poke at you :)*poke*
Err..its not about 'silencing' opposing views, but a) asserting the rationality of faith in Christ(1 Cor 15:12-19) b) 'exposing' them for either their irrationalality and/or their underlying self/carnal interest.(Surah 33:50/51)

BOAZ-David,

My history of being in the Catholic Church only influences me accepting, they, and the rest of the 20,000 religions have no evidence for their claims. I hold no hatred against the RC’s or any other religion. I am certainly not a “warrior against God”. One cannot be a warrior against an invisible nothing. In the same vein, I am not a warrior against fairies.

It appears your indoctrination is complete, as you will not look past your own religious ideas to actually try and understand what I am saying. This is nothing to be proud or ashamed of; it is just that nature and nurture are too difficult for some people to overcome. That is why Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion classifies religious indoctrination as mental child abuse. The AFA and many social commentators agree with that sentiment.

Surely, you are opposed to the indoctrination of children with any religion or ideology. And before you parrot the standard response, Atheism requests only that children be given a well rounded education regarding the many religions with the emphasis that none is evidenced. Particular scripture is only evidence to the already indoctrinated.

Atheism does not have any indoctrinatory agenda. As with most educators, Atheism expects that children be presented with factual information, and not myth dressed up as being true, accompanied by threats and promises because of disbelief or belief.

David, I think it is about time your told us your story. What was the predominate religion of your country of birth? What was the religion of your parents? What religion would you be if you were born into an Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu or other culture? What is your present religion? i.e what denomination and are you fundamentalist, young earth creationist, old earth creationist (You see, there are a lot of them all stating they are right) What is the evidence for its correctness in your case? (That is, evidence all will accept)

Now remember the 9th Commandment is not a suggestion: KJV – 16 – “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

David

David (if that's your real Christian name)(no pun intended) I could possibly imagine where you're coming from, very much like my own I'd say!Atheism is a belief, contrary to your opening statement, but not a religion.Anybody thinking that atheists have not educated themselves about what religions have to offer and did/not did for their followers or to their enemies must be living in a tunnel hoping for the bright light not to be an oncoming train.I've always thought that holy books written by humans were a directive for lonely and mentally displaced people. Just to get them out of the mental sh.t so to speak, like a good psycho book. Maybe I should not mention this on this forum but their is strong evidence that psychiatry is an clinically unproven theory.What the holy books and it's derivatives were trying to do was probably a forerunner to the (mis)treatment so many millions have had to endure.May any healthy internal force stay with you all during future trying times.

eftfnc,
I see you believe in supernatural forces. "May any healthy internal force stay with you all during future trying times".

Could you please explain if you have had experiences with such, or is it - watching too much science fiction movies?

At the very core of Christian values is exclusionism. Christ teaches that though the Sameritans are better people it is his own cronies which will saved by his god. The Bible guarantees that Jesus taught communism and according to the character of Jesus it is his own community that will subsist at the expense of the people of the world.
When the cult of the Bible was glued together by the Council of Nicea , propaganda elements such as peace and goodwill thrown in in order to seduce the die hard humanist elements of the City of Rome and of course Christianity had been intertwined with crime in the empire that it needed a change in PR.

It was not that long ago that "Christmas" was stolen from the various beliefs of Europe and Central Asia, indeed some sects of the Christ Cult still do not acknowledge this ancient solstice festival."Christmas" itself has been persecuted by Christians who could not bring it to extinction.

As a stolen festival the cult of Christ must assert its domination of our hereditary tradition in order for it to maintain the pretence that Christianities superstitions are not merely only arbitary inventions.

As for the arrogance of churches as they pretend to be victorious in their lust to control the population and bring the free people under their dominion, let them indulge.

For me Christmas is symbolic of my ancestors,Animists, Pagans , Celts, Norse, Druid, Cossack,Goths,Vandals, Mongol and Tuetonic who are victorious over Constantine and his Military cult. For despite Christianity we still celebrate the solstice despite centuries of persecution and the last laugh is on Jesus because Christians are helping keep the festival alive.

And good on the free companies who keep up the spirit of Saturnalia by throwing an xmas party for their employees.

Merry Xmas to everybody.

A nice summation, West.
Well, I've read all the posts and there’s a definite trend.
1. Christians defend their faith – sometimes rudely – and are not interested in the harm done to fellow Australian citizens by the intrusion of religion into politics; ignoring the examples that have been soberly and clearly mentioned by David.
2. Atheists, on the other hand, are all concerned for the welfare of others, and deplore the discriminatory intrusions of religion into lawmaking.
3. Religionists can see nothing strange in proposing, without any evidence, that there is a superman in the sky, while demanding that those who don’t believe in such a creature, prove it doesn’t exist.
The only conclusion to draw is that religious indoctrination of children permanently damages the rational abilities of humans. While this doesn’t matter too much with most people, it is dangerous and alarming when such irrational people are elevated to positions of responsibility. Do we really want decisions that will affect life on earth to be made by someone who believes an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural creature that is aware of the hopes, fears, thoughts and actions of seven billion humans, while keeping the universe on track – actually cares for each and every one of us and is arranging things according to a grand plan?
The rational mind boggles. No wonder we’re in such a mess!

David, your suggestion that I can't see my indoctrination because of the pernicious character of said indoc. doesn't bear out.

I had a '60's public school level of religious indoc. and will admit to a moment of enthrallment when 4yo as i sang All Things Bright and Beautiful.

In my teens I reacted against the idea of religion, and as stated on this thread already, later still rejected Christian theology and dogma on more considered grounds. And I can understand people whos experience has turned them against Churches.

My later interest in things spiritual, and conversion to the possibilities of spirituality hardly align with any experiences in my upbringing. Rather this is the result of my amateur study and reading in this subject, and my measuring of ideas against my observations and experiences.

More later, NYE beckons

Happy New Year to you One and All!

As David so kindly said to me, "Whatever gets you through the night..."

Be Kind to Each Other!

Happy New Year everyone...

May you all have an Out of Body Experience OR a Near Death Experience (and survive) to throw all of your theories back into the Chaotic Universe.

Then we can get down to some real discussion! Ha!

Palimpsest, you are confirming Shakespeare's dictum about the ages of man... start off as a mewling babe, go through adolescence, youth, middle age, senior cit. then revert to infantility...
All things bright and beautiful to you...

Happy New Year to You ALL from a happy QLD lady.

I have read many of the posts as I now relax after working 7 days through Christmas as a nurse to our Aged. What satisfaction there
is in that. No matter I am happy and know I make a difference for others.

I have been highly entertained here with the posts. Too many posts to read so I have jumped to the end with my five cents worth :)

What I want to impress is no matter what your belief systems, you must treat others as you'd have them treat you. That is not religion.
That is human respect and kindness.

And no matter what, you seek out your goals and happiness for yourself and do not expect someone or something else to get you that happiness. Accountability people. I have learned from 2007.

I have learned that you derive more happiness in the giving you do.
You derive fulfillment in the little things said and done that can
make a difference in anothers life.

Two years ago I became an active member in a community organisation that acts for the betterment of others less fortunate. Yes, churches do it and the non-churchy do it BUT I do it just because. Just because it feels right and it feels good. You meet others like minded; I have improved my life.

Do anything you do for others out of love, not a false obligation.

The recipients know who truly care. People know; they know who are respectful. So do what you do out of a love for humanity, that your life may have meaning merely because you do genuinely care. No matter how big or small that contribution it is significant.

Go out there and give of yourself. My challenge to you 'Do you make a difference in the lives of others'? Do you do it with an attitude of true caring. Go give of yourself today. Has anyone ever said it felt bad.

Happy 2008 everyone. If it is to be, it is up to me.

Cakers, has summed up the message of Christ perfectly. "Do anything you do for others out of love, not a false obligation....Go out there and give of yourself."

This is the true message of Christmas, the purity of God became incarnate in Christ Jesus to make a difference in the lives of the poor, sick and oppresed. As this is also the primary principle that all the major religions of today uphold. Living this is true and pure religion. Religion that makes God incarnate is not ritual and recitation of creeds. It is being real with love and purity of motive.

Everyone have a great 2008, as you live in genuine purity and sincere love.

Hi David... my experience was an adult age conversion. I accepted Christ as Savior in my mid 20s. It was after a period of serious contemplation and a growing inner urgency which seems to be not of myself.
I had a couple of milestones along the way. Some positive and others negative.
The most negative I guess was that my Sunday School teacher came along one day smoking... quite a shock to me in the little Methodist Church in Edithvale. He was also my neighbour separated by one vacant block. It turned out he had beat the stuffing out of his wife one time too many and she left. I gained little from that which would draw me to God, but nevertheless, even at 14ish I knew the difference between what I was reading in the Gospels and how he was behaving.

I guess I also 'lived' the dilemna of a 60s song "If that's all there is... then bring out the boooze and lets party on" something like that.... the 60s were a time of abandonment of values, and while some people just changed course and went in any old direction which suited them, I went the other way, toward the Author and Finisher of our faith.
A pivotal moment was reading a little New Testament in a C130 on the way to Vietnam, sitting in a Combivan we were transporting while the others played Yuka. I guess that kind of framework.. war.. international travel, exposure to many levels of life all helped me see the profound nature of the Scriptures.

"if a blind man leads a blind man, won't they both fall into a pit" said Jesus :) aaaaaameN to that.

I noted that sin did not dissappear with the social status of the person, it just became more sophisticated. I concluded that there is nothing in mankind to look to, or rely on, so..my quest led me more firmly to the Lord Jesus as Savior, guide, friend.

I honestly cannot see why you dismiss the scriptures... I've studied the traditions and find them very sound.
cheers

Well the last statement of David Boaz's post sums up the dilemma facing us all.

DB : I honestly cannot see why you dismiss the scriptures... I've studied the traditions and find them very sound.

Well so too have I David and I come to a very different conclusion. Most Atheists whom I have met also know scripture quite well ...

I believe in many people the black book is limiting on a person's journey... It locks them into a position of "thinking they know or believing". Of course atheism can do the same "locking in" which again is worrisome.

I thought Cakers summation of things was very reasonable - It is the intent and motive that matters not the belief system. It is the personal act of assisting someone with no hidden agenda whatsoever.

Can the churches really say that they do this? Can an atheist?

I repeat my favourite quote from The Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

If Jesus exists and whether he be God or a separate entity the son of God or even just a very unique human.. Christians just don't seem to know what he meant by this statement. Was he including athiests?

I think everyone should be free to go on their own spiritual or non-spiritual journey remembering that sometimes "thinking we know" is exactly the time when "we don't really know".

One thing that is for certain here... Our ability to discuss this openly with minimal name calling shows our true colours and reflects on our society as a whole.

No matter who said it first "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in my mind at least would solve most if not all of the world's problems.

BOAZ_David,

A very interesting story, but you did not answer the other questions I posed. Actually, there is no need to as they have self-evident answers. I am sure you recognise this point.

What you see in the Christian scriptures, is seen by others in the Torah (Jewish), the Poetic Edda (Norse), the Pali Canon (Buddhist), the Vedas (Hindu), the Koran (Islam), The Aradia Gospel of the Witches (Wicca), the Tao Te Ching (Chinese), The Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Persian), The Book of Mormon (Latter Day Saints), The I Jing (Ancient China).

Cultures capable of recording in written form all have various sacred scriptures. They are not compatible.

You stated: “I honestly cannot see why you dismiss the scriptures...”

I think it appropriate to quote -Stephen Roberts here: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

The Christian Scriptures are not inerrant as claimed. They have a multitude of inconsistencies. They say nothing about science; in fact, the alleged Jesus did not refute the Eve & Adam story or the Exodus fable. Scientific fact does not accept these stories. The alleged Jesus believed in demons and caste them out of humans, killing 2,000 pigs in the process. Apparently, the alleged Jesus also did not believe in animal welfare. (The Gadarene swine Matthew 8: 28 – 33 also in Mark and Luke)

There are many parts of Christian scriptures demonstrating they were written by people and not by (Or not inspired by) an all knowing god.

But David, the main themes of this thread are: It is ethically unsound to use indoctrination methods on children and impose unrepresentative beliefs on politics. If people could keep there religious beliefs as a private matter between consenting adults, the nightly news would take on a totally different hue.

Let’s hope that message predominates for the sake of the planet and the life on it.

Welcome all, to the New Year.

David

Hi David..well I do enjoy a lively discussion :)

1/ THE PROBLEM OF SCRIPTURES.
You mentioned a lot of other scriptures. They are all different, and have different purposes, and not all claim to be revelation from God. It's not on your list but the Sikh scriptures are nothing more than the musings and reflections of Guru's..and are not claimed to be anything more.
The book of Mormon needs to be assessed from a number of angles, including the rediculous claim that the Native American Indians are the biological descendants of the Hebrews, which DNA studies clearly refute.

So.. when I say 'why do you dismiss the Christian scriptures' ...what I really mean is 'The message' and the event framework it relies on.

Regarding the Exodus
... a true scientific approach would reserve judgement on such things pending further information. Why ? Simply because the track record of the Old and New testaments in the area of being true when scientists/Archeologists said "NO" is well established. The existence of the Hittites is an example which comes immediately to mind.
SCIENCE said "There were never any such people...the Bible is wrong"
THEN..science in distinctly muted tones said "Ok..they did exist we found evidence for them"

2/ THE PROBLEM OF PIGS.
You say 'the alleged Jesus' whereas not many reputable scholars these days would use the word 'alleged'... in the light of all the evidence, this has to now be declared a 'dogmatic' statement.

You speak of a Jesus who 'believed in demonic spirits' yet you fail to explain how the multitude of pigs suddenly decided to become lemmings and commit mass suicide....
You can dispute the report if you like :) but the simple fact is there are too many incidents to do this.

BOTTOM LINE. The Christian scriptures are unique (and yes, there are minor textual issues)and more importantly, make claims and declarations about our eternal destiny. We would be wise to consider them carefully.

BOAZ_David,

I have neither the time nor the patience to play; ‘let’s answer selectively and in an obfuscatory manner.’

There have been three distinct studies, by many scholars, surrounding the New Testament since the 1700th century. There is no consensus that the events described in the NT are an accurate reporting of history. The problem they have, and this is what a reasonably accurate portrayal of history requires, is there is lack of cross-reference reports from sources other than biblical.

“BOTTOM LINE. The Christian scriptures are unique (and yes, there are minor textual issues)and more importantly, make claims and declarations about our eternal destiny. We would be wise to consider them carefully.”

Herein lays a common religious factor for some…fear and or reward!

The real bottom line is that billions of other people “believe” they have the true knowledge of existence, the same as do you. Fine, believe it, but Atheists simply suggest that such subjectivity must not be imposed by way of indoctrination of children. And for it to be kept out of politics if it is against the informed wished of the population. (Or in other words, if it is in opposition to empirical evidence) Read previous posts where I have outlined a few examples.

If you have evidence that the consensus of scholars have missed, I suggest you present it now for our enlightenment. I said consensus, which disallows individual assessment by maverick partisans. Please remember, you cannot prove scripture with scripture. If you attempt this method, then it will demonstrate beyond doubt, you are just another close-minded proselytizer.

David

There is NO evidence from either side of the debate...

We have a book full of old writings who people believe (think) is the inerrant word of God, but can't prove it, that leads them to the conclusion that their is a God. Amazing!

Then suddenly some jump from there being a God with Jesus the son of God to Jesus IS God - God, Jesus and the holy spirit all one entity - the Trinity. Jesus allegedly called himself "the son of man" and if you believe the Trinity prayed to himself in the Lords prayer - Our Father (me) who art in heaven (not here) hallowed be thy (my) name, Thy (my) Kingdom come (oops he was on Earth), Thy (my) will be done on Earth as it is in heaven etc. etc.

On the cross he allegedly said to either God or Himself depending on your belief Father (or me) forgive them for they know not what they do!

I agree with the athiest argument that we are indoctrinating our children with this stuff.

But science does the same thing - they teach that the Universe was created by "the Big Bang" resulting from a singularity. What caused the alleged singularity... Um no-one knows.. Has anyone seen a singularity? - Um no. Like God it is theoretical!

So in many ways the criticism of one is exactly the same as the criticism of the other except for one key area.

Science doesn't preach "hellfire and damnation" and therefore is far less damaging to the psychological well being of humans. PLUS science is more open to self correction - to question is acceptable - yet to Christians to question is presented as a sin.

Go figure an all powerful God creates a questioning mind and says don't use it! He's a tricky little fellow - he also creates the tree of knowledge and says don't eat it's fruit.

Now if you have a near death experience you will know how much you don't know!

Boaz, I just love the way you grab half an idea and dress it up as some kind of deep truth.

Because you never quite get it right, do you?

>>I guess I also 'lived' the dilemna of a 60s song "If that's all there is... then bring out the boooze and lets party on" something like that.... the 60s were a time of abandonment of values, and while some people just changed course and went in any old direction which suited them<<

The bit you got right was that the song "Is that all there is?" is a Lieber/Stoller song first recorded by Peggy Lee in 1969.

http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?id=9115

However, the lyrics of the song were lifted from a short story written in 1896 by Thomas Mann, called "Disillusionment" - Colin Wilson summarized it best in his book "The Craft of the Novel" as follows:

"The narrator is sitting in St Mark's Square in Venice when he falls into a conversation with a fellow countryman. The man asks, "Do you know what disillusionment is? Not a miscarriage in small unimportant matters, but the great and general disappointment which everything, all of life, has in store?" He tells how, as a small boy, the house caught fire; yet as they watched it burn down he was thinking, "So this is a house on fire? Is that all?" And ever since then, life has been a series of disappointments; all the great experiences have left him with the feeling: "Is that all?" Only when he saw the sea for the first time, he says, did he feel a sudden tremendous craving for freedom, for a sea without a horizon... And one day, death will come, and he expects it to be the last great disappointment. "Is this all?"

So much for illustrating "the 60s were a time of abandonment of values" eh?

Mann wrote "Disillusionment" when he was twenty. Sounds like perfectly normal youth-through-the-ages angst to me.

But I guess I should know by now, if there is a stick with a wrong end, you'll find it.

David Nicholls said
"The Christian Scriptures are not inerrant as claimed. They say nothing about science; in fact, the alleged Jesus did not refute the Eve & Adam story or the Exodus fable. Scientific fact does not accept these stories."

The OT Scriptures were written records of history for the Nation of Israel. The Adam and Eve story is allagory demonstrating man was made in the divine image of God.

I've read scientic reports done on the exodus possibilities that coincides with the volcanic eruption that buried an island off the coast of Greece under the sea. The crossing of the Reed Sea was a Tsunami in his report, and the volcanic ash is what bogged the Egyptian chariots.

D N quoite, "There are many parts of Christian scriptures demonstrating they were written by people".

All scripture was written by people - so What? According to you because they are written by people they are unreliable? Luke endeavours to identify he sourced his writings from reliable witnesses. Luke 1: 1 - 4 and Acts 1: 1 - 3.
Cont:

D N quote, "The alleged Jesus believed in demons and caste them out of humans, killing 2,000 pigs in the process. (The Gadarene swine Matthew 8: 28 – 33 also in Mark and Luke)"

The fact is Jesus was human and in his time dealing with matters of character and relationships that could be grasped by the common people. God is primarily revealed in holiness of character, purity of attitudes, motive, wisdom and actions.

A careful exposition of unification of the Gospel text identifies that Jesus did not believe in demons. He was a monotheist that is the reason for his action of casting out demons. The influence of non Hebrew culture had permiated the minds of that time and gave demons existence. The Gaderene himself believed he was posessed (note he gives his name Legon) identified by the polytheistic culture of the Gadarenes.

Because these people were uneducated casting out demonstrated that they were now free. It was a physical demon-stration to convince they were free of the posession by demons.

Monotheism is the belief that there is only one true spirit and all other spirits are only the rebellious spirit of man. There are no demons as unseen beings these only exist the immagination of polytheistic superstitious minds.

The man actually requested of Jesus that he drive the pigs over the cliff, demonstrating for the man that he was now self empowered above his opressors - the owners of the pigs. Jesus did not drive the pigs over the cliff

Philo, your gullibility - desperation? - is showing.

>>I've read scientic reports done on the exodus possibilities that coincides with the volcanic eruption that buried an island off the coast of Greece under the sea. The crossing of the Reed Sea was a Tsunami in his report<<

The volcano in question is Santorini. Unfortunately for your theory, the eruption took place between 1650BC and 1500BC, depending on whether you believe the tree-rings or the pottery. That's at least 200 years earlier than the date normally associated with the Exodus.

Also, a tsunami would operate in reverse of the generally-accepted pattern of the parting of the sea - the water receded, then returned. This pattern only occurs in tsunami when the trough reaches the shore first - unfortunately, even then the wave follows in a matter of seconds.

But why do you need to ascribe the event to naturally-occurring phenomena anyway? Surely the whole point was that it was only possible given the intervention of God?

The major shortcoming of the historicity of Jesus is the lack of contemporary sightings. Some enterprising reporter from the Nazareth Bugle would surely have noticed the goings-on and reported them. And that none of the books was written until well after the events they purport to describe... why didn't someone think it important enough at the time?

Your attempt to cover up the notorious Gadarene Swine incident does you no credit either, I'm afraid.

>>The man actually requested of Jesus that he drive the pigs over the cliff, demonstrating for the man that he was now self empowered above his opressors - the owners of the pigs. Jesus did not drive the pigs over the cliff<<

Not so in my version.

"So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters." Matt 8 31-32

Philo

The story of Eve and Adam, to you, is an allegory, to others, history. Both claim their version is correct. George W Bush, whose fingers have access to the red button, believes it to be the latter. That bothers Atheists and it should bother you and everyone.

There is no record of the alleged 3 million Israelites held captive in Egypt. There is no record of the alleged Exodus taking place outside the bible.

Scriptures are not so much unreliable because they were human inventions, but there is no cross referenced ex biblical record of the events and they are partisan reports. They are also unreliable because they tell of supposed supernatural acts, not recorded outside the bible.

Of course, some people only ‘believe’ they are possessed by demons. Others consider them real. Yours is an interesting, although convoluted interpretation of the Gadarene Swine storey, but just one interpretation.

I wonder who allegedly did drive the alleged pigs over the alleged cliff to their alleged deaths? And why didn’t the alleged Jesus defend part of his alleged creation, the alleged pigs?

Philo, with many interpretations of biblical myths and thousands of religions, do you think it wise or appropriate to indoctrinate children with any of them without a consensus based on fact. And do you think it wise or appropriate to make political decisions based on scriptural writings against the informed wishes of the majority population? I ask you to remember, when answering, that Australia still follows the democratic ideal and is not as of yet, a theocracy.

David

I'm now going to jump in again to this thread. Regarding the "indoctrination of children." It's not an easy task instilling traditional values.

I remember the evening my younger son came walking in with an outfit that gave new meaning to the word "colourful." We were about to have dinner with friends, and his outfit was not exactly what I had in mind. Using my best diplomatic skills, I asked him to change into something else. He was not enthusiastic. After ten minutes of getting nowhere, his older brother passed by and asked, "Mum, why does everything always have to be perfect?"

In a very real way, that question was a turning point in my life as a parent, and the ripples of that moment still affect me. Obviously, everything doesn't have to be perfect. Like many parents, I had been caught up in the external, the trivial. I was making a major flap about a shirt and a pair of trousers.

These days it's not surprising to find my children wearing odd clothes, but I'm no longer concerned. When my children reach old age, it probably won't matter what they wore or how fabulous their sixth birthday party was. If you think about it, a good portion of our efforts are as parents devoted to external matters that may not really matter at all.

What will be important is the content of our children's hearts and minds, or what is often described as character. When we say, "It's what's inside that counts," we speak a simple but profound truth.

We have growing agendas for raising our children. But while we are feverish about providing our children - every opportunity - from music lessons, tennis lessons, to a college or university degree, it seems that our job as parents is to raise a decent human being.

Decency might sound like a modest ambition, but in today's culture it's not so easy to achieve. Every parent I know lives with the uneasy sense that their children are growing up too fast, without clear values or a real code to live by.

to David again....

You said:

//There are many parts of Christian scriptures demonstrating they were written by people and not by (Or not inspired by) an all knowing god.//

David, I'm not aware of making the claim that our Scriptures were written by God... your understanding of 'Inspiration' seems a bit cloudy.
I suppose we tend to apply a rigid logic based reasoning to trying to understand the idea of Gods revelation.
i.e.

Thesis: //God is all knowing and all powerful.//

Implications:

If
God is all knowing and all powerful
then
Scriptures insired by Him will be absolutely perfect in every sense, and perfectly accurate in any statement made about any matter.

Lets subject this to the area of 'poetic language'. If a Psalm speaks of the 'pillars of the earth' or.. "God's nostrils, breath" etc.....we would be in trouble straight away.

So, the doctrine of 'Inspiration/Inerrancy' has room for such things.

The Bible contains works like Job which are said to pre-date even the record of Genesis (though not the truth or events of Genesis)

FAITH AND POLITICS. This seems to be a major concern of yours. But rest assured, we don't teach our children that because David killed Goliath we can therefore throw rocks at big threatening people :)
Teaching children about Christ and urging them to have faith in Him is not child abuse, but parental responsibility.

My experience HAS been that some things well meaning evangelical groups do re proclaiming the Gospel to children are naive and plain stupid, but not all.
So, while teaching about Christ CAN be done in an irresponsible way, it does not have to be so. Just like our leftoid Professors who will not entertain any other line than the socialist one at our Uni's (=abuse?)

cont'd ...

While we spin our wheels worrying about "reading, writing, and arithmetic," our children may be missing the "real basics" like respect, loyalty, and a sense of fair play. Survey after survey shows that children who will be the best educated and most privileged in human history, are too willing to do anything it takes to "get ahead."

Once I realised that collecting for the Red Cross once a year, and taking part in other "fund-raising" activities, was not going to add up to moral development, I started looking seriously for ways to help my children learn right from wrong, and to know that sometimes there is a decision to be made in the middle.

My children, growing up were facing tough choices and complicated situations that could not be addressed with simple lectures on the values of kindness or isolated chats about standing up for one's beliefs. I wanted to surround my children with a sturdy sensibility, a world view, and I wanted it to be different from the "Me" mentality of modern culture.

I believe that our role as parents is not to protect our children from the truth, but to protect them from something less than the truth!

BOAZ_David,

As someone who has a reverse conversion story to yours (i.e. Christian to Atheist), I'm curious about how, during your conversion, you managed to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence to accept inconceivable concepts such as a young Earth?

<<...Scriptures insired by Him will be absolutely perfect in every sense, and perfectly accurate in any statement made about any matter.>>

No, Sorry. The scriptures were written as a way of explaining the mysteries that we now have scientific evidence for.

Do you believe that an angry God still controls plagues and famines? Or was it just the plagues and famines back then?

<<FAITH AND POLITICS. This seems to be a major concern of yours. But rest assured, we don't teach our children that because David killed Goliath we can therefore throw rocks at big threatening people :)>>

I think you've missed the point entirely here.

Religion relies on interpretation, and some interpret it differently to others. There are Christians out there who are quite lax about the idea of large wars because they believe it will help to bring forward the date of Christ's return. These fundamentalists also believe that we don't need to look after the environment because there's no way we could possibly destroy the earth before the second coming of Christ.

These are dangerous beliefs to govern by. Not to mention that fact that they fly in the face of all reason, rationality and probability.

Moral guidance isn't an argument either because there are plenty of examples out there that suggest that morality is not dependent on Biblical foundations.

<<Teaching children about Christ and urging them to have faith in Him is not child abuse, but parental responsibility.>>

It most certainly is abuse!

I would know, my parents are Christians, and I resent the fact my childhood brainwashing lead me to feel guilty for many years for no good reason. A couple of examples:

1) Being intimate with a girl that I loved very much but was not married to (I hate to give such details on OLO but this needs to be said).

Continued...

...Continued

2) Constantly worrying about what might happen to me in the after life when I inevitably stopped attending church (since it bored me to tears as a child). I believe this added to the anxiety problems that I suffered for many years after.

My recovery from the brainwashing took years. Even to this day, words such as “atheist”, “secular” and “evolution” still sound very ugly to me.

These psychological crimes are far worse than homosexuality, euthanasia or any other of the narrow set of morals Christians bleat on about.

<<So while teaching about Christ CAN be done in an irresponsible way, it does not have to be so.>>

How do you responsibly teach your child that they face eternal hell if they reject the beliefs that they (by pure chance mind you) were born into?

Until the existence of God can be conclusively proven, it is not worth running the risk of psychological abuse.

<<Just like our leftoid Professors who will not entertain any other line than the socialist one at our Uni's (=abuse?)>>

This is an absurd comparison

Firstly, academics don't raise their students from an early and vulnerable age; and secondly, academics don't tell their students that they face damnation if they don't think as they do.

But while we're on the topic of educational institutes, I know of several Christian (Pentecostal) schools that eagerly preach to the children that premarital sex is an unforgivable sin. They use a cliff analogy, saying that once you've fallen off a cliff, you can't get back up; meaning that because you can't gain back your virginity, you can't be forgiven.

But the pastors at these schools would tell the adolescents that if they ever did lose their virginity, they could turn to them to talk about it. Hmmm... Now if you can't be forgiven, then why would you bother telling an obviously perverted pastor about it?

BOAZ-David,

I think your should realise that the inability to answer direct questions means they cannot be answered without threatening ones position. Continually posting irrelevancies does not add anything positive to the discussion. Maybe you should stop for a while.

A J Philips has explained very well indeed some of the consequences of indoctrination, which the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc is confronted with, on a regular basis.

A very sad part of religious indoctrination, especially nowadays where children eventually may acquire more knowledge than that of their parents, is the bad feelings children can have towards their parents. Some adolescents react very badly when they realise there is no evidence for stories they are supposed to believe on the threat of eternal damnation. They not only can end up rejecting the stories, but it may diminish the love they have for their parents, or it can be lost altogether. Psychological pain can do that and all parents should be aware that that is one of the consequences of religious indoctrination.

Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, the AFA and others do not use the term child abuse in this regard, lightly.

The AFA advises adults (And adolescents) in the position of conflict with their parents over religious matters, to take the lead in not surrendering their Atheistic stance and to show this by example and not in endless argument with them. It is the duty of those with greater understanding to accommodate the feelings of people with less.

The important point to remember here is that those doing the indoctrinating are victims of the same process. Blaming victims is counterproductive and stupid

David

Congratulations AJ Philips on your excellently argued and very personal post. It is a brilliant summation of the problems that the religions can have on people's lives.

Religious teachings always have "Hellfire and Damnation" hanging over the believers head. It is "a threat for eternal damnation" and carries with it the bribe "repent & follow me and you will be saved" OR the return threat "suffer the consequences".

My 17 year old son was recently approached by a so called Christian who told him "you are a murderer at heart because you have not repented and asked Jesus to enter your life". Lucky I wasn't there the so called "Christian" would have felt the wrath of me on his person.

This is simple psychological bribery.

How does a child reconcile this with a loving God? ... God's love is obviously conditional - Would anyone say to their own kids "Do it my way or rot in hell for eternity"?

It also leads to "People judging others" and yet the Bible says do not judge others...

It has led some people to perpetual guilt. How many have suicided over the years because of this terrible false guilt?

Poor old Judas "the alleged facilitator" of the prophecy allegedly hanged himself due to this overpowering guilt - but what did he feel guilty for?... One of the disciples had to betray Jesus ... so it wasn't Judas' free thought but what was needed for alleged prophecy to come true.

Greater things than Judas could understand were taking place and yet he is villified by Christians as the traitor. Why? They are judging poor old Judas.

Didn't so called Christian teachings have Mary Magdalene as a prostitute up until the 1960's? Wow do not bear false witness!

And we haven't gotten to the direct quotes from the Bible that justify slavery etc. like Exodus 21 1-12 ...

The Old Testament is a biased history of 12 tribes who got together for protection probably due to a shared ancestry or shared language and then justified their acts by saying God ordered it.

Most of the atheists I know personaly use their atheism to live without conscience and fear of guilt of violating social boundaries, with no respect for others, and an excuse to be unnacountable to society. Their belief is: "There is no reason for life other than have a great time".

Though one local atheist, a Pastor friend related to me, is a Medical Doctor that became involved in his nearby Church because he could see the benifits of social programmes the Church were doing for the community. He was obviously not a bigoted atheist and put his support where he could see social benifits.

The whole gamut of argument put foward here relate to historical events. One can believe it of not? None of that will damage a child, but what will damage a child is poor example of character, attitude, and actions that show no love and respect for others.

Those that are agnostic from childhood ignorance and family background seem to have less personal agenda to be rebellious and negative in their approach to people of faith than the hardcore atheistic rebelling against their families values

"Most of the atheists I know personaly use their atheism to live without conscience"

Then you know a very unusual selection of atheists, Philo. My experience is virtually the opposite - many theists I know of use their theism to live without conscience.

I do agree with you that most atheists live without "fear of guilt of violating social boundaries". Probably most atheists would agree that fear and guilt are entirely the wrong reasons to act morally and ethically.

What, Philo, no comment on the debunking of your volcano theory? No rebuttal on the tale of the gadarene swine? Shame, I was looking forward to reading your responses.

Never mind.

>>Most of the atheists I know personaly use their atheism to live without conscience and fear of guilt of violating social boundaries, with no respect for others, and an excuse to be unnacountable to society.<<

You need to get out more, obviously.

None of the atheists I know is without morals, standards and ethics. In fact, some of them spend more time considering them than many religious people I know. What they do not have is a single set of "instructions" from an outside source - they have each worked out for themselves where they stand on the key issues.

>>Those that are agnostic from childhood ignorance and family background seem to have less personal agenda to be rebellious and negative in their approach to people of faith than the hardcore atheistic rebelling against their families values<<

Now admit it, that little sentence came straight out of your imagination, didn't it? There's not a shred of substance to it, bar your own worldview, plus a bit of wishful thinking thrown in for good measure.

When you start to invent arguments, Philo, it is definitely time to fold your tent and slink away.

Bon voyage.

Oh Philo... if you follow Pericles advice, please take BOAZ with you.... Pleeeeeeze!

ybgirp,
If Boaz and I left you atheists would not have a mission and no point to counter in your argument.

I will stand by my statement since I have worked with hundreds of troubled people from the street. ">>Those that are agnostic from childhood ignorance and family background seem to have less personal agenda to be rebellious and negative in their approach to people of faith than the hardcore atheistic rebelling against their families values<<

Atheism becomes a default position in immoral rebellion rather than a conclusion from genuine research. They do not have a mature understanding of God incarnate gracious and forgiving in their life, but rather of God as one who condemns and punishes the guilty. Their image of God is built rather from their poor relationship to their father.

For Pericles sake - if he recognised the term "demon" in Greek referred to an affectionate term for gods whom the Greeks believed controlled human behaviour and thought then he should recognise monotheists do not believe in such beings. Though many calling themselves Christian today are actually polytheists in their view of reality.

For me the spirit of a person is defined by their thinking and self image often influenced from others, not by some being that needs exorcism. Thought to persons who actually believe they are controlled by beings they may need the help of a physical demon- stration to ensure them they are now free to be themselves.

For AJ Philips sake I work in environment groups and find most of them are believers in the fact God gave us the Planet and commissioned man to care for it [Genesis 2: 15] and man will be evaluated upon how we managed God's environment [Revelation 11: 18]. The plagues of diseases etc in Revelation are as a result of man's poor behaviour.

If AJP knew the NT he would realise Jesus view of natural catastrophe is not based upon moral behaviours. The ideas of how God is revealed in reality is a Biblical development - the book of Job is a prime example. Jesus taught it rains on the just and unjust alike that God is not vengeful, when rebutting teaching that personal catastrophe is as result of sin. When teaching his followers that the child born blind was not as a result of the parents or the childs sin. That the collapse of the Siloam tower killing 18 people in Luke 13: 4 was not a judgment of God, but unless Israel changed their attitude of living godly in their situation they would similarly perish.

Which they did at the hands of the Roman soldiers because of their rebellion against being good citizens of Rome. Followers of Christ Jesus though persecuted at first their lifestyle became influencial in Rome.

Still no come-back on the volcano, Philo? Nothing more to say on those pesky swine? Pity.

Your posts are still crammed with logic leaps and non sequiturs though.

>>If Boaz and I left you atheists would not have a mission and no point to counter in your argument<<

I can't of course speak for other atheists, because we all think independently and come to our own conclusions on matters religious, but you shouldn't flatter yourself that I would miss your contributions. It isn't a mission, as such, because I have nothing to prove.

And I certainly don't evangelize. Your posts, in general, add very little to the debate, so it is not even as if I have to dig deep for responses. Think of it more as an automatic reaction that I cannot control, like flicking a fly that is buzzing around my ear.

Boaz is a slightly different kettle of fish. He tends to lead with his chin, posting excited observations that are founded on half- or quarter-truths, and expanding them into a mozzie-bash. I'd definitely miss him, since he represents a dangerous body of opinion in this country that could inflame hatred and violence.

That is more of a mission. In order to stay vigilant, I need to keep pace with what the Boaz's of this world are thinking.

>>[Atheists] do not have a mature understanding of God incarnate gracious and forgiving in their life, but rather of God as one who condemns and punishes the guilty. Their image of God is built rather from their poor relationship to their father<<

Wrong again. Atheists have no understanding or perception of a God. We can only imagine what it must be like for you, from the way you handle your beliefs.

So you can forget the father figure stuff - which I rather think is transference on your part - and look at yourself. It is people like you who give atheists a view of what believing in a deity must be like.

Can you wonder there are so many of us?

Philo,

I am still waiting for a reply to the following questions I have asked before:

>>>Philo, with many interpretations of biblical myths and thousands of religions, do you think it wise or appropriate to indoctrinate children with any of them without a consensus based on fact. And do you think it wise or appropriate to make political decisions based on scriptural writings against the informed wishes of the majority population? I ask you to remember, when answering, that Australia still follows the democratic ideal and is not as of yet, a theocracy.<<<

Maintaining and protecting belief in otherworldly concepts by way of evading pertinent questions is a sure sign of psychosis, brought on by religion. It could also mean the psychosis existed before the religious belief.

David

Thanks Opininonated2 (and David Nicholls),

I really hesitated in posting that because I didn't want to get too personal on OLO, and run the risk sounding like I was just feeling sorry for myself. And I certainly wasn't in the mood to be told, patronisingly, that I mustn't have ever truly found Jesus.

But I had a story to tell that I felt needed to be told at that particular point, so I told it.

There's a lot more I could have said, heck I could write a whole book on it, but I felt there were other other points that needed to be addressed.

Philo,

In regards to environmental issues, it's not me you should be quoting Bible verses to. I'm well aware of the Bible's stance on the environment. It's the Christians in positions of power and influence, who manipulate what the Bible says for their own selfish purposes – the corporate bigwigs and the politicians; the ones with the power to do so much damage in so many ways – not just environmentally.

In fact, I was going to quote that exact verse to another Christian on this forum in a 'Global warming' thread, who claimed that there wasn't a threat be because God made the Earth too robust for us “puny” humans to destroy.

Some elite Christian groups twist Bible verses to mean that they have permission to [quote] “rape” the earth of all it's resources. Take Revelations 14:15 for example: “Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, "Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe."

Hence the danger of religion; and Wizofaus' point about theist's using their faith to live without conscience. Radical Islamics are also a prime example of this.

Of course not all of the religious are bad. But even those who are perfectly good people still pose a more mild danger, to themselves, their children, and society by pushing ignorance and discouraging themselves, and everyone else to look further for answers to the mysteries that help us to understand the world we live in.

I remember being told that everything I could ever possibly need to know is in the Bible. This is entirely false.

If it weren't for the “unruly” secular-humanists, we would still be living in a universe that revolved around a flat Earth.

If God is so great then he'd be able to reveal himself a less obscured way that didn't require a “mature” understanding of him. Instead, we're relied on to interpret and cherry-pick the Bible with the risk of punishment if we get it wrong.

I think there is a god of some sorts and only a fool would come to the conclusion that there is nothing more powerful in this universe then humans which many people on this forum seem to be pushing. Sure Gnosticism is all but dead but people who are agnostic are probably closest to being right.

Atheist in my opinion are just as silly as those who believe in Gnostic gods. All the proof you need for there to be something godly in nature can be seen in the fact that we exist and don’t know how the universe we live in came into being.

If the atheist can explain how something like the universe came into being without some sort of divine intervention I will happily call myself an atheist until then I am going to stick to the agnostic crowd which is far more logical group.

Easy Times,

Despite how it may sound, I don't know of anyone that claims with 100% certainty that there is no God. Not even Richard Dawkins claims that.

But considering how extremely improbable the existence of a God is, religion is not worth the problems that it's aiding and creating.

I meant: Not even Richard Dawkins claims the non-existence of a God with 100% certainty.

EasyTimes, you're being just the teensiest bit precious here

>>I think there is a god of some sorts and only a fool would come to the conclusion that there is nothing more powerful in this universe... I am going to stick to the agnostic crowd which is far more logical group.<<

This puts you firmly in the agnostic theist camp. Someone who accepts the existence of God, but can't be sure.

Austin Cline put it best:

"Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

>>If the atheist can explain how something like the universe came into being without some sort of divine intervention I will happily call myself an atheist<<

If an atheist were able to do that, EasyTimes, there would be no need for labels at all, would there? You would use the same reasoning to say:

"If the theist can explain how something like the universe came into being with the assistance of divine intervention I will happily call myself a theist"

Cline goes on to say...

"It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism."

EasyTimes, you say "If the atheist can explain how something like the universe came into being without some sort of divine intervention I will happily call myself an atheist until then I am going to stick to the agnostic crowd which is far more logical group."

Divine intervention requires *more* explanation, not less!

Theists have to explain how the universe came into being, and how the divine being that created it came about.

Sure, go ahead and claim that "God is timeless / self-created / whatever", but that argument could just as well be applied to the universe too, without the need for God.

Pericles, I've never seen a satisfactory explanation about the difference between knowledge and belief. Surely they're basically just different levels of certainty? After all, people once knew that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Indeed, the only things we know with 100% certainty are those that for which the opposite is logically impossible, or that we define by convention to be so: I know I exist, and I know triangles have three sides.

But I would also not hestitate in claiming to know that my wife loves me. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the likelihood of that being false is actually quite a lot greater than the likelihood of a divine being that created the universe and interacts with humans on a daily basis. Hence it's perfectly reasonable for me to claim that I know there is no God.

I meant to add, just as I know there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy.

Further, I do know with 100% certainty that there is no omniscient omnipotent being, because that *is* a logical impossibility.
No being can simultaneously know all their future actions and have the ability to perform different ones.

Though light and matter are as old as God (in the beginning God), it is the spiritual ie God that gives all that exists design, purpose and meaning. Life exists within the fields of light and matter; and Life is the only purpose we can give to light (ionic transfer) and matter (basic materials). It is there to support life in its diversity and culminating in a responsible being - man. Man is the primary accountable being in the Earth.

Accountabilityt means boundaries of responsibility and summary of accountability - to whom? I say to the design and purpose of the Universe - to support an ideal life and society. The ideals we aspire to is found in character, attitudes and behaviours which are found in God. The spiritual is the only purpose we can give to life, anything else is meaningless. God is spiritual - not a spirit being as many imagine. God is not matter. He is revealed through the mind of the highest and most responsible of creatures - man.

Philo,

I really want you to think about how you are interacting with other humans. Your posts are so hyper-religious I’m sure you are influencing more people to become Atheists than a truck load of Richard Dawkins’.

You consider this life to be only a testing ground for some imaginary afterlife. You are demonstrating the problem with religion that Atheists are trying to bring to the attention of the wider public.

Atheists are human beings just like you. We expect to be treated with respect and one way of doing this is to answer intelligently questions about the ‘beliefs’ you hold, if you wish to impart them. Otherwise, what is the point of you continually prattling on in an incomprehensible manner?

You do not have any special understanding the rest of the good folk on this forum are missing out on. You think you do but so do those with the, Jerusalem syndrome’.

It would do you no harm to look that up on Google and if on recognising any of the symptoms mentioned, to take appropriate action.

I mean you no harm.

David

There we get to the crux of all matters Religious...

If we are honest with ourselves we just don't know. If you believers were born in a Muslim family in a Muslim country you'd be Muslims. OUCH!

But the evidence of a God that affects our daily lives just isn't there. Jesus allegedly said "Suffer little children to come unto me". Well where was he when they were starving, hurt or worse? Where is he in Iraq with all the innocents being killed there?

If there is a God he doesn't appear to affect our daily lives unless you are winning an award or putting on a golf green. OR maybe she is a woman... Who knows... although a woman would be far more compassionate as a God I would have thought.

If there is a God why did he order Moses to order the killings in Numbers 31:7-18 why didn't he protect the women and children? Why do women always get the blame?

If you haven't asked WHY then you haven't asked enough questions... If you can justify Bible attrocities in God's name thenyou are probably nuts!

Why indoctrinate our children - we don't know. Can't you see Christmas and Easter in the western world is a part of that indoctrination system. Why can't we do for people because we want to and not be driven by a belief in a God. My kids enjoy Christmas because it is a time for family!

If you give for God's sake you are doing it for the wrong reason. Give because others deserve your help. And give without a hidden agenda.

I don't care whether you believe in a God or not... I care more that you don't delude yourselves and object to you deluding others. Please tell the truth.. Just say "I don't know" and stop giving false hope & making people feel guilty for not knowing or believing!

If you want to be Godly show it by actions, word and deed but don't undermine an atheist doing good things ... Congratulate him.. His is a gift of self!

Santa is a personification of God for children - all knowing, miraculous and one who rewards the "good" and punishes the "bad".

It's also been said that Jesus is just Santa for grown-ups.

Also, Constantine killed more Christians in the years following his adoption of the faith than were killed in Rome during the previous three centuries. The widespread persecution of followers of the original version is somewhat exaggerated and the only person who killed these early Christians in the Colloseum was Cecil B DeMille.
They were seen more as a nuisance cult than a political threat. True martyrdom started when Christians began killing each other.

Religious myth tends to subvert historical fact, which is what gives it much of its power.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
You may not like the fact that the sum of your life you only are accountable for. You have had effect upon others and the history of the Universe. You will be acountable to the purpose of your life. The character of spirit that reflects the character of God is eternally in God. Life after death is spiritual and not physical.

You currently held accountable for your life and behaviour on this planet even atheist Greens would hold that and the sum of your life you only are accountable for.

Where have I said : "You consider this life to be only a testing ground for some imaginary afterlife."

This life is no rehersal it is the final act and we are accountable for our actions.

Opinionated2,
The problems you see are evil man's responsibility not God's. Beside the spirit of God is there in healing hands and creative medicine in love, care and action incarnate in man who reflect the nature of God.

wobbles,
The early Christian Church members were put to death by Saul who had authority from the sanheidran to do such. He was convicted of conscience for this act of sin and later became a devout Christian missionary who himself was accused by his Jewish peers and put to death in Rome for creating religious conflict.

The writings of the Early Church Fathers identify the persecution and martyrdom on the Early Christians. I have 12 volumes of their writings on my shelves and they identify the persecution and conflict with the religious and legal institutions of their day.

What are your sources that debunk these claims?

Philo,

You ask:>>> "Where have I said:" (Referring to my following words) "You consider this life to be only a testing ground for some imaginary afterlife."<<<

I think your previous post is quite clear: “The spiritual is the only purpose we can give to life, anything else is meaningless.”

Then, amazingly, you go on to say: “This life is no rehersal it is the final act and we are accountable for our actions.”

Final act before what exactly? For what ‘actions’ are we accountable? And, what does ‘accountable’ mean, if not eternal damnation?

Someone or some system of religious indoctrination has placed the fear of hell so deep in your mind that it appears you cannot escape it, or even admit it exists. If I were you, I would be somewhat annoyed about that.

A better course of action, rather than attempting to justify such indoctrination, would be to try to understand how it happened to you and not to others. Are you a special creature of your alleged god and anyone who has developed different ideas by the use of their intellect, less important to this alleged deity?

A good start would be to answer the questions I posed some time ago which have been left unanswered. Your failure in this regard is more than telling, but here they are again:

>>>Philo, with many interpretations of biblical myths and thousands of religions, do you think it wise or appropriate to indoctrinate children with any of them without a consensus based on fact. And do you think it wise or appropriate to make political decisions based on scriptural writings against the informed wishes of the majority population? I ask you to remember, when answering, that Australia still follows the democratic ideal and is not as of yet, a theocracy.<<<

David

Once, long ago, in a world of confusion and weariness, there exploded a new and exciting hope. A man appeared in Palestine and spoke in syllables that seemed to come from God. He was a Jew, steeped in the power and beauty of a religious heritage unparalleled in East or West. He was not locked in bigotry nor did he serve the interests of a single nation or a special race. His blood, indeed, was the sensitive and boiling blood of Abraham and David, the blood that would mark the Jewish peoples in ages yet to come. His vision, however, went past the boundaries of Palestine to encompass the world.
His eyes looked to everyone who hurt, and his healing hand was extended to the weak and sinful woman, the outcast leper, the blind man who had worn out his friends and relatives with his wailing.

Weary men heard him and felt a sudden surge of strength. The guilty listened to him, and began again to respect themselves as men. Fishermen followed him and so did the nobles who had discovered that wine and women did not satisfy each thirsting ache. Some men called him the "God-man," and even those skeptical of his stature marveled at the power of his words.

In a sense he had nothing new to say when he insisted that every commandment must begin and end with love. Man had learned of love before this God-man came to earth. The Egyptians had tried to love their wives, and Babylonians had been taught to treat each neighbour with dignity and respect. The Jews especially, nourished by the words of Isaias, Ezechiel, and Jeremias, had learned the responsibility of love, and for centuries had struggled to prevent the narrow and arrogant laws of men from smothering the underlying ideal of love.

contd...

Yet man had not succeeded in loving his fellow man. For every just man there were a dozen pharisees who made a mockery of God by reducing Him to a set of rules imposed on the frightened and defenseless. Thus Jesus would speak of a new commandment,
"that you love one another as I have loved you."

And so began the religion of love, to perfect and fulfill the other religions of love that proud men had reduced to the coldness of unyielding law. History had known noble ideals before, but time and fear had wrapped such ideals in the smothering moss of legal codes and tablets. Now, Christ, in a manner beyond compare, offered to men a new and thrilling vision. Paul, sparked by such a vision, wrote in a Letter to the Romans that man had been "set free from the law" and would be able to live by the sweeping spirit of love. He did not mean that there would be no religious law. He only meant that never again would a man in personal anguish have no recourse but the cold and universal rule that applied to all men. He could be a person because he could know a personal God Who refused to be bound by a single religious rite or the judgmental ruling of a high priest's tongue.

No longer could man reduce the vision of God to the dumb idols that only made permanent the pride and pettiness of man. No longer could man stuff God into the convenient pigeonholes built by men.

Men could, indeed, call Christ God, even as I do, in simple and indefensible faith. Others might find their God in "Abraham" or "personal honesty." But no longer could any man say that he had defined and comprehended God, nor that any other man was certainly without God's forgiving love. God has no name because He has no boundaries, and His love cannot be limited by the blindness or egotism of frightened men.

Foxy,

That was a rosy-eyed view of the character known as Jesus. Of course, your selective presentation did not rely on the nasty bits in the New Testament. You failed to mention how the alleged Jesus often used the threat of hell. Expecting people to believe through fear is ethically unsound. To teach children they will go to hell if they do not believe, can remain with them forever, as we witness with people on this forum.

What kind of a god relies on the threat of hell (Forever) and the process of indoctrination to maintain a pool of believers? Let me tell you. A god who is a monster. It therefore does not exist.

I have included some of those threats below. (There are many more)

Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Revelations 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Are these the example of love that we should follow? Can you imagine that, if you had the power, in making anyone suffer for eternity? I have never met an Atheist who would do this.

It is simply mind boggling how people who class themselves as Christians, say they love a god, who would do this to their fellow humans.

David

Just logged on after being away to read 'Most of the atheists I know personaly use their atheism to live without conscience and fear of guilt of violating social boundaries, with no respect for others, and an excuse to be unnacountable to society. ' from Philo.
WTF? This can't be a serious statement. I see that Wizofaus and Pericles have already shot him down in flames so I don''t need to add to it.

Also, Philo, 'They do not have a mature understanding of God incarnate gracious and forgiving in their life, but rather of God as one who condemns and punishes the guilty.'. Not true. I was taught that God loves everyone, but I grew out of it as I learned more of reality - it had nothing to do with fearing a fierce God. And 'For me the spirit of a person is defined by their thinking and self image often influenced from others, not by some being that needs exorcism' - athiests don't believe in any form of possession by 'beings', so what are you getting at?
When you wrote 'the highest and most responsible of creatures - man.' you were indeed referring to the creator - man. Man is the highest creature and the one that created all the technologies of our world. Ergo, man is the Creator.

Jack, it has to be said, while you've made the most important step away from religious indoctrination - you've got a little way to go yet, given your attitudes on homosexuality and Man being the "highest creature". Go read every book you can find by Stephen Jay Gould (and a few from Dawkins for good measure). Both them quite firmly put to bed the notions that humans are somehow a "higher" species, and that homosexuality is an unnatural and dangerous perversion.
Though note there's no strong consensus yet on the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality.

Dear David,

I'm not going to argue with you.

My belief is different from yours. That does not make me right or you wrong or vice versa.

My belief is based on faith. I can't prove anything to you.
Nor do I want to. You are entitled to your belief. Just as I am entitled to mine.

I believe in God and the God that I believe in, is not the one that you see. But that's your right. And the right of all non-believers. I'm not looking to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

As I wrote in an earlier post... I believe in parents who teach their children the beauty that is life. I believe in the words God has left for men, words that can fashion hope from darkness and turn bitter loneliness into love.

I believe in understanding, in forgiveness, in mercy, in faith. I believe in friendship and its power to turn selfishness to love. I believe in lasting love and the painful growth that it requires. I believe in death and the mystery that it unveils. I believe in eternity and the hope that it affords.

As I said earlier, I shall be a Catholic who follows her conscience, demands meaning and relevance from her Church, and will not permit her God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absobing law. I shall be a Catholic until one day, perhaps sooner than I think, I shall return to ashes and to God. He will judge me as He must, but I can say to Him as honestly as I say to you: "I have tried to be a decent human being!"

Foxy,

The idea of this thread is not to convince anyone away from her or his beliefs. By the way, I do tire of the suggestion that Atheists have beliefs. That is only a cover for those with beliefs to hide behind. If you propose there is a god, then that is a belief. Atheists expect those with such beliefs to evidence them if they wish to impose them on children or the wider society. Accepting a god does not exist is not a belief anymore than accepting that fairies do not exist.

If propositions are put forward justifying beliefs in a god and they are faulty, then I will say something about it, as I have with your interpretation of the alleged Jesus.

The trouble with beliefs, as opposed to empirical evidence is that there are many beliefs and many interpretations of them. Oppression and harm is the result as I have exampled. Another trouble is that religious people with ‘mild’ beliefs allow those with extreme religious views to get away with them without protest. If they did protest, the examples I have mentioned would disappear and justice, compassion and equality for everyone in this life would be the rule, instead of only for those arbitrarily chosen by religions.

David

Foxy, were all believers like you, there probably wouldn't even be a word for "atheist".

Though I do encourage you to think carefully just what "faith" really means. Fundamentally, belief without evidence is highly arbitary and, to most atheists, meaningless and often dangerous. The fact that the same word "faith" is also used more commonly used to mean simply "confidence" doesn't help the matter.

Foxy wrote: "My belief is different from yours. That does not make me right or you wrong or vice versa."

Sorry, I'm totally gatecrashing this conversation, and haven't even read the whole thread, but I just read this bit from your post, Foxy, and do not agree. At the end of the day, either there is a god, or there isn't. Either religious people are right, or atheists are right. And if religious people are right, then either Christians are right, or Muslims are, or Jews are, or Hindus or Sikhs or Mormons.

And if there's one, all-encompassing, non-denominational god, who cares not whether your Buddhist or Sikh or Jew or whatever, then all you religious types are kind of wrong.

Of course, we can agree, within culture, to tolerate different points of view, but at the end of the day we can't postmodernise ourselves out of this one - there is an objective reality out there somewhere. Someone's on the money, and someone's backed the wrong horse.

Thoughts?

Dear Wizofaus,

Thank you for your kind words. But as I've stated earlier, I don't need proof to believe. I merely stated on this thread what Christianity means to me.

Dear David,

I was glad to read that the idea of this thread is not to convince anyone away from her or his beliefs.

You mentioned that you tire of the suggestion that "atheists have beliefs..." My understanding of the word "belief" is broader than yours it seems...

"Belief" is not just a religious tenet. It also means an opinion or conviction. (The belief that the earth is flat. The belief that God does not exist...)

I don't "hide" behind my belief. It is a crucial part of my life.

Also what I put forward was not meant to justify my belief in God. It was meant simply as an explanation of how I saw things.

As for the statement that "religious people with "mild beliefs" allowing those with extreme religious views to get away without protest ..." is not true regarding myself.

Believe me David, I have protested and made my feelings known to the hierarchy of my Church on more than one occasion and in several ways. You shouldn't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Wizofaus, I thought that this thread was purely for the pros and cons of religion vs atheism. Why bring homosexuality into it? I don't think it has been mentioned in the thread before. Not everything needs to be addressed as part of the heterophobic agenda.

I agree with your views on religion but don't ever expect me to change my views on sexuality.

I found Steven Jay Gould to be very biased and hostile to other viewpoints while most of what I have read of Dawkins I can agree with. As you, yourself wrote, 'there's no strong consensus yet on the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality'. A message in itself.

As for your denial of man as the "highest creature", what would you put in his place?

David, way too cute to repeat your mantra that Athiests have no beliefs, as if by it's repetition you'll convince yourself of it's truth. Your organisation has a 'philosophy' and a Constitution that outline a set of beliefs.eg a belief in the rational and scientific.

Your devotion and dedication to a belief that defines itself by it's opposition to others beliefs is all to common. This is innate too? I'd suggest that sadly enough humankind is victim to this sort of reflexive oppositional behaviour. May you and Boazy have a long and meaningful relationship.

Your gratuitous slaps at others, whilst suggesting '... think about how you are interacting with others.' are unnecessary. Using words like "symptoms", "psychosis" and "syndrome" are insulting to others. Heard a Psychiatrist on the radio a while back stating that science really did not have a clue about the mind and causes of 'conditions'. Perhaps you should be true to your own philosophy and stick to the facts?

Religion also poses the question how do we relate to and understand our fellow man? Respect for anothers beliefs is a good place to start. Maybe Religions formed in an attempt to modify examples of mankinds nastier behaviours?

Finally can I suggest a Rule For Mankind? In the end Obsessives and "Ardents" will always get clobbered by their own moral boomerang.

I think a narrow-thinking man would think man was the highest creature. A dog would certainly rate dogs as tops - they all think they lead the household pack, don't you know. Well, small, snappy, fluffy dogs. Labradors would probably choose man. Lions would think lions, were they to dwell on it, with fairly good reason. I think cats would choose cats. Springboks would agree with the lions. So would giraffes. Hippos would rate themselves over lions.

I won't go on, but it's fun thinking about it.

The thing is, isn't the great thing about consciousness is that step-backness of it? Our unique perspective? Once you behold the world, once you regard the universe, rating animals in order of coolness just doesn't seem worth the bother.

Christians, of course, rate man as the highest of the animals, and I believe from their perspective they kind of have to - doesn't it say it in the Bible or something? God made man in his own image - that surely is a strong clue about god's favourite species.

But why rate them at all, if you're not a Christian?

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
said,"By the way, I do tire of the suggestion that Atheists have beliefs."

Is this because of their limited view of reality? Obviously this retards their research, as they make no assumptions, because they havent seen the evidence. All major discoveries in science are made on assumed beliefs acted upon.

So atheists hold no opinions unless they can see it demonstrated in reality. This places them outside making assumptions like the evolution of life was an accident of natural chemistry - they have not seen such demonstrated. They do not assume a first cause for existence of matter, they just believe it always existed. Sorry I used the word 'believe'. They do not believe in the future because it is merely an assumed fact. They have no belief, therefore I suggest we cannot believe a word they want us to believe. They obviously believe the stuff they write otherwise they are deluded and not to be believed. They do not believe stuff they read in books - no - if they do they are deluded into a belief. Books are the opinions and presumptions of others.

Every person needs hope to give his life meaning. Hope is based in belief. Could I dare to suggest atheists have no hope because this is a belief in the future. Atheists are really hopeless people if life goes bad for them.

I won't be joining them any day, because I want to hang around positive people who believe in and aspire for better things. They are locked into their body chemistry and absorbed by and destroyed by it - how dull - they have no spirituality. To them life is meaningless and accidental merely to appease the sensual appetites of their body. To me life has purpose and design and that means self sacrifice and moral boundaries.

Dearest Foxy,

You are confused with the word ‘belief’. I can believe the sun will be on the Eastern horizon tomorrow morning, as it has done so for billions of years. That is, there is prior evidence.

But if I were to say I believe the Sun will be on the Western horizon tomorrow morning, I have no evidence to back me up with such an assertion, only a feeling I will be correct. Or, if you like, a guess.

Those proposing there is a god have supplied no evidence for its existence, therefore such a proposition is a belief. As pointed out, feelings are not evidence. Making the existence of god an axiomatic statement is against the rules of logic.

Atheists are not asserting anything and therefore do not have beliefs. We await the evidence from those who believe in the existence of gods. End of story.

Until there is evidence for the existence of gods, we do not accept they are real. Foxy, you do not accept fairies exist on the same grounds. But when it comes to a god, you change the rules to fit your preconceptions.

I assume your complaints in your church are against the second class status afforded women in religion; are for the introduction of Legal Voluntary Euthanasia; are for the social and legal equality for same sex oriented people; are against the indoctrination of children by religion and chaplains in states schools, are opposed to the introduction of “intelligent design”; are for comprehensive sex education of all children; are in agreement with stem cell research; are in accord that prostitution should not be a criminal matter; are outraged that religion is amassing huge sums of money by way of tax breaks and contributions by governments from the public purse...etc etc.

Foxy, if you are a force against these injustices and irrationalities, you have my vote. If not, you are a part of the problem I have been enunciating.

David

Philo,
I didn’t say that there were NO persecutions, only that there were not as many as some would claim. Many examples of early Roman persecution and expulsion were directed at Jews and Christians collectively.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Ancient, medieval and early modern hagiographers were inclined to exaggerate the number of martyrs". Estimates of Christians killed for religious reasons before the year 313 vary greatly, depending on the scholar quoted, from a high of almost 100,000 to a low of 10,000.

It’s been claimed that Nero blamed the burning of Rome on Christians and that there was a subsequent huge backlash.

Tacticus is the ONLY historical writer of the time who says that Nero blamed the Christians and no other references (Christian or Pagan) appeared until 400CE.

The Church Historian Eusebius could only find 146 martyrs in it’s history up until the 4th century and makes no mention of the fire in Rome.

Between Domitian and Decius in the late 3rd century there was a long peace where the Church was not persecuted.

The next significant period of political persecution was under Diocletian, before Constantine came to power. (Still no mention of Nero’s fire and its Christian victims.)

Therefore it seems that the events surrounding the fire in Rome were “embellished” by later historians and this is only one example.
(Continued)

(Continued)

Also despite his alleged “conversion” to a particular Christian sect, Constantine immediately began the violent persecution of all the other competing sects.

Many of the references to Constantine's historical role are sweeping romaniticised generalisations but the detailed history is freely available if you care to look for it.

His successor Julian, tried to revert to paganism but was murdered 3 years later. Jovian then attempted to make Christianity the dominant religion by putting pagans under threat of death unless they converted. Hardly an auspicious beginning for a peaceful religion.

It was actually Theodosius who made it the official state religion in 395AD but only after mass persecution of non-Christians and the burning of many libraries and sacking of pagan temples.

Religions are successful and long-lasting if they are ruthless and inflexible in their dealings with non-believers, particularly at the beginning.

Since then we have also had the deliberate Christian persecution of other Christians such as those against the Arians, the Cathars (up to a million killed here alone), Eastern Orthodox Christians, Waldenses, the Medieval and Spanish Inquisitions, the Jesuits and so on - not to mention the Christian persecution of pagans and the occasional Crusade against Muslims. Of course it works in both directions and religious persecution still goes on between and within all groups.

While these were specifically religious conflicts (or disguised economic ones) I wouldn't blame something like the Holocaust on religion but it demonstrates what religion is capable of (or not capable of preventing).

Jack, because the church is the only institution I know of capable of convincing anyone that homosexuality is so abhorrent that the private, consensual acts of others need to be actively discouraged.

As far as the "highest creature" goes - there are many possible ways you could measure the success of various species, e.g. longevity of existence, physical resilience to various environments, total number of surviving individuals etc. etc. On very few of these do humans come out in front. There is no meaningful ladder of evolution - all species alive today are just as evolved as each other, and, in all likelihood, humanity will eventually make away for other species.

As members of Homo Sapiens, we value the things that make us human and grant us our success: intelligence, compassion, manual dexterity etc. To many other species, those attributes are worthless, and were they capable of making such a judgment may well note how physically weak we are, or how slowly we breed our offspring, or how desperately helpless our infants are, or how wasteful we are by constantly killing each other but leaving all that good meat.

palimpsest,

Just a few words on beliefs. I actually do have a belief…It is the belief that the combination of reason and our five senses accurately portrays reality better than any other way. Bertrand Russell has a very famous quote about this: “To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”

That you consider nothing is known about psychosis etc is demonstrably false and one might as well state nothing is known about anything. Enough is understood concerning psychological disorders where variants from the ‘norm’ can be classified into groups. The Jerusalem Syndrome is real. The effects of indoctrination are real. Religious zealotry is real. Psychosis is real.

You may wish to classify me as being obsessive and ardent as it suits your purpose. However, you saying this does not make it so. When Atheists stand up to be counted, the opposition tries every method it can think of to quieten them. The most interesting factor here is that it is not what Atheists say which is challenged, but it generally revolves around the religious desperately protecting long-held and firmly planted prejudices.

This is recognisable by unanswered pertinent questions, linking Atheism with despotism, using the existence of a god axiomatically, wilful misunderstanding of the word belief, accusations of fundamentalism and obsessiveness, an unwillingness to face up to and discuss the actual harms of religious belief, the promotion of the falsity that Atheism is an empty and meaningless existence, fallacious assumptions that without a god in the picture humanity will collapse into a mire of selfish and unethical behaviour etc.

Atheists, first have to overcome all of this before rational discourse can begin. Sometimes, this does not happen though. It is a pain, but an expected one. But, despite the mentioned difficulties, Atheism is in steep ascendancy. People, in growing numbers, are recognising that which Douglas Adams encapsulated in the following quote: “Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too.”

David

I'm not sure I'd got as far as claiming atheism is in "steep ascendancy". The trend away from religious belief probably started with the Enlightment, and has been mostly steady ever since.

Even the rise of Fundamentalism in the U.S. hasn't bucked this trend - Fundamentalists love to quote how many new members to their churches sign up every year, but neglect to mention how many leave after a year or so. Non-fundamentalist churches are generally under no such illusion about the gradual loss of their followings. Since 1944, belief in God among Americans has gradually dropped from about 95% to less than 70%. And in the rest of the developed world, it hovers between 20 and 50%. The last real bastion of religious belief is still the developing world, where levels of education are hopelessly inadequate.

It's because this trend is occurring peacefully and inevitably anyway that I don't see much point in "Atheist evangelism", even though I've read some very impassioned and inspiring defences of the need for it.

Dearest David,

"Hallelujah! I've found God! And David is His name!" (Just Kidding)...

I'm getting tired with all this arguing and I no longer see the point to continue. I've stated my feelings as best as I could. No amount of argument will change the status quo.

Dearest David,

I forgot to add that the list of injustices that you mentioned in your recent post to me - was far too short...

If you'd read some of my posts on other threads you'd know more about me, and you'd realize what I'm for or against ... And by the way my garden has the most beautiful faeries in it, but you have to believe - to see them (smile).

Cheers.

Reading through this threat I am surprised I am still I am amazed at the level of rubbish the religious think up.
Lets sort this out, the base value of religion is persecution. The first step of a religion is to seperate who is a follower of the idolatry and who is not. The fictitious character of Christ according to the Bible himself is a persecuter as he saves only those who engage in occult rituals and witchcraft in his name.

Secondly the myth amonsgt occultists that a person needs a belief in god to be moral is certainly propaganda to villify non-religionists, A person who is moral has no need of guidance. Ironically it is an immoral argument to claim as musch. Firstly here Jesus taught imorality as he taught exclusionism. Secondly the immoral will claim that the Bible or god or what ever other idol they worship gives them moral guidance, this is because they are in a moral panic, not understanding what morals are or do. Certainly the god of the bible was pure evil by civilised standards. The mytholgy that rose because of the self awareness of the homosapien that his existence was at the mercy of casual biological reality created this evil god as an articulation that in raw reality justice is no more than a social construct. In short it is the immoral claim that the bible gives moral guidance, if they were good people in the first place they would have no need of the bible. My experience dealing with churches, the media and christians I meet , certainly being Christian does not make a better person. More often than not it creates a worst person.

This bleating about beliefs through this thread is fantasy and empty conjecture. All experience of god is fantasy. An afterlife is conjecture based on fantasy, there is no evidence for immortality and if immortality did exist it is not by logic god dependent. I would argue Einstein would be able to INVENT a better argument for an afterlife than the bible does, but since Einstein needed evidence he did not attempt it. Salvation (to be godlike and immortal) is a death cult because what Christians are arguing is that death is better than life, that life is secondary to death. All the magic that Christians argue only occurs after death , salvation, judgement (Brand Justice), acknowledgement of greater worth. In private life it makes the fate of condemned criminals easier to swallow , but in public and in politics it is a dangerous thing which is why the belief in salvation has brought upon every evil from war and slavery to serial killing upon the peoples of the earth and Jesus has spread genocide and ethnic cleansing.

The same is for god, there is no factual evidence of god , infact there is evidence suggestive of UFO's where there is no evidence of a god. There is no proof that UFO's exist and the evidence supporting them is weak and they are unlikely to have visited earth. God does not even have that much.

wizofaus,

Nations following the democratic ideal, such as in Western Europe, where education systems are comprehensive, have a high rate of Atheism. In the USA where the quality of education is a hit or miss affair, do not. To demonstrate the importance of education, a recent survey of The Academy of Sciences had only 7% of respondents claiming belief in a god as opposed to the general population of 70% who do.

If the Census question on religion in Australia were to be replaced with a less leading one, we would see that the faithful are less in numbers than is reported.

When we look at the long history of humanity, anyone not recognising that Atheism is in steep ascendency, especially over the last few decades, is kidding her/himself.

“Atheist evangelism” Mmmmm…OK. I’ll add that to the existing list of irrelevancies. I wonder if you label other people and organisations fighting in defence of human rights and a rational approach to life, as evangelisers. Or do you save that term only for those with the audacity to examine religion and its effects on civilization critically?

David

Foxy,

“I'm getting tired with all this arguing and I no longer see the point to continue. I've stated my feelings as best as I could. No amount of argument will change the status quo.”

You stated your thoughts very clearly and obviously, you think about life.

Yes, argument does become tiresome, but as my post to wizofaus explains, someone has to do it. As you yourself understand, Foxy, the written word is a powerful tool. This discussion may not change anyone’s mind instantly, but who knows in the longer term.

Look after yourself.

David

botheration, 'I think a narrow-thinking man would think man was the highest creature. A dog would certainly rate dogs as tops '. Is that why dogs, since prehistoric times, have socialised with humans and allowed themselves to be domesticated in exchange for food scraps and water? Also, 'But why rate them at all, if you're not a Christian?'. Do you think that, as an athiest, I believe all animals (including the human animal) to be equal? The very laws of nature set us apart with a hierarchy that places man at the top. Dogs and monkeys have indeed been in space - but who put them there?

wizofaus, 'the church is the only institution I know of capable of convincing anyone that homosexuality is so abhorrent ' - the Moslems have the same stance. I'm sure that other religions are also against it. The church had no influence on my views on homosexuals. I was an athiest before I had come across (and formed views on) any examples of that. I have to question 'all species alive today are just as evolved as each other'. Surely you don't see yourself as an equal to a fly? Some species have stopped evolving millenia ago. Some, like sharks, didn't need to go any further. And 'we value the things that make us human and grant us our success: intelligence, compassion, manual dexterity etc. To many other species, those attributes are worthless, and were they capable of making such a judgment may well note how physically weak we are, or how slowly we breed our offspring, or how desperately helpless our infants are, or how wasteful we are by constantly killing each other but leaving all that good meat.'
But we can make ourselves strong by our creative technologies. As for leaving all that meat, many predators do the same, otherwise the scavengers would die of starvation.

I just think it's silly to rate animals. (And I don't distinguish between rating us all in order or thinking we're all equal. Either way, you're rating.) If we must do it, then sure, who made it to the moon first is one measure. Another is the ability to succeed as a species and replicate yourself - in this sense bacteria are usually said to win. There's more of them, and they've responded to our war on them by becoming resistant to our weapons.

Personally, I reckon it's silly, but if it's important to you to win this one, go for your life.

David - you're getting a bit precious there. "Steep ascendancy" to me implies that atheism is gathering popularity at the rate that, say, iPods are gathering popularity. Yes, when taking the long view, the rise of atheism has been relatively rapid and recent - but so was the rise of monotheism, beginning perhaps some 4000 years ago, out of at perhaps 200,000 years of human existence. Regarding atheistic evangelism, I never implied that anything was wrong with it, and if I thought I had what it took to do a good job of it, I'd be prepared to partake in it myself.

Jack, I just said "the church". Islam is no less "the church" than Christianity. If you claim that your early exposure to religion had no influence on your views on homosexuality, then fine, that's nothing something I can attempt to disprove.

What's the meaning of determining whether I'm equal to an individual fly? The point is whether flies as a species have been as successful as humans, and by almost any objective measure, they most definitely have. Almost certainly they will outlast us.

"We can make ourselves strong by our creative technologies" is a very human judgement. Most species make themselves strong by having evolved that way, and if capable would probably wonder why humans are so innately helpless that most of the planet would be uninhabitable to us if it weren't for all the time we spent making clothes, building shelters and heating them.

You think that dogs are lesser creatures because they rely on us for "food scraps and water". But, again, if capable, they would think us pretty daft to expend so much effort on them for relatively little in return, and no doubt consider us hopefully backwards and unevolved as far as our pitiful sense of smell goes.

wizofaus,

Not precious at all. Your word of ‘rapid and mine’ of ‘steep ascendancy’ differ very little in meaning. It’s that you had to make a point about it, that I thought unnecessary. The same goes for your use of the phrase, “Atheist evangelism”. Again, unnecessary, and only tends to feed the arsenal of the already prejudiced.

Maybe, care with emphatic language, is the lesson here.

David

David, no-where did I say nothing is known about psychosis. However when you say "enough is understood concerning psychological disorders where variants from the 'norm' can be classified into groups", you confirm what I did say re the workings of the mind and causes of conditions.

Observing symptoms or variants from the norm, and classifying them into groups, is just that.

Earlier you said "maintaining and protecting beliefs in otherworldly concepts..... is a sure sign of psychosis, brought on by religion." Or of a pre-existing psychotic state.

Your argument is then- once the steep ascendancy of Atheism is established and recognised, variants from the norm like religiosity and spiritualism (and lord knows what else) will come to be regarded as psychoses. And presumably damned good business for someone.

All this talk about classifying species into superior or more evolved is not what I introduced by quoting Genesis 2: 15, in this topic.

What I introduced was that man alone is the only species held accountable for his life and behaviour and is held responsible for the care of this Planet. Even the environment movement blames man for his poor management of the environment, or man's poor management of other species. There are no courts managed by other species that make judgments on that species behaviour. When another species like a dog injures a child who makes a decision the dog should be destroyed? Certainly not other dogs!

All life is leaving a footprint in history that affects the future. If you believe we are an accident of chemistry without purpose or a meaningful future, then man's current rape of the environment is just a stage of evolution and will pass even as the wolly mammoth. If you believe we accidently evolved then there can be no purpose to this planet and to life - so it is just possible by logic to believe that while we are here waste it on ourselves. No one is accountable to anyone other than themselves.

If you believe we were placed here purposefully by our designer to nurture all life and manage this planet then we are accountable to that designer. Logic tells us we are here by design, and not by accident.

Philo,

<<Is this because of their limited view of reality?>>

In saying this, you're assuming that everything that in the Bible is reality. Either way, believing that the world is only 6000 years old, and ignoring large chunks of the science of nature, is also a very limited view of reality.

<<Obviously this retards their research, as they make no assumptions, because they havent seen the evidence. All major discoveries in science are made on assumed beliefs acted upon.>>

No. This doesn't retard their reasearch.

Assumptions are made to a certain extent, but are then discarded if no evidence can support it.

This is an important distinction between Atheists and Theists. And blows away any frivolous attempt made by the religious to drag evolutionists down to their own fundamentalist level.

<<So atheists hold no opinions unless they can see it demonstrated in reality.>>

Now you're just inventing the position of others.

To imply that Atheists won't hold an opinion on anything unless it can be demonstrated, is just plain stupid.

<<This places them outside making assumptions like the evolution of life was an accident of natural chemistry - they have not seen such demonstrated.>>

You obviously have a very limited view of what evolution is. Evolution doesn't claim that anything happened by accident.

And yes, evolution has been demonstrated: Bugs becoming resilient to pesticide; bacteria mutating to immunise itself against antibiotics.

<<They do not assume a first cause for existence of matter. they just believe it always existed.>>

No, Atheists don't assume a first cause.

But scientific principals and logic, in regards to life and the universe, suggest that everything starts with a simple entity, and then gradually evolves to something more complex.

Therefore, the idea of everything starting out with something as complex as a God, that has no beginning, raises even more unanswered questions and is more illogical.

<<They have no belief, therefore I suggest we cannot believe a word they want us to believe.>>

That's some pretty poor logic there, Philo.

If someone has no belief, then how can they want you to believe it?

Continued...

...Continued

I could suggest that we don't believe what Theists want us to believe because they can't back it up. That would at least make a lot more sense at least.

<<They obviously believe the stuff they write otherwise they are deluded and not to be believed. They do not believe stuff they read in books - no - if they do they are deluded into a belief.>>

Some more poor logic.

No. Being “deluded” doesn't mean you don't believe what you say/write. It means that you believe something in the face of evidence to the contrary - like religion.

<<Books are the opinions and presumptions of others.>>

Depends on what kind of books you're talking about. If you're talking about books on the science of evolution, then no, they're not just the opinion and presumptions of others.

Any presumptions that they do contain, are hypotheses backed up by mountains of evidence that suggest the bigger picture of evolution.

<<Every person needs hope to give his life meaning. Hope is based in belief. Could I dare to suggest atheists have no hope because this is a belief in the future. Atheists are really hopeless people if life goes bad for them.>>

If religion gives you hope then good for you. But it is arrogant to assume that the all hope lies in religion. Nor does this does prove the existence of a God.

<<They are locked into their body chemistry and absorbed by and destroyed by it -.how dull - they have no spirituality.>>

It's highly arrogant, and narrow-minded to assume that spirituality can only come from religion, and that anyone who doesn't believe as you do, is devoid of any sort of spirituality.

<<To them life is meaningless and accidental merely to appease the sensual appetites of their body. To me life has purpose and design and that means self sacrifice and moral boundaries.>>

The suggestion that we need a higher power looking over us to do what is right, is insulting. And anyone whose moral actions are derived from this notion, is undeserving of any credit.

What are the three things that should never be discussed... religion, religion, religion... Ha! I love it.

The problem that I have with religious people is not that they are religious. Hopefully we are free to believe what we wish. This discussion proves that to at least some degree we live in a free society because in many countries some people here would have been arrested on the absurd & trumped up charge of blasphemy. Some of the Christians would have been arrested for their beliefs.

What I just can't grasp is how they can look at this world and believe that their God intercedes on a daily basis OR shows us love!

Why doesn't God help the starving and poor people , stop the torture and terror, cure the terminally ill & disease, stop the attrocities & the oppression in the world? He can!

Why doesn't God accept that he was right - free will was a crazy plan (if that is the cause of our problems) - OK God please fix things and show yourself to us!

Why doesn't God reveal himself to us? It makes no sense!

If God knows all things before they occur and our reactions why would he create the tree of knowledge of good and evil? - he already knew we would fail!

Why knowing that we would fail would God then blame the serpent and the woman? The free will argument just doesn't make sense as he knew we would fail with free will! He knows everything!

Come on God show yourself to the world... your experiment has been the success you knew it would be... You and your followers claim you to be omni everything...

I can't wait to meet my alleged maker... he has some serious questions to answer to me!

Jesus said "Ask and you shall receive" OK Jesus through you I ask that you stop all the horrors of this world, you show yourself to us and you save us all for any mistakes we made!

I look forward to your prompt reply!

The "free will" explanation for evil doesn't cut in anyway, because it imples that there is no free will in Heaven. If so, why on (ahem) Earth would you want to go there?

palimpsest,

I really consider it is the height of ignorance of you, for part quoting me. Here is your contribution to my distaste: >>>Earlier you said "maintaining and protecting beliefs in otherworldly concepts..... is a sure sign of psychosis, brought on by religion." Or of a pre-existing psychotic state.<<<

Here is what I actually said: “Maintaining and protecting belief in otherworldly concepts by way of evading pertinent questions is a sure sign of psychosis, brought on by religion. It could also mean the psychosis existed before the religious belief.”

I was referring to the not answering of pertinent questions by a poster. Why didn’t you fully quote me? Apparently, you have trouble with copying and pasting. Selectively quoting for advantage is the hallmark of the unscrupulous. Can you imagine the response if as an Atheist, employed such dubious methods?

Then using the misquote you conclude the following: >>>Your argument is then- once the steep ascendancy of Atheism is established and recognised, variants from the norm like religiosity and spiritualism (and lord knows what else) will come to be regarded as psychoses. And presumably damned good business for someone.<<<

The steep ascendancy of Atheism, and religiosity and spiritualism becoming known as psychosis, is not a connection made by me.

I expect a rational response about this.

To make it clear, I consider religion in the same way as the Dawkins book – A delusion. The delusion in some can be serious enough to be a psychosis. Extreme examples are killing abortion doctors or flying planes into building etc. At what point a delusion becomes a psychosis is difficult to establish.

Most people become Atheists through self-help and no one, excepting maybe booksellers, benefits. (Apart from the very happy new Atheist, that is)

David

Actually, David, most people become atheists by being born that way.

(If, not unreasonably, you insist that you can only be an atheist if you at least understand what it is that you lack belief in, then I would restate that as "most people become atheists because they find out about the concept of God, but don't find the evidence compelling enough to believe such a thing exists".)

wizofaus,

“Actually, David, most people become atheists by being born that way.”

I would take that further. All people are born Atheists and then most are subjected to a particular religious indoctrination process to a more or less degree. Some don’t have religion as a given in their lives at all and some others who do, escape it. It’s all a matter of luck in the nature/nurture stakes.

David

Just to keep you up to date after my prayer through Jesus - all the bad things may have stopped in the world ... but I haven't heard yet.

Apparently India lost the cricket due to some bad umpiring errors so the media hasn't had a chance to keep us up to date with the world being cured of all it's ills.

I think the term atheist actually works against atheists - I think we are born pure of any baggage and then the world and people just start loading us up.

I prefer the term "Non- believer but willing to look at evidence" so all children are born as "Non- believer but willing to look at evidence - please do not indoctrinate me with unknowns".

botheration, what makes you think that I am trying 'to win this one'? If it's 'silly to rate animals', why did you bring it up in the first place? In case you forgot, your post included 'I think a narrow-thinking man would think man was the highest creature. A dog would certainly rate dogs as tops'. So, by replying to your statement, you seem to think that I am trying to win. What's that all about?

wizofaus, I used the fly analogy because of your statement 'all species alive today are just as evolved as each other' as a way of rebuttal. BTW, if flies are, as you believe, as succesful as humans, why do they eat what they eat? As for making a 'human judgement', what other kind is there? I don't see animals as being capable of judgement but relying mainly on instinct and learned behaviour. I don't know if I'd like a better sense of smell considering some of the people walking around these days. Some of them smell like fly-food.

Philo, 'If you believe we accidently evolved then there can be no purpose to this planet and to life '. There is no purpose, the universe and all in it just exists. Logic does not demand that we waste it. Why would you think that?

What's wrong with what flies eat? It doesn't cause them any problems that I know of. If humans had evolved to be adapted to consuming faeces, we wouldn't think anything of it.

It was "human judgement" many centuries ago that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Science has gradually allowed to see past our inbuilt biases and prejudices, and gain a more objective view of reality. "Faeces are disgusting" is not an objective statement, rather the result of our own evolution: we are not adapted to be able to consume them, and indeed, doing so would cause significant health problems, hence we have evolved a strong repulsion to them.

It need not only be genetic - even between cultures and historical eras the degrees to which people are repulsed by certain concepts varies considerably. I'm repulsed by the thought of cannibalism, or watching men being torn apart by lions. Clearly many others in the past were not.

Jack, I didn't bring it up, the post you quoted was responding to your question (to another poster): "As for your denial of man as the "highest creature", what would you put in his place?"

By saying saying it seemed it important to you "to win this one", I meant that it seemed you were keen to rate humanity as higher than the other animals. If I got that wrong, many apologies.

In this forum we talk about God and religion far more than any other subject.
Maybe more than every other subject combined, I believe in no God, yet I never stop researching why we need a God?
And why do we believe in so many, why too do the 3 most quoted Gods have roots in the middle east and just maybe the same God.
I however wounder do we need in your face non believers to preach to us?
Little doubt given the true number attending Church's world wide can be shown to support other than Christianity is shrinking.
While Islam is finding many leaving it is growing in numbers.
If only we could debate the very start of the 3 religions based on the middle east, look closely at what was believed before they arrived.
And find the true roots of all, just take Christmas, surely no church truly claims that is Christs true birthday? evidence exists that it was not.
And how many of us do not see the father Christmas story is becoming the true meaning of Christmas to most?
Maybe we should all be good little consumers sit down and eat our meal made for a cold English winter and consume, after all that is why we have Christmas isn't it?

Yes, Opinionate2, Atheism has had bad press and no press for a long time. Consequently, the name has suffered considerably. The interesting thing we are finding at head office is that since the recent spate of anti-religious books, and even before that time, many people have taken to wearing the word, Atheist, as a badge of honour.

To me, it definitively demonstrates my position. It leaves no doubt, that I do not accept as being valid, the unsubstantiated claim of religion, that the existence of a supernatural sphere is real.

David

David, my omission of "..by way of evading pertinent questions.." was considered.

Your response is interesting. Seems to me an understanding of the(your) post hinges on understanding of the idiom 'by way of'. To suggest Philo maintains his belief for the purpose of evading questions is one thing; to suggest that he maintains and protects his beliefs by way of evading questions is another.

Curious too that you "consider religion in the same way as the Dawkins book- a delusion". Is Dawkins a psychotic or just in it for the money? Words can be funny things.

Think you do protest too much- the scientific hypothesis for life(awareness, cognizance,will} is as unproven as any other idea.

Your beliefs' and finally you admit to having some, after repeatedly denying that Atheists have any; are of course self evident given the parameters you have chosen.

ybgirp- your response earlier to a post of mine gave me a good chuckle.

palimpsest,

You have missed the most important part of my post. “I expect a rational response about this.”

David

I don't think I saw David claim that atheists have no beliefs.
Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to have any beliefs about God(s) to be an atheist. However personally I tend to agree with those that claim it trivialises the word atheist to use it for those that aren't even aware of the concept of God. Once you aware of the concept, and especially the fact that the majority of the world's population believe in some sort of God, it's very difficult not to have a belief "about" God, even if that belief is simply that "most people have a mistaken belief that God exists", or a belief that "God is a man-made myth".
But likewise you also have a belief (indeed, you're certain of it) that most (Western) children have a mistaken belief that Santa Claus exists, and that Santa-Claus is man-made myth. For me, at least, my position on God is precisely the same as any sane adult's position on Santa Claus. Do you consider yourself to actively believe that there is no Santa Claus?

I think too much importance is given to beliefs and I think it is not healthy to hold beliefs as important. Of course in the 1960's drug crazed hippy sociologists invented post modernism , that nothing can be 100% certain. I see that with those who are on drugs , or are drunk or are mentally ill , over tired , self intraspective (Spiritual, superstitious)those who have a weak grasp on reality will believe that there is no true reality and that some how believing in Jesus , or god or spiderman is real is just as valid as reality. Clearly it is not the same thing and the argument that belief is important is really an argument that one has no true grasp of reality. Reality exists in its factual state wether it is believed or not.
Jesus and God agrees with me here through all their sermons in any church as well as the letters they have written to news papers and within this very post. What they have said is nothing because they dont exist. A meglamaniac will claim God speaks through them , a delusionary will claim god speaks to them , the paranoid superstitious will claim god is present in things that occur. It takes willful ignorance to believe in miracles , it takes willful ignorance to believe in magic and yet all gods are only gods because they are magic.

West,
I am sometimes very sceptical when it comes to claims of healings. However an overweight elderly lady in my Church recently was in a coma for 14 days after an operation. Several of her concerned friends from Church prayed over her on the thursday and she walked into Church on the Sunday claiming she had received a miracle of total healing. Believe it or not. She believed she had! The Doctors told her husband if she survived that she would need a wheel chair and would loose some of her cognative ability. She walked into Church and testified fluently that she had fully recovered.

Philo, in a world with 6.5 billion people, it's inevitable that thousands of people recover mysteriously from medical conditions on a daily basis. Given that almost everyone with a medical condition is prayed for by somebody else, people will continue to believe that it is their prayers that were responsible for an otherwise unexplained recovery. I will say that even if it were true that the prayers helped, I can't imagine being particularly respectful for a supernatural being who was so miserly and so random with dishing out his powers of intervention.

But as it is, various scientific studies have been done attempting to show the efficacy of prayer, and all have come up empty-handed.

Hands up all the Atheists who refuse to accept penalty rates when required to work at Christmas, Easter or other Christian based holidays?

Is Mise,

Hands up all Christians who refuse to accept penalty rates when required to work at Christmas, Easter or other Christian based holidays, as they were actually pilfered by Christianity from other European and Mediterranean seasonal celebrations.

If this is wrong, please supply a Biblical reference for the 25th December being the Birth date of the alleged Jesus.

By the way, a holiday is a holiday is a holiday no matter whom or what it is supposed to be in aid of. Now that you realise you are really celebrating ‘pagan’ gods, I guess you will apply the same rules to yourself. Of course, we ‘infidels’ we don’t expect you to.

David

It's about as logical as not accept penalty rates for the Queen's Birthday if you're a republican, or for The Melbourne Cup if you don't believe in the importance of horse-racing.

I do enjoy it when theists come out with statements like that, as it only too well exposes how hopeless their position is.

David, are the parameters of your world really so narrow that when I expose your gobbledygook you spit the dummy?

Again for the blinkered. Eventually expose the point that you do have beliefs, despite your insistence for weeks that your atheism has none, you fess up.( all the while on the web for all to see}.

Your total failure to address the point that science hasn't a bloody clue about the creation of the precious thing called life. Just hypotheses.

You use and hide behind words like psychosis and delusion. I credit you with the intelligence to know that bandying words around such as these, aimed at others, will be insulting to them. And all the while proclaiming your rationality. What's rational about sneakily insulting others?

Get a dictionary David. My initial understanding of "by way of" is the most popular understanding of the idiom in 3 of 3 I checked.

And as for your sentence on religion and Dawkins. You said it. Perhaps you might be a little more thoughtful next time?

Otherwise, I have no problem with your idea that indoc. of children is a bad thing. Any overwhelming of any one's self discovery or realisation is poison. But even when I tell you my own story you are deaf. Your insistence that all who may believe in any spiritual concepts are somehow subject to an unknown, hidden influence such as a nebulous "indoc" indicates a closed mind.

Your as intemperate as those you preach against.

palimpsest,

Taking the line that you are affronted and I overly offend others, is really a poor way of argument. Using the rubbish statement that I have beliefs and then exaggerating what those beliefs are, is a sign of desperation. I guess I will have to ask you direct questions in the hope that you will have the temerity to answer truthfully.

Shall we look at that to which you are possibly referring concerning my alleged beliefs? The following from a post of mine.

>>>Just a few words on beliefs. I actually do have a belief…It is the belief that the combination of reason and our five senses accurately portrays reality better than any other way. Bertrand Russell has a very famous quote about this: “To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”<<<

1. Apart from the above, where do I profess a trust in human reasoning capability,
where are my beliefs which are in any way similar to religious beliefs?

2. Do you have a belief in human reasoning capability?

I have never said in any of my writing that science knows with exactness how the universe or life started.

3. Where have I stated that it has?

There have been over 20,000 religions many vastly different in beliefs. The example of these religions I generally use is that the Aztecs ripped out the still beating hearts of humans they sacrificed. They, as most thinking people now acknowledge, were deluded.

4. How would you describe the mental condition of the Aztecs and the adherents of the other 20,000 religions?

I used psychosis for extreme case of religiosity affecting normal reasoning ability. Delusion is illusory thinking, thus the name of the Dawkins book.

5. Have you read Richard Dawkins’ book – The God delusion?

Your thoughts about the word idiom are nothing but pseudo intellectual wank. The beauty of the English language is that complex ideas can be explained using simple words.

6. Why do you not use some of them to clarify your argument coherently?

David

Judeo-Christian religion can be explained in context of history and the Axial Age and later Nicaea. The OT God(s) would Have the Cannanite El a war/volcano god transform into elohim [Jacob], meaning Yahweh became the tribal god of the henotheist [not monthesist]Isreal. In Psalm 82 there is reference to the older Council of the gods having a dufferent godhead than the NT. Regressing the Trinity backwards into would have Yahweh as "God the Father", the father of many gods. Moreover, the diety El Shaddai as the Cannanite and Hebrew High God, as in Isra-EL. Nonetheless, the early Hebrews could have believed in Marduh, Baal and Anat too. Asherah could be said -from the Cannanite Baal- to be "God the Mother" - Jesus' mother in NT terms? Inconstistences exist in the OT perhaps because many of the, if they occurred, happend c. 1,850-1,200 BCE, howver, the fabricators of the text wrote c. 700 BCE.

The first 10-15 bishops of (NT) Christianity were Jews. When Hadrian bannished the Jews from the Holy Lands, where religious Jews were compelled to pray, it was necessary for the sect to allow Gentiles in in so the Romans, would allow the groups to pass into Jerusalem.

By the time of Nicaea there many localised gospels, from separated in tome and geography. The Council patched it all together and then acted like today's Taliban destroying ancient monuments.

The above is history but it is not taught in the churches.

References: Gibbon, Wells, Quigley, McNeill, Mack and Armstrong.

Although David has covered this, Christmas / Xmas is rooted into Saturnalia in Classical Rome and the feast of Dionysus in ancient greece, the beer (or mead?) worship of southern England ( the name of the god of which is where we have got the word "god" from )and the Nordic , Germanic , Russian , Mongol and Persian Solsitice Holy festivals of various "Beliefs".

Ergo in Europeanised Australia (21st Century Australia) Christmas / Xmas is a cultural festival and is not owned by any particular cult although cults will perform their particular superstitious rituals such as mass during this time. I would argue it is anti Australian to work on Xmas as it is clearly a snub of Australian culture. I would expect anybody needing to work (emergency services) or those who work out of raw greed ( the local supermarket remained open although thye car park suitedtumbe weed at this time) then anybody working should be compensated. Perhaps Christians should pay a tax if they see a Christmas tree , Christmas lights , santa claus or hear Christmas Carols, give and recieve gifts , feast, all of which are pagan and Teutonic traditions.

Philo a close freind was terminally Ill , she is atheist, her family atheists , nobody prayed for her. She lived well over the statistical life expectancy, her cancer finally disappeared. Her specialists told her sometimes the bodies defences kicks in and overcomes cancers as it is meant to do. She was told this was the case for a little over 1% of Cancer patients. No miracle , just the body does what it evolved to do and does for us every day. Praying does not regrow limbs , missing teeth , makes short people tall and giant people short or rescue the intellectually disabled. "God" cannot do the impossible in nature, man can make an artificial limb. Your coma miracle is no miracle , she had medical care , she should be more respectful to the people who saved her and thank the hospital staff.

West you are desperate to claim as fact that the celebration of Christ's birth is actually a pagan religious festival. Just because the celebration of two birthdays fall on the same date does not mean the later is actually celebrating the former. Such logic means that the celebration of your birthday was taken from the original person who celebrated their birth on the same day as yours.

Christmas is about celebrating the birth of Christ otherwise it would be spelled Ergomas, Dionysusmas or some pagan and Teutonic god or tradition. Spell the word C - H - R - I - S - T -- M - A - S. Christians have used previous local festival days to celebrate strictly Christian festivals, but it does not mean they are actually corrupted or pagan. They are Christian festivals, because the religious culture is based in celebrating Christ

West,

I think thank Philo has point to the extent that Christians "believe" they are celebrating Jesus' birthday. Christians are not realising/seeing that syncretion is involved and created by Constantine's mob. Perhaps, in a polythiest society, we would have a Christ-Mithras duelity, likewise an Isis-Virgin Mary. The error Christians make, I suggest, is they don't set their stone [scripture/teachings] into the probing ring of history. Scripture too often is raw comment void of valid historical context [except place names and a few leaders].

Moreover, Christian doctrine is more based on [St.] Paul, Constantine and Augustine than Jesus, who may been a faith healer? Nicaea (325 CE) had to deal with a hotch-potch of "Chinese Whispers", which evolved from oral lore, and, later, between 80-120+ CE, localised fables/interpretations each with their own provincial spin across Galillee, Northen and Southern Syria and Asia.

Philosophically, leveraging MichaeL Polanyi on other posts, I have argued mass/church is a process of "indwelling", wherein the purpose of the event is a performance and encirclement not objective analysis of events, let alone a null hypothesis.

More recently, I have read in a more general context:

"Historical scholarship of history has always been 'tilting at windmills'. Historical myths like Columbus discovering the Earth was round perist, even when historians have known them to be wrong for generations. A closed loop of misinformation propagates from generation to generation." -- David Attis History of Science Society [2008], University of Chicago Press

Attis cites astrology, alchemy and religion, as problematic.

Herein, I put,if one wants understand theology then the sermon and scriptures need been evaluated from the perspective cultural-anthrology not merely the paroting of the doctrine taught by a priesthood holding biases and having careers at stake in the progation of langsyne affinities

Oliver,
Of all the antagonists of Christendom on OLO I find you are a very balanced debater. You would recognise my objections to much of Religious dogma, Church creeds and established doctrine. I endeavour to evaluate what was the original context and what was factually represented. Unfortunately listeners who do not fully grasp the original meaning misrepresent the fact by their preconceptions and interpret the facts in that context of preconceptions. As you would recognise from my objection to the line 'God was born of a virgin by immaculate conception as a man' from my previous posts. The concept of what was meant by "virgin" has been misrepresented.

The whole basis of much Church doctrine has been built on this false premise. When in the NT makes no such statement about immaculate conception. Jesus own words emphasises that to be a 'son of God' one must be reborn of the spirit of God. Physical birth does not qualify, family heritage or nationalism does not qualify a person as a son of God. It is one's personal realisation in whose image we were designed to live.

It means changing our attitudes and selfish ways to now live in God. However we all fall short, but we need repentance (being able to say sorry when we have offended), confession (admit to the person we have offended), and forgiveness (realisation we are totally free of guilt and fear of further punishment).

Philo,

Thank you for your contributions to this Forum.

I am not anti-religionism, rather I would like to think I have a protagonist towards rightful approaches to knowledge discovery. Here, I think the history of civilizations has as much to contribute to insights as does science.

Moreover, I see [2nd-4th century] Christianity somewhat detached from Jesus and distorted by accretions. Were we to look at Jesus, I think, we would, early on, need to build constructs on the meanings of the following:

- "Son of God"
- "Son of Man"
- "Kingdom of Heaven/God"

With what has come down to us in history the first two terms lack clarity [internal consistancy] owing to ambiguity in meaning. The latter in the context the NT might suggest a different kind of Messiah that the Jewish folk were expecting. Even then.if it were possible, to manage these matters, we are left with what is reported of Jesus, not knowledge of whom Jesus was on Earth.

Oliver,
On the following I see the NT saying:
- "Son of God" Jesus never claimed himself to be the son of God nor does the NT writers claim his birth as giving him status as the son of God. The apostle Paul claimed his status on the fact of his resurrection. Jesus in defence of himself when accused by the religious heirarchy identifies himself as son of God in the terms David in the Psalms uses. The term means one who represents God incarnate. The claims he was the son of God come from witnesses to his life, his character, attitudes and actions. By this claim they stated he was the true representative of God - the Messiah.

- "Son of Man"
This is the term Jesus constantly used of himself and identifies he has an ordained Messianic mission to mankind.

- "Kingdom of Heaven/God"
The kingdom of heaven is the realm where the character of God is fully realised - unconditional love, peace of heart and mind, joyfulness, perseverence, acts of kindness, purity of heart and motive, gentleness, and self control.

These are the aspirations followers of Christ ought to live in and by if they are to realise the kingdom of God.

Philo,

Thank you:

Son of Man: "This is the term Jesus constantly used of himself and identifies he has an ordained Messianic mission to mankind."

Would this messianic mission be to all mandkind? In that period I thought the Jews would have been expecting a Messiah to re-establish Israel to the glory days of David and Solomon?

The House of David genaelogy is significant, yet would seem to be negated by virgin birth [release not your view] and not having Joseph's DNA. The Hedodian Dynasty [Roman Puppets] wouldn't too pleased, either.

Jesus would seem to have booth feet in hot water not being aligned with the expected paint of The Messiah and offering an alternative to Herod.

David,

Would you describe your Foundation as anti-religious or non-religious or is it factionalised? Where do you stand?

Oliver,

“Would you describe your Foundation as anti-religious or non-religious or is it factionalised? Where do you stand?”

The AFA is anti-religious in much as religion indoctrinates children and a proportion of those children then go on to influence politics with those beliefs.

The AFA is against all types of indoctrination. Especially if it involves threats and promises.

The AFA expects public policy to be based on empirical evidence and not religious beliefs,

The AFA has no gripe with consenting adults practising their religion in private. The proviso is that religion in an unrepresentative manner does not interfere in matters of state, which can affect all of the population.

Most, if not every members of the AFA would be in agreement with the above.

David

Oliver,
Zechariah was a commander in the Maccabean forces who constantly visited the caves of the Essene community of which he admired. The Essene community considered sexual relations as unclean and practised artificial insemination as the method of procreation.

Zechariah served as an attendant Priest in the school where Mary was dedicated and trained. Mary at puberty was not allowed under Levitical law to reside anymore in the temple complex. Zechariah looked for a precedent set in history for a girl dedicated to religious duty, and the precedent was Isaiah 9 where a young girl gives birth to the king and deliverer. Obviously Mary now pregnant knew him well as she spent time living with his pregnant wife Elizabeth. Zecherias had called all the eligible young men of the David line to choose a husband for Mary. Zecherias had chosen Joseph, who had at least two boys, to marry Mary. Zecherias was the father of John the baptiser. It was Zecherias intention that the two boys develop as Leaders in Israel. One as commander and the other as King of the Jews.

John was born six months prior to Jesus who was to be the forerunner of the Messiah. Joseph was a stonemason working for Rome at the time so was away. When King Herod who was a supporter of Rome, got word that such a plot was devised by Zechariah; he sent henchmen and had Zechariah slaughtered at the temple altar for failing to disclose the whereabouts of the boys (this murder is recorded by Luke and Josephus). The women both Elizabeth and Mary with Joseph fled. Elizabeth with John fled to the Essene Caves where he was raised. Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt where Jesus spent his infant life.
cont:

Cont:

Zecherias was now dead, and when John began his adult mission he was imprisoned and beheaded under orders from Herod. Jesus began his mission, which was at first accepted as to Israel where he praises Gentile faith while in the hometown synagogue. For this they attempted to stone him and this began a change in his focus to be a mission to the whole World. At Jesus death he is cited by Rome as King of Israel ironically as a threat to any insurrection. Throughout his life he is identified by others as King, Son of God or son of David - meaning in the Davidic line

Both John and Jesus had an ubringing different to what was expected by Zechariah. John in a very closed community and Jesus having spent time mixing with the common people developed a whole of the world view. He like Joseph in Egypt, like Daniel in Babylon, like Esther in Persia saw that their life had purpose despite occupation under foreign Governments. "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", "Love your enemies" etc, were some of his teaching. He was admires by several Roman soldiers, for one he healed his daughter, and another at his crucifixion felt he was innocent of insurrection and was actually a good man.

When Jesus began his ministry - John announced his coming as the "Lamb of God" the one who would take away the sin of the World. They both see an emphasis in Jesus mission that extended beyond Israel. Jesus at the close of his mission sees his teaching as for the whole world. The hatred and rebellion in the human heart extended beyond the nationalism of the Jews. It is found in every man who does not have an image of a loving and forgiving God. Jesus was about removing enmity and restoring relationships and this happens initially in the inner soul and is worked out by the will to forgive.

Philo,

I appreciated your last posting here. Thank for your effort and ability to build context to your beliefs. Moreover, for me, you demostrate how events might unfold, without burdening the non-religious, by placing the key emphasis on supernatural phenomena.

David,

How do you see the political status of Jesus in the first century? In debates ,more seems to have been said about Paul/Nicaea, because it is where creed substantially eminates. Yet, we "do" have the Jewish Messianic concept and Galillee's occupation by Rome and before by the Greeks. Furthermore, we do have a tradition of "medicate" Messiahs in the first century Middle East. Are you an atheist to the existence of an alledged historical Jesus [Joshua] involved in the events of Davanic [Jewish & Gentile] rule over a Kindom of God on Earth, even if there is no proof of God?

-- Even if we do not beleive in God our [me too] should adopt a methodology to disprove our own point of view [as should theists]. We might find our main hypothesis is wrong or alternatively we might learn something else [e.g., how relions develop and operate]. What we cannot do is simply say, "it aint so" and just sit. Stagnation by either antagonist in this debate does not lead to discovery. --

Oliver,

I’ll have to be quick as I’m flat out in preparation for an AFA meeting.

That the character known as Jesus is a historical identity as recorded in the NT, or was an exaggerated character of the time, or was from a compilation of earlier messianic persons or something else, is not of great importance to the AFA. There is no compelling evidence for the existence of a Jesus but if new undeniable evidence came to light, then I and the AFA would accept it.

The political status of the alleged Jesus in the first century reflects the oppression of the times. In my opinion, the ever-present desire of people from all of history to escape a brutal life culminated in a psychological movement much the same as in the 60’s when conservatism was ousted in a world wide movement. In that example, there is no one person responsible. But who knows, in a thousand years it may be attributable to Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones or Jimi Hendrix. One thing for sure, in that time ahead there will be groups adamant that one or all of those people were the originators of the changing times.

Of course, Christianity got an unfair leg up with Constantine.

Atheists have every right to sit stagnant, as you put it. Those who wish to control society with claims of supernatural authority have a duty to justify their stance as it can and does affect not only believers, but also others, who are not.

While we are waiting for evidence in support of religion, we will point out the social harms and planetary dangers in civilisation following unsubstantiated beliefs. I have done so in part, in the second AFA post on this thread.

David

Thankyou Oliver , but i think within the context David set on this thread and the point I made went over Philo's head. Christians dont own xmas or what ever anybody wants to call this Euro-Asian tradition. Wether God is thanked for this years Ale Vintage or Jehova is thanked for giving his son as a human sacrifice to save Christians is beside the point I think. Christmas / Saturnalia or whatever during the summer/winter solstice belongs to the culture that has inherited it, this now includes the peoples of all continents. A festival of the Rainbow Serpent has now the same validity at this time as Dion or Jesus under the term "Christmas". The occult ritual od mass makes no difference , we may as well call it Mithras Spell, as Shakespear said 'A rose by any other name'. Davids point I think is Christians try and exclude everybody who is not part of their cult through propaganda at this time as part of their on going program of ethnic cleansing.

I feel Philo is just expressing that Christian tradition of ethnic cleansing.

You as the excluder will find "Ethnic Cleansing" strong words Philo , but this has been going on since Nicea and ethnic cleansing is Christianities only acheivement.

So "Christians do not own Christmas" demonstrates a brilliant stroke of illogical thought. Only West could post such irrational conclusions as seen in his last post. He cannot accept that Christmas is a Christian celebration, but wants to make it rather some unheard of pagan festival. You are free to celebrate any other festival you want - but do not call it Christmas. Otherwise you would be celebrating Christ.

I doubt West, that you would rather adopt the birth of the Rainbow serpent as a festival - because it too is superstition. People are free in Australia to celebrate Christmas stop trying to make out they are celebrating Mithras. Otherwise they would call by another name.

You see West, Christ is Lord of the festival, not some serpent or dragon, or Persian god. I recomend you mature a little more in logicical thinking before posting again.

"Davids point I think is Christians try and exclude everybody who is not part of their cult through propaganda at this time as part of their on going program of ethnic cleansing." - West

I think the kernel of David's atheist position is that the Christian's have not presented the evidence to justify the claims made. David is anti-religious, I am non-religious.

Christmas and other accretions were added to an earlier life lived. I feel Philo would recognise some of these extras have little to do with the Jesus' teachings. As for Christmas day, well the date has been adopted by Christmas to celebrate an event. The Myer retailing family [Christian/Jewish?] would also celebrate Christmas too, as might their Bankers :-).

Oliver,

<<I think the kernel of David's atheist position is that the Christian's have not presented the evidence to justify the claims made. David is anti-religious, I am non-religious.>>

I can't speak for David (although I suspect you're drastically simplifying his position), but as an Atheist myself, it goes far beyond that. For me, if that is all it was, then I too would classify myself as non-religious – as opposed to anti-religious.

You see, while religion has had it's positives – even in a evolutionary sense – unfortunately the negatives far out-weight the positives. Not only that, but there are many examples that have demonstrated that the positives that have come from religion, didn't even need religion to come about.

In this day and age, considering what we now know, religion is becoming more and more of a negative with it's regressiveness. Even the positives that religion may have helped bring about, are now having regressive consequences in a more civilized society that has the experience and wisdom to progress beyond the paralysing and potencially damaging absolutist mindset of the religious.

But it's not so much religion, as much as it is the people that follow it and what it has done to them and the children they force it onto. This can be clearly seen in the justifications of bad acts, both mild and severe, that are derived from their religiosity.

Religion spreads from generation to generation like a hereditary virus and those who break free from it's psychological stranglehold, are often in need of emotional support from organizations like the AFA. The threats of eternal damnation, and the stunting of mental and emotional growth that religion can bring about, can have life-long, damaging effects – just take a look at the posts from the Theists on this Forum, and the immature and nïeve responses this post of mine will provoke.

Fence-sitting won't move us forward, Oliver. And I respect David very much for what both him and the AFA do.

AJP,

I agree with that which most atheists state and would wear the label atheist myself. Here, for me differences are methodological. There is a difference between preaching confirmations [David?] and affirming tentative hypotheses [me]. Neither, is face sitting. Herein, please see, Unwritten Page, OLO, Oliver, Thursday, 17 January 2008 6:08:05 PM.

Also, I see a distinction between anti-religious and non-religious. Relatedly, one does not have to be an atheist to critise the many, many failings of the Christain church. I am sure even Theists can do that with ease.

If we are to build axioms from our constructs we must define our constructs carefully: Religion, Jesus & church are separate constructs.

Cheers,

O.

"face sitting" :O

I believe that's what's known by us godless humanist types as a 'Freudian slip'!

Oliver

<<Relatedly, one does not have to be an atheist to critise the many, many failings of the Christain church. I am sure even Theists can do that with ease.>>

I agree.

But I know from many of my Christian friends over the years (and my days as a Christian) that they can brush-off the dangers of religion far too easily by simply saying: “Oh yeah, but they're not REAL Christians.”

By saying this though, they are ignoring the more mild and subtle danger that they themselves are presenting, by inadvertently aiding extremists, in the sense that they help to put out there an air of undeserved respect that we are supposed to have for the 'faith' of others; An air that faith is somehow a virtue; A virtue that we're, apparently, not really supposed to be questioning – simply because it's their “faith”.

It's this 'underserved respect' that needs to be eliminated in order to inject some rationality, and critical analysis of religion, into society. If we can do this, I believe the world can start to move forward in a very positive direction indeed.

<<If we are to build axioms from our constructs we must define our constructs carefully: Religion, Jesus & church are separate constructs.>>

Well, yes. That being said, I guess it comes down to lack of evidence for me too.

CJ,

You're a funny boy!

AJP,

"If we are to build axioms from our constructs we must define our constructs carefully: Religion, Jesus & church are separate constructs." - O

- "Well, yes. That being said, I guess it comes down to lack of evidence for me too." AJP

Their are many kinds of religion [theisms], Jesus "may" have been a historical person with some [borrowed] worthwhile teachings, the Churches differ between themselves. Several forms of Christianity historically have been more political and more warfaring and more wealth hungry than the advice from the Sermon on the Mount. The throne of Saint Peter does seem meek to me. Monarchical "defender of the Faith" from a Palace isn't exactly Shoes of a Fisherman, either.

Historians have plenty of edividence: e.g., how godheads are developed in societies or how tribal socities [Hebrews] promote their tribal god in status in pantheons or how polytheists use yncretion... Amon-Ra. Jesus [C1 CE] can be articulated in terms of his teachings about the Kingdon of God within Massianic missions. Christianity [C2-4 CE], Hellenision of the several "selected" gospels, accretions including Roman religions/cults and the Serapis-Isis godhead.

Type; "secular humanist" + massacre into a search engine and compare this to Christian + massacre --or-- Islam + massacre; to indicate, who old the moral ground in history.

Oliver,

Too be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at in that last post. I don't see how any of that is any sort of solid evidence that a God exists.

I'm also not sure what you're trying to say in regards to your suggested Internet searches.

I searched Google for your suggested terms, but all it did was help to confirm my fundamental point about religion being dangerous. The vast majority of the results were web pages about Islamics, Christians and Hindus massacring each other.

I couldn't find anything about “Secular Humanists” massacring Theists though...

"Too be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at in that last post. I don't see how any of that is any sort of solid evidence that a God exists."

--- My point was we should be not looking for evidence of the non-existence of God:

--- By way of analogy, Bertrand Russell [1952] states we cannot prove the non-existence of a China teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. Contrarily, today, with space-craft and powerful radar might be able to prove the China teapot's non-esistence. If not today, what about the thirtieth century CE? [In his essay, Russell cunningly side-steps the issue of technology, by stating, there is no a telescope [in 1952] suffiently powerful to make a determination: A disappointing & slack special condition to be applied by such a great thinker.]

--- Whether we are Theists or Atheists; we should apply a null hypothesis to our Thesis.

"I searched Google for your suggested terms, but all it did was help to confirm my fundamental point about religion being dangerous. The vast majority of the results were web pages about Islamics, Christians and Hindus massacring each other... I couldn't find anything about “Secular Humanists” massacring Theists though..."

--- Good. You found or did not find, as I expected. The record of immoral actions -on the Internet at least- appears greater among monotheists than amongst secular humanists. {provided like terms are used by authors}

--- My belief is that "what is good for the [Theist]goose is good for the [Atheist] gander". Else pt, the Atheist should not just sit and wait for [another's] proof. They should test the existence or subsistence of the alternative proposition. Provactively, will either strengthen their case or lead to revelation. I think the former more likely, though.

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

I’m reasonably sure that the word “cunningly” in reference to Bertrand Russell’s tea pot thought experiment was not warranted. He could have picked a celestial object that humans may never be able to evaluate at close hand. By the way, a china tea pot orbiting between Earth and Mars is most likely not detectable by any technology in existence today. We are finding it difficult enough in detecting large bodies capable of damaging the Earth if they collide.

Your insistence we as Atheists have some kind of duty to prove a negative is unreasonable as well as being irrational.

The problems with religions are known and they are the important things we should be investigating and reacting against.

David

“ ‘Atheists need to adopt a more investigative approach maintaining and testing tenative hypotheses, as do Theists. Neither, should preach, rather debate the evidence’, says Oliver.”

...”Oliver, that is rubbish.” - AJP

-- Argumentum ad Hominem.

"Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of something. Do you know the story of the black swans? The burden of proof lies with the believers. All we have to do is show that they are wrong [sic. tentatively wrong] in their belief. Can you prove to me that Bertrand Russell's Brown Teapot does not exist? Further, I would not even ask you to "adopt a more investigative approach" in proving that it does not exist."

“Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of something. Do you know the story of the black swans?" –

--- Antitheists can show that is likely that the Trinity was borrowed from the Serapis godhead, the Gospels were written, 80-120 CE and the parting of Yehwah from the Cannanite El Baal. None of this, of course, proves or disproves the existence, but it does allow for the testing of tentative hypotheses. Proof, better, evidence does not have to definitive. Either party can merely have a conviction.

-- The issue of black or white swans comes from a sub-set of philosophy, relating to the formulation of propositions, called Logic. Bertrand Russell would not formulate a question in this fashion. His approach to subject-predicate forms is different to main stream philosophies, where there are atomic [ultimate] and molecular [connected] cases.

--- Herein, Russell would not say “God exists”. He would take the subject in statement and make it the predicate: xxx xxxx xxxx [god’s attributes]. Thus, now put: Something exists that is omnipresent and omniscient”. Alternatively, “God does not exist” might become, “Nothing exists that is omnipresent and omniscient”. The background radiation from the Big Bang –after Planck Time—would seem to meet the first criterion.

- Space .. TBC

...Cont.

--- “Troy does not exist”. People in the nineteenth century felt that Troy did not exist, until Schlemann produced evidence it could have exist. Perhaps, most archaelogies would say [tentatively] proved.

-- “Atlantis does not exist”. There is growing acceptance Atlantis might have been an exaggerated tale [Homer] based on a real Mycenaean city-state, which sank during a volcanic incident. A peninsular sunk not an island.

The tenet of non-existence can be proven, once something is shown to exist. The tenet of non-existence can formulated into a hypothesis and tested for fallibility. The search for God’s existence, for the open atheist, as a null hypothesis. People can visit celestial bodies in search of tea pots and atheists can study science, history and anthropology, to “try” or “disprove” their positive hypothesis. Just maintaining a positive hypothesis and sitting on it is a poor methodology.

David,

We, today, might not be able detect a teapot ten million kilometres away. But we might a kilometre, from a spaceship. And, if can’t, some more advanced civilization in thirtieth century, very well, might. Wherein; “ We”, would be Russell’s “ancients”. The future civilization 3,952 as us in Russell’s 1952.

Likewise, to people a one, two, three thousand years from now, we would be ancient and say the Gospels of NASA and Carl [Sagan], speak of a gold plate with recorded Whale Song; way, way beyond Sole’s heliosphere. Some people, the Platists, might believe the NASA and Sagan Gospels. Other people might say, “I do not believe in golden plate, yet I am prepared to look holding the plate’s existence in deep space as a null hypothesis: the ‘non-Platists’”. Others might say, I do not believe in golden plate” I am not prepared to look for evidence myself: The burden of investigation rests solely with the “platists”: the “anti-Platists”.

Bert in absentia,

The technology is highly relevant knowledge discovery. Finding and drilling for oil, for instance. Creating condition sets reduces the possibility of falsification… that action is not good science.

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

You are confused. Discussing that which has precedents, Atlantis (Cities do exist), gold message plates (Gold and plates do exist) etc and tying that up with the god concept with no precedents is, as I have stated, irrational.

David

Oliver,

The post you're quoting there was someone else, on an entirely different thread, not me... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6887&page=0#103745

David,

Didn't think I would have an other chance to post today: Bound be reach a post limit soon:

Teapots do exist, generically. Physically exist. My comment was aimed at Russell in that regard. If my example is inappropriate on the grounds you stated, so was his. Someone from 3952 might find Voyager and its goldplate. With ease, we could substitute a dozen words from Russell, to make us the ancients and the society cable of finding a physical object plausible: Yet, we might not and someone in 1952 could not find the tea pot. In 3952, we can still maintain, as an opposite to our main conjecture, a null hypothesis. It is how a Thesis works.

With regards that which does not/isn't shown to not exist:

1. Black Holes before theories of gravity and quasi-confirmation. 2. Phase Space [Penrose], now a mere posit. If I do not believe in some form of Singularity birthing universes, it does not follow that that entity does not exist. 3. Same of quantum infinite indetermancy.

In our macro-world-sized universe, at its current age, prior existences and quantum pseudo-realities are very spectulative. [Not all: e.g., micro-electronics uses QM]

I would call 2. & 3. working hypotheses. Moreover, I would maintain if one holds 2. and/or 3. does not exist, one can justly hold a null hypothesis, that one or both do exist [to be tested].

We both see no justification in the arguments presented by Theists that God exists. However, the Theists' arguments are wrong and "finite" in argument, not wrong and infinite in argument. My judgement is fallible. With knowledge discovery, there is not a terminus.

As previously stated, had Dawkins shared his stage with subject experts, to test the null hypthesis, "God does exist", the null hypothesis would have been highly likely disproven to a greater extent than he has presented. The more arguments that are empirically rejected, the stronger the Atheist's [always tentative] case.

... Cont/

Further …

Too often dialogue between Athiests and Thiests involves Physical Science vs. Scriptural posits. Triangulating the knowledge of more meta-disciplines, which can examine science and theology like bugs, can beneficial: The benefit is to be derived from extra effort and study. One should not take an armchair position for all time.

Further, a knowledge of the workings of a false super-natural can be a primer to an unreal, but existent {not a tautology: hyper cubes, as mentioned} supra-dimentational. We need to complement classical mechanics with new fuzzier thinking as much as we need to test the claimes of the Theists. Can you envisage the possibility of a 6-D manifold with three dimensions of space for every particle sitting in 4-D spacetime? Is it impossible? (extreme simplificaion of manifold physics) If you did. Would you not hold a null hypothesis?

AJP,

Sorry, I think we are did not connect last time. Might be my error, with wrong URL?

CJM,

Good pick-up. I once applied for a job and mentioned in the CV, I had won awards in p-u-b-i-c speaking. One panel member said he was jealous :-). Well, on the face of it, the angels did say, no “L”.

p.s. I turned them down.

Philo,

I think George [of old might see what I am saying?]

Oliver,
I think so too of George. I can follow your logic and I find it does not demonstrate a closed mind obsession that can be found in many theists and atheists alike.

Meditating this morning on the reality of is there a Santa Clause led to this conclusion. To non-believers Santa does not exist - end of story. To believers Santa does exist, with all kinds of mythology.

Now there are another set of believers - those that know Santa does not live at the North pole, but is the spirit of unconditional gift giving, acts of love and generosity. Now to unbelievers they look for the evidence of an actual man in a red suit with a beard that lives at the North Pole with lots of toy makers. Of course they will never find if one exists. It is a myth! Similarly God does not physically exist up in the remote sky. It is a myth. However men might live on distant galaxies - it is not currently testable.

However are we to say because we cannot find such man at the North Pole that Santa is purely myth. When the reality is his spirit is still alive in that such demonstrates unconditional love and care for all children. Unconditional Gift giving is not based on having earned or deserved the gift otherwise it is not a gift.

What was begun by St Nicholas was a demonstration of the Spirit of God - that he loves unconditionally even the undeserving. And the right response from the recipient is gratitude and recognising this is an act of reconciliation and pure love. These are all real human experiences not defined by biochemistry and test tube mechanics. Though Christians are equally dissapointed in the "Myer" commercial approach to gifts.

Oliver,

The examples you give are formed from scientific principle on precedent knowledge. They are not pure guesses because of psychological needs. They also differ in that no one is threatening anyone with a heaven or a hell for not believing them and no one is going to fly a plane into a building to convince others they are correct or use them to oppress fellow humans.

The crux of the matter as to why it is pointless, especially in a forum atmosphere, to endlessly argue the finer points of what is and what is not known about science, history and knowledge, is clearly demonstrated by your own words; “Either party can merely have a conviction.” I do not have a conviction; I am waiting for those who have, to prove their conviction is right.

Even if the history of the Bible (Or parts of) is correct, the jump to a position that a god is involved, departs from any field of empirical study and returns to guessing for the mentioned psychological reasons. So, the question is; why entertain argument that surely and eventually will demonstrate the existence of a god is only a psychological need. Those with the god conviction will never concede that conclusion anyway.

The nitty gritty of religion is the proposition of religionists that there is a supernatural part to life and they wish to impose it on everyone. Atheists do not wish to impose anything.

I have seen and have been involved in endless arguments that hang on etymology, epistemology, interpretations of history etc and have always found them fruitless.

The real “arm-chair” position is giving more credibility to the credulous than is due.

Oliver, you are forgetting that the near majority of religionists believe on gut feeling and it is only a very few who explore ‘faith’ as deeply as you propound. These few are generally in positions of power, influence or derive livelihoods from ‘faith’, adding the possibility, and indeed, the likelihood, of unchecked bias.

In opposition to ‘faith’ acceptance is the beauty of science, which recognises bias as a problem.

David

I am not anti-religion (superstition) I am not against Christians celebrating Xmas , although it would be nice if they were honest for once and acknowledge that they did not invent Christmas and the festival does not belong to them. I do not care what peoples superstiitions are , Jesus or spilled salt , makes no difference. I do believe the major religions are not ethical and I acknowledge that all claims made by those groups are based on self serving fantasy. I would not ban religion, superstition is an animal psychological trait, like shyness , aggression , left or right handedness. Although here only a small portion of people have religious (superstitious) tendancies , the rest become religious through overt brainwashing such as the child abuse that is convincing children that god exists and covert brainwashing such as Christian advertising designed to catch the psychologically stressed.

It is these last two unethical activities of supertitionists especially by Christian groups in the West and Islamic groups in the Middle East and Central Asia that infringes justice and democracy.

cont.....

Claims that atheism and antitheism defies logic is absurd. The claim is purely part of the agenda of superstitionists to ethnically clense this society so as to dominate and control. Superstitionists use all sorts of rubbish in order to try and muddy the waters , the comical assertions of late , the ridiculous and baseless Creationism and Intelligent Design discourse being a fine example and also the ressurected Flat Earth and Earth as the centre of the universe lead the charge of Christian pseudo science and if thats not crazy enough , there is also the 19th Scott invention of Rapture, ressurection, Movie Star mortality as prophecy indicators and then there is the likes of Mary appearing in the image of Betty Boo on a grilled Cheese Sandwich and effiges of Jesus bleeding bat excretement and creosote. Miracles are when Jesus saves through the miracle of well trained fire fighters, fire victims too far away from fire fighters suffer gods wrath of distance. Hypocondriacs are miraculously cured by touching Chinese manufactured grails and God turns his back on MS sufferers.

Conversion is ethnic cleansing, God does not convert people do. God does not preach , people do. God does not act , people do. God does not claim anything that is said of him , people do. God outside of the personal space is thus personal politics and efforts to change society to be abiding to religious doctrine is ethnic cleansing.

Outside of personal space the belief in god is facisism.

West you are a poor sad case of obsessive attitudes and ill informed of just what Churches teach. I suggest so that you be better informed on just what Churches teach and do in community that you attend a few non-charismatic Churches.

We had a lay preacher this morning teach that Jesus is a carpenter not a building inspector. He is there to restore us not to point out the defects. To use Jesus words in John 3: 17 God did not send Jesus into the world to condemn the World but through him to save the World.

David,

“Either party can merely have a conviction.” I do not have a conviction; I am waiting for those who have, to prove their conviction is right.

You do have a conviction. You "beleive" god does not exist. Several philosphies and scientific method would suggest that convictions can only be held tentatively, because of the need to text said conviction. A power way of testing one's own conviction is try to disprove one's self, theist, antitheist, archaelogist or astrophysist. Herein, I bet that there are plently of mathematicians who believe in "the Big Bang" play with "Solid State" on some lazy Sunday afternoons. Moreiver, some of the concepts believed or disbelieved are outside of classical mechanics, even four dimensional space-time.

A conviction can be in the negative too. I do not believe the Earth is flat. As far as I can see the null hypothesis is disappoved, the Earth is nor flat.

When Eistein predicted in 1905 that light waves would bend near the sun, there were A-relativists and Relativists.

In 1919, Einstein's posit was confirmed, spot-on! But not so quick, please. If we all sat on our hand, we would not have discovered Einstein made an error: He maintained the Sun is a perfect sphere; it isn't. There is error present as later discovered, because of holding a null hypothesis to seemingly convincing results. [Did he fudge it? ;-)]

Had the fundamentalist Relativist said okay, proven, stop; and, the A-relativists said "Wrong, but lets not re-investigate the match between the equations and the shape of the Sun [budges at the centre]. What's more the burden of proof is on the Relativists. We just sit." The null hypothesis to Eistein's posit is, "the sun is not round". Current science [tentatively] maintains Einstein wrong on this one.

In sum, I posit you do have convictions and that where convictions are held the should be held tentatively. We are not infallable. The testing convictions should include null hypotheses, whether in 4-D spacetime, higher dimensions on theology.

Oliver,

You are playing around with words as do our religious chums. Conviction; (Pertinent Oxford Dictionary definition) Act of convincing; settled belief

And the definition of convince: persuade to believe firmly the truth (esp, of religious conviction) I hope you read that last part, esp, of religious conviction.

I no more “believe” a god does not exist than I “believe” that fairies do not exist.

It is not a matter of belief in either case. I accept they do not exist because of the lack of evidence for all of history and the existence of the ideas on both counts, have more than compelling prosaic explanations.

If you like, the highest probability is that a god does not exist. It is the same as the highest probability is that the Sun will be on the Eastern horizon tomorrow morning. I may have a conviction or a belief that it will be on the Western horizon. I have no belief or conviction in regard to its appearance in the east.

The way you phrased the sentence made it appear that each side had equality in holding a conviction. Are you a cupboard religionist?

David

Conviction; (Pertinent Oxford Dictionary definition) Act of convincing; settled belief.

-- Do you have a "settled" belief in the "non-existence" of (gods). I expect you do. I almost do; but because, of Science from the Enlightenment and Philosphies [Karl Popper - nature of Conjectures & Michael Polanyi - Convictions should be tentatively held.]

-- A dictionionary is a record of how words are used. Meanings can differ across disciplines.

I accept they do not exist because of the lack of evidence for all of history and the existence of the ideas on both counts, have more than compelling prosaic explanations.

-- The above could be a finding of a disproved null hypothesis. Good. You see, the same data can be used to tentatively to (a) prove the acceptance there is no god and (b)the rejection of the god, after a test for the existence of god. Do you know "all of history".

If you like, the highest probability is that a god does not exist. It is the same as the highest probability is that the Sun will be on the Eastern horizon tomorrow morning. I may have a conviction or a belief that it will be on the Western horizon. I have no belief or conviction in regard to its appearance in the east.

-- I tried to find the story of the Existentialist Turk on the Net for but couldn't. I never remember jokes; but rought it traces the life of Turkey day-by-day, confirmation-after-conformation, until Thanksgiving, when things change. Guess certain dinosaurs felt the same, if the Giant Meteorite theory is correct.

..Cont/

/...

The way you phrased the sentence made it appear that each side had equality in holding a conviction. Are you a cupboard religionist?

-- No, no, friend, I am a non-relionist, whom believes my null hypothesis, "god does exist" must be rejected. Nothing cardborad about that. My position is stronger than yours, if I test, and, you sit.

I probably stand; where Richard Dawkins would; we two would not make a "total" commitment on a belief continuum, because (1) the infallibility issue (at the opposite pole to the Pope) and (2)beliefs need to be tested.

-- Fairies do exist in fiction books. Russell would possibly agree with this? ... I think (?) it was he, who segments statements into atomic and grammatical structures. If not Russell, other philosphers address, the existence of subsistent entities [e.g.Tom Sawyer]: Subsistent entities do exist in a Literary realm, if not in the 4-D spacetime realm. Zeus exists in a [imaginery?] Theoristic realm, but merely subsists in the 4-D spacetime realm. Six-D manifolds can have dimensions in 4-D spacetime and others in supra~dimensions! A foot in two, perhaps infinite realms!

Oliver,

Even though I think we are in rough agreement, shall we go on?

>>>Do you know "all of history".<<<

No, but if a significant compilation of evidence were around for the existence of gods, then I would know about it. Religions would not keep that a secret. Which is a very good reason that a god does not exist, for if it did, there would only be one religion or religions would be compatible. (Which there is not and they are not)

I live in the realty displayed by our senses. Once a point is made to explore possible realities, then anything can be ‘believed’. (And is)

David

--Religicles, Scepticus and Inquirius—

Religicles:

I think we are in basic agreement about Religicles: His main thesis we did agree with. Religicles believes “God exists”. I would hope Religicles also maintains a null hypothesis, “God does not exist”, wherein he could review history and theocracia [how religions are formed and interconnected.].

I think Scepticus would feel, Religicles should have this approach while concurrently maintaining a null/degraded hypothesis, “god exists”.

Religicles knows his scriptures very well and has a lay knowledge of major historical events; and, science, well, a book or two by Paul Davies, perhaps.

Religicles in the face of new evidence might turn his back on Theism and become a Free Thinker, Agnostic or even an Atheist? Wow!

Scepticus:

Scepticus feels that the full burden of proof rests with Religicles. Religicles has to convert him with the power of Religicles' arguments/studies, which incidentally are incomplete:

Scepticus maintains there is "no god", stop. He waits for Religicles, whom you might recall has limited knowledge, as does Scepticus .

Scepticus does not expand his knowledge to test two things, one his primary posit the “non-existence of God”, nor the alternative [null] hypothesis the “existence of God”. [Hypthetically]Had he known about Red Shift across the expanding universe, perhaps, he would have learned that there is strong evidence the Earth was not created in 4,004 BCE. He didn’t look, too busy waiting on Religicles, whom was equally unaware of this evidence.

So, here we have it; Religicles an apostate, and, Scepticus unwilling to develop alternative hypotheses, which can be rejected based on evidence still unknown to Scepticus.[He never discovered that knowledge]. He is an atheist and passive about inquiry. Conjectures and refutations [Popper] take second place to re-confirmation [Freud, Adler & Jung].

Inquirius:

Inquirius holds basically the same conclusion, as does Scepticus, but maintains scientific methodologies, falsifiable scenarios and alertrnative [null] hypothesis are critical in knowledge discovery.

Inquirius doesn’t just rely on Religicles to win him over; he proactively seeks out new knowledge and tests null hypothesis, which he commonly rejects across many disciplines, “independent” and inclusive of Religicles.

--space--

Oliver,

Nice story. Instead of continually going on about testing “null hypothesis” how about telling us some you have tested. I don’t mean concerning historical fact, but in relation to supernatural realms and gods.

David

Oliver,

The real story of the three little-humans: (The species has been changed to protect the innocent)

The first little-human made the house out of straw-man arguments and was happy living in a straw house even though the security it afforded was an illusion.

The second little-human made the house out of sticks, as they were superior in strength to straw. With some complicated effort, the little-human could rearrange the sticks and make it appear the house was really made of straw to the straw little-human and of bricks to the brick housed little-human. This afforded the little-human a sense of security and it was felt that neither the wolf nor the other little-humans would notice.

The third little-human made the house out of bricks. The wolf and the first and second little-human were invited to tear it down.

Even though they threw straw and sticks aplenty, there was no breaching of the brick house.

Both the little-humans of straw and stick fame and the wolf failed to realise that they needed to pelt the house with bricks if they expected at least to make a dent. The brick housed little-human knew that the exercise need not be repeated with the straw and stick house, as the wolf could easily enter them

Eventually, the wolf also saw this and decided to eat the straw and stick housed little-humans, much to their surprise.

The brick housed little-human continued on advising all others that living in brick houses is the only way they would survive.

If they took the advice, all would probably live happily ever after. If they did not, the wolves would increase in numbers, feeding rapaciously on straw and stick housed little-humans until all were gone.

David

Oliver, if I may explain a non-believer perspective. Its not a case that I believe god does not exist , it is rather that I know god does not exist. How do I know God does not exist? I (not literally) hear you ask. I know god does not exist because there has never in reality been a serious proposition of the existence of god, that is to say all alegations that a god exists are based on fantasy and not in truth. As I know you are well aware that written history and archeological human artifact prove conclusively that all gods are products of fiction.

Additional to the reality of this universe taken in a functional subtext god worship does not even make sense , invisible gods less sense and magic dependency non-sense. One can see in a society without progressive liberalism and without scientific technology that superstion is needed by the homosapien to cope with the knowledge that he/she is doomed. Science studies reality, with understanding what and how , tools are developed to benefit humans. Prayer can put off facing a disease but science is the only chance of a cure.

Russell argued many post modernist ideas but at the end of the day fairies do not and have never existed in reality. Even if the Post Modernist view were taken seriously , it would mean the Learner driver who manned a speed camera and fined me for keeping a cat and a goose in a box all in a dream were supernatural entities. In reality they are illusions of a brain that was in part , asleep.

Philo , my car is dirty and I am loath to clean it due to water restrictions, but the image of Adam West as Batman has appeared low on the rear passenger door. Is Bob Kane trying to contact me from beyond the grave? Because I think Adam West is still alive.

Oliver I would like to make a correction to that last post. It would appear that 'I think Adam West is still alive', that is pretty much the same as 'I believe Adam West is still alive'.

In fact I know Adam West is still alive.

In this case there is a slim chance that he may have died without my knowledge today but it is much different to the belief in god.

Death exists and so it is possible that Adam West could have died. Following that the information may take hours to be get around the world, but that is possible because those communication enablers do exist. When Adam West does finally die , if I am still alive I will recieve substantiated information that he is dead and then know he is dead.

Magic does not exist and so God also does not exist. Nobody can substantiate god and so nobody has factual information of gods existence. The information about god can only come from the imagination. Even if magic existed and so then it would be possible for a god to exist , nobody has factual information about god and so the god they say exists is not the factual god.

All gods are false gods and no true god has ever been worshipped.

David and West,

Thanks.

I lost a fairly comprehensive reply on trying to post. My own fault. I should worked from Word rather than typing straight into the OLO Panel. A little busy now, but will try to return to topic. Please excuse any delay.

Philo,

BTW: Religicles is meant to be generic. No you specifically. I appreciate you do inquire into things and admit anomalies. Same goes for George. Sells and Boaz appear less flexible, perhaps.

All,

Have a happy day. :-)

West,

"Magic does not exist and so God also does not exist. Nobody can substantiate god and so nobody has factual information of gods existence. The information about god can only come from the imagination. Even if magic existed and so then it would be possible for a god to exist , nobody has factual information about god and so the god they say exists is not the factual god." - West

Essentially, I agree with all you have said, but like building a house the process of working binary classifiers in Science usually does not start with what believe, but a null hypthesis [especially im medical research statical models. Typically, the null hypothesis is rejected/unproven. The altetnative hypthesis to null hypothesis what you "really" beleive.

David,

More comment for you later. But in the interim recall that Durac whom conceived the positrion/electron with a positive charge [Antimatter] did not beleive [his own relevation!] it as first. He rejcted that null hypthesis [I think] and others proved. Einstein, similarly, rejecetd his gravivation constant. AS you and Philo are at opposit poles on the existence of God; Einstein and Heisenberg -initially- well in opposition regarding quantium mechanics.

With Scepticus waiting on Religicles to convinve him is futile. If all the regions in the world are wrong does that mean there is no God?
And if there is a God how do we the nature of that God or whether he created the Universe and forgot about about. We don't the answers if as these remarks are on supra~demension to us. Ecluid and his 3-D geomentry, would see for 4-D space time as supra~demension but we know. If we don't have a null hyothesis for religion? quantum chromodynamics manifolds and string theory?

Moreover, say, if neither, Religicles nor Scepticus, know any history, say, ony science, after the null hypothesis is rejected by Scepticus; how can knowledge about theocracia-in-history or Wells Alexandrian God Factories be used to support the alternative to null hypothesis, "that God does nor exist"" My tenative position.

Cheers.

Oliver,

I’m sorry, but that is a lot of waffle. Allow me to ask the question again that you seem to have missed.

>>> “Instead of continually going on about testing “null hypothesis” how about telling us some you have tested. I don’t mean concerning historical fact, but in relation to supernatural realms and gods.”<<<

In your last post, you state; “If all the regions in the world are wrong does that mean there is no God?”

I might just as well say; If all the fairy believing children in the world are wrong, does that mean there are no fairies? Or, if all the UFO believers I the world are wrong does that mean there are no UFO’s. Or, if all those who believe in an infinite regression of creators are wrong does that mean there is no infinite regression of creators?

None of this has any impact on reality, nor is it pertinent to the topic.

The point of this thread is about indoctrination of children and political interference because of that indoctrination.

To save from losing material you have written and to make it reasonably grammatically correct and clearly understandable, it may pay you to construct it first in ‘Word’ or a similar program.

David

Hi David,

Thanks.

It's not waffle. It is how a scientist applies hypotheses. Null hypothesis its alternative. If you have a Medical Research amongst your membership or a PhD she might explain: Not a GP they are not adequately trained. More later. Busy today. Ging through stuff before coming back to Oz. I probable can discuss for a week at most.

You seem to think that the null hypothesis is the same as changing sides. The religionist needs to go through the same process.

If ypu rely soling on some with a biased/opinion as your selk. Both of you have the same knowledge, you reach an en pass. One of you needs to learn. Sitting on waiting for the opponent [either side doesn't work.]. Stop sitting and read about your topic, use scientific method to improve your methods.

Will address your finer points. Rushed. Meetings now.

Regards,

Peter

"I’m sorry, but that is a lot of waffle. Allow me to ask the question again that you seem to have missed." - David

[." Is not a grammatical error. ". It is a type set comvention. Read Fowler]

That, the above, by you was, deliberately insulting and not at all appreciated. I have a problem with short-term memory and tested dislexic, also nowChemo Brain from cancer treatment, and, rushing rushing using the OLO panel. My verbal comprehension is tests at equal to quarter than plus standard deviations [three in 10,000 or more]: my neurologist said Darwin and Eintein had the same problem.

You really love argumenum ad hominum: Don't you? Your differences of opinion are your bad another. Little wonder the Thesis become upset

Oliver,

Surely someone with an understanding of science, as you portray, would understand the limitations of the use of a null hypothesis.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

“Gerd Gigerenzer has called null hypothesis testing "mindless statistics" while Jacob Cohen describes it as a ritual conducted to convince ourselves that we have the evidence needed to confirm our theories.” (Sorry about my call to authority with names mostly unknown to the reader, but you seem to relish in this method of argument – I was really showing how some people see valid restrictions in the method)

These comments are reference to instances when the likelihood of a null hypothesis being correct is very low as to be negligible or of it having a very low probability factor etc. If you are holding to scientific principle, as you claim, then the above should be no surprise to you. The question is why then perseveres with this fallacious type of arguing.

To make it absolutely clear as to what I am saying, as an example, if I drop a brick, aimed at my toe, using all known physics, to create a null hypothesis where it won’t hit my toe, is beyond stupidity.

This is why I have asked you again, now for the third time, to supply the examples of null hypotheses, you claim to have used for the existence of a god or supernatural realm. Stating that you apply null hypotheses to confirm an assertion that a god does not exist, is one thing; to actually have done it successfully and not as an exercise in futility, is quite another.

I’m not sure if you understand but you are supplying unwarranted comfort to those professing the existence of imaginary supernatural states and beings, notions which oppress a large portion of humanity and would fully do so given half a chance. My guess is, you do this just for the sake of your own ego or some other unknown purpose and not as way to enlightenment. But, as I often say; “Atheism is not an automatic inoculation etc…”

I really think you should stop.

David

Oliver,

I offer my commiserations for your problems. However, when using the internet, face value rules until told otherwise.

You are quick to defend yourself on the basis of ad hominem attack, but slow to defend statements you have made about null hypothesis in science. I think you should look up what ad hominem, call to authority and obfuscation, really mean. I am being more mild than I should be, considering the provocation of your style, lack of response to a simple question and content.

If this is a result of your health, then maybe this topic is not for you.

My previous post stands.

David

David,

Get real. "Wikipedia"! It is a bit like playing Russian Roulette,as regards to quality.

"This is why I have asked you again, now for the third time, to supply the examples of null hypotheses, you claim to have used for the existence of a god or supernatural {v.}realm." :

-- I have used several: four-dimensional space to Euclid, QM to Einstein,Three supra~mensional dimensions of a 6 Space Hyper Cube and positron to Durac. All are super nature {n.} Religion doesn't have a monopoly on these transcendental matters.

-- Space--

"'if I drop a brick, aimed at my toe, using all known physics, to create a null hypothesis:

-- {it} The brick ‘won’t hit my toe', is beyond stupidity."

-1- If the brick hits your toe, the null hypothesis is confirmed. Ouch!

-2- If someone pushes you over, and the brick misses, a mediating viable has been introduced, and, the null hypothesis in rejected: i.e., The brick did not hit your toe.

Afterwards, a new null hypothesis is framed to include the existence of mediating forces, is framed.

I will check your authors/citations in peer reviewed journals.

-A null hypothesis come first, before its alternative: Trust even Wikipedia knows that?

-Yes; null hypotheses “are” more common in Statistics and the Physical Sciences than in the Soft Sciences; except some, e.g., Pyschometrics.

- The probability of a contrived god(s) needs to be test "there is no god". A test: One reads/checks Wells on the Alexandrian God Factories and finds counter evidence and [tentatively] rejects the null hypothesis. Then, say, all evidence on the Middle Eastern the existence of gods is exhausted: But what about Aztec gods?

What Karl Popper says about falsification is apt too. Neither, Theists or Antitheist should just confirm. One “oneself” reads Revelation and Dawkins. Don’t just sit.

Testing is important even in qualitative method. Conjectures need to be falsifible.
You haven't addressed why, all disproving knowledge must come from the Theist adequately. Why can't you investigate take on some of the burden on yourself?
Just sitting waiting for an opponent, with limited knowledge, is likely to lead nowhere.

“Gerd Gigerenzer has called null hypothesis testing "mindless statistics"…. “I admire him [Geoffrey Loftus?] for having the courage to stand up against mindless null hypothesis testing.” [Gigerenzer]

That is, else put, “Statistics are not mindful”: Hmmm… Gigerenzer’s own null hypothesis?

Regrading null hypotheses, the key issue for behavioural sciences is the values of significance can change between tests and retests.

-Defintions to come- Will us Popkin et al

Oliver,

The information about null hypothesis from Wikipedia was so clear and understandable that it would not have mattered if was on a dunny wall.

“-- I have used several: four-dimensional space to Euclid, QM to Einstein,Three supra~mensional dimensions of a 6 Space Hyper Cube and positron to Durac. All are super nature {n.} Religion doesn't have a monopoly on these transcendental matters.”

Lumping together all proposed metaphysical phenomena and classing it as a null hypothesis for the non existence of a god and a supernatural realm, is one of the better examples of a non sequitur that I have recently seen.

Your latest post is going very near a metaphysical area of gobbledygook.

David

David,

NULL HYPOTHESES

A null hypothises is, "a statement in which no difference of effect is expected. If there are differences changes will be made". [Malhotra]. In a "statistical" test, the null hypotheses and alternative hypothesis are used to determine the experiment design to be employed based the level of significance [alpha]. Some in the "behavioural" sciences challenge this approach, because the value of alpha can change from day-to-day. Say testing Greeks will out perform Italians on IQ tests. Ten different tests could yield ten different results. Contrarily, I am not saying God does exist on Monday, does exist on Tuesday, does not exist on Wednesday ... .

Your antagonists are dealing with statistical use in the social sciences.

Besides, I am using hypotheses, because you feel extrapolations of Lakatos elitist in a public forum. I prefer the idea of concurrently maintaining a main heuristic and a degraded heuristic: Whilst I firmly beleive something, I don't slam the door in the face of an opposing view sitting there cacooned in my self-confirming thoughts.

I still need to deal with the concept of the supernatural and give you some definitions on Logic.

-- David, why do you feel that a Theist must carry the full investigative burden of proof? Dawkins didn't. He did some research of his own. Would it not be better if the "sides" regarded the pursuit a co-operative endeavour?

--SPACE--

Oliver,

I have investigated the history or various religions, how and why cultures are different, the role of indoctrination of the young, the probable influence of genetic make up on religiosity, the fears and hopes of humanity, the problems evolutionary theory poses for religions, the pain in the world, the enormous number and incompatibility of religions and I recognize the trepidation accompanying the knowledge of eventual annihilation of self. There is a possibility that I am wrong, despite the overwhelming case against the existence of a god. If this is so, then I will accept it.

May I make a suggestion? Let’s make out I am religious and I propose there is a god. Using your null hypothesis talents, prove me wrong.

Now remember, this is a public forum and not a place for incoherent scientific rant. Using the English language, explain yourself in simple terms that others not of a scientific background will understand.

David

David,

TESTING THE SUPERNATURAL

When Galileo improved the telescope, the device was examined by Vatican astronomers. At that time, Earth was held the domain of the natural and anything beyond [space to us] "supernatural".

The Vatican astronomers would not look through the telescope at the Jupiter and its moons, as an extraterrestrial system, because there is only one terra, us. They, the Theists, would not look, because any evidence going against the Church was an illusion of the Devil. So, why look? A bit like an Atheist whom disbelieves, yet won’t test that disbelief.

Similarly the Church held that the planets didn’t have orbits as we know. Else, the crystal spheres would break.

Space travel has redefined what is "the theistic the realm" of the supernatural. The supernatural of the Churches once held by millions of people.

Anyone Scientist, regarding the above examples, just sitting and waiting for the Theists to prove their point would have us living in the Dark Ages. What goes for the goose goes for the gander: Atheists need to be held to the same standard.

-- With the brick-toe example, you have not demonstrated why there cannot be mediating variables or what is "stupid" about these variables, if these do exist. Most conceptual models in academia recognise these lttle gremlins.

Oliver,

I forgot to let you know that the previous post containing some of the reasons why I dismiss the concept of a god are also those of Dawkins and a big proportion of Atheists.

Galileo etc are not examples of testing the supernatural; they are testament to the testing of nature as means and methods developed.

The brick to toe experiment had the words; “using all of known physics”. Any interference in the experiment would have been factored in. i.e. Being pushed at the critical moment.

Oliver, it is no good making accusation that I am sitting back, doing nothing by implication, waiting for the theist to produce the evidence. I have looked at the alleged evidence and found it wanting as it is with fairies.

Now back to me (Make out) proposing there is a god. How are you combating my beliefs better than the other David is?

David

"Galileo etc are not examples of testing the supernatural; they are testament to the testing of nature as means and methods developed."

--- Yes it was supernatural. The people of Galileo’s period saw is it as supernatural, presumably because og Genesis. Jesus and few others ascended they didn’t dematerialise. The Christian Church’s issue was if the space was nature and not supernatural, it disproved its teachings. That test that the supernational exists failed for them.

" The brick to toe experiment had the words; “using all of known physics”. Any interference in the experiment would have been factored in. i.e. Being pushed at the critical moment."

--- My guess is that you didn’t have being pushes in mind when you the comment but common trajectory. Were all the forces of known physics to operate on the subject person, toe included and the brick, all these objects would have their fundamental atomic constituents utterly destroyed.

** About my hypothetical case to David the Believer. Packing to move back to Australia on Wednesday - occupied. If I don’t make it back to you: Press on Sells [in red] name in the Articles section and you will see plenty of argument where I address Science, History, Theology, Comparative Religions and Theocracy. Catch is, much focus on Christianity. Through all these threads other OLO too the nature of God [not just Jesus] and the attitude of a creator is poorly stated: e.g., did God create a universe and forget or say an advanced civilization create us in a particle accelerator.

** What might be different between us I would research and present cases from myself, unlike you, wait to be convinced by others.

** If you see the evidence is for the fairies that is a "test" disproved. By implication supporting the real you.

** Hope I do have opportunity for another post

Oliver,

Galileo was not testing the supernatural no matter how many people believed his findings were heretical. He was making conclusions from observation of nature. To bring a time when science was repressed by the church into the argument as though that can be repeated, is spurious. Science has been released from religious superstition for some time. Maybe you haven’t noticed

“--- My guess is that you didn’t have being pushes in mind when you the comment but common trajectory. Were all the forces of known physics to operate on the subject person, toe included and the brick, all these objects would have their fundamental atomic constituents utterly destroyed.”

Well your guess is wrong. I am not discounting a sudden earthquake, a meteorite strike nearby or other unlikely possibilities, but they are improbabilities. I was merely stating that the known forces are gravity, inertia, wind speed, accuracy of aim etc and including not being in the middle of a road where a truck could alter the experiment or where someone would push me. You are being pedantic, not scientific.

I certainly hope you do have time for another post, as I would appreciate if you would answer the questions I have proposed.

>>>(1) May I make a suggestion? Let’s make out I am religious and I propose there is a god. Using your null hypothesis talents, prove me wrong.<<<

>>>(2) Now back to me (Make out) proposing there is a god. How are you combating my beliefs better than the other David is?<<<

The first question is in the present and about the present and not about Galileo, which was really a red-herring; and a poor one at that.

The second question needs you to explain how you are doing a better job than I am.

As a final comment, I have been annoyed at your referral, on a couple of occasions that Richard Dawkins is willing to enter the murky field of null hypothesis with his staunchest opposition. It may interest you to learn that RD will not even debate them.

Address the two questions. Leave the rest.

David

“Galileo etc are not examples of testing the supernatural; they are testament to the testing of nature as means and methods developed.”

Yes it was supernatural. :

Copernicus:

“The Copernican system displaced the earth from its central position, reduced it to the status of a planet, and wrecked the consoling Aristotelian--and medieval Christian--belief in the contrast between the transcendental, immutable, and eternal heavens, the home of the blest, on the one hand, and the sublunary sphere of the earth, the scene of birth, change, decay, and death on the other. “ -- The Renaissance: Its Nature and Origins. Contributors: George Clarke Sellery (1950).

Galilleo and the Church:

-- The people of Galileo’s period saw is it as supernatural, presumably because of Genesis. Jesus and few others ascended they didn’t dematerialise. The Christian Church’s issue was if the space was nature and not supernatural, it disproved its teachings. That test that the supernational exists failed for them.

The brick to toe experiment had the words; “using all of known physics”. Any interference in the experiment would have been factored in. i.e. Being pushed at the critical moment.

-- My guess is that you didn’t have being pushed in mind, when you the commented, rather common trajectory. Were all the forces of known physics to operate on the subject person, toe and the brick, all these objects would have their fundamental atomic constituents utterly destroyed.

-- About my hypothetical case regarding David the Believer.

Packing to move back to Australia on Wednesday - occupied.

If I don’t make it back to you: Press on Sells’ [in red] name in the Articles section and you will see plenty of argument, where I address Science, History, Theology, Comparative Religions and Theocracy.

What might be different between us I would research and present cases from myself, unlike you, waiting to be convinced by others.

-- Hope I do have opportunity for another post.

{Aside: Galileo improved the "optical" telecope. Became blind when under house arrest.}

--SPACE~~

Oliver,

I am not saying that Copernicus and Galileo did not alter the position of the church. I am saying it was an unintentional outcome of scientific discovery. I am also saying it is irrelevant to the present except as an example how religion can prejudice minds.

Believers did not test for the supernatural as you claim; they believed it from alleged revelation.

I was factoring in all the known forces of physics pertinent to the experiment, not all the known physical forces that exist. You wonder why I get testy.

Cannot find the Sells reference. Can you give a URL? But I would rather you answer the questions in your own words about that which I have asked.

I’m sorry to have to inform you, Oliver, but in the nicest terms I can muster, you have lost the plot on this thread.

If you return, I think as a reasonable request, you stick to answering the questions or our interaction will no longer be a profitable venture.

I mean you no harm and wish you luck with your travels and life.

David

"Galileo was not testing the supernatural no matter how many people believed his findings were heretical. He was making conclusions from observation of nature. To bring a time when science was repressed by the church into the argument as though that can be repeated, is spurious." -- David

Qualified Agreement. The comment addressed the idea the supernatural was tested, after the fact: We can regress past-time and apply the assertion; that a case of the supernational was believed and ultimately rejected... When I made us Dawkins' ancients, and us, some future civilization searching for a space-junk, I was again deliberately shifting the referential frame. Not spurious.

I am not as a "strong" an advocate of applying null hypotheses outside of statistics. I did so in lieu of positive and negative heuristics, which is a lesser known concept. Simply put, I am saying an Atheist should proactively test their belief as should Theist. Having drawn a conclusion one does not sit on it. Else, both opponents "indwell" [Polanyi] in their own performance.

A believer in the Big Bang should keep an eye on Solid State research, and vis~a~versa. A degraded proposition is concurrently maintained. Einstein did this and was eventually convinced Heisenberg was right.

I feel there is value in trying to prove the opponent's case. If [when] you fail you buttreses your position.

I would probably provide the same arguments might you to an alternative David. But I would not put the sole burden on the Religionist as you might. We read too. The burden of proof should be collective/mutual. Philo for example recognizes Virgin Birth as a Furphy; I suggest t in some areas the supernatural posited, tested [intensionally or not] and rejected.

Agree. I doubt Dawkins, as a popular writer, would apply hypotheses in a mass market book. If binary [true/false] methods in genetic research involving prediction it is very likely Ricky would. Karen Armstrong my preferred read.

If time runs out, I am sure we will catch-up a future thread. Meanwhile, you might see via Sells my arguments to Theists on many topics.

Packing...

Cheers!

Oliver,

The questions remain. And yes, we may cross neurons again at a future date.

Adieu

All Sells [Peter Sellick]:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=118

Selected Sells: Some Comment From Me:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5101&page=39
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5480&page=4
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5707

My responses to Peter Sellick [Sells] are around the first nine months of 2007. Philo and George are religionists whom I believe one can discuss matters. Sells and BOAZ_David perhaps a little more affixed.

Ciao

David of Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
By now with your scientific analysis of the universe and its predictable results you should be able to read Oliver's mind before he writes. Since for you there is no independent and creative mind in the universe and all in controled by natural testable chemistry.

Of course for me I believe in the spirit of man that he is a creative and independent mind that has no regular predictable thought. For me it is the human independence and creativity that inspires the human soul of things not bound by scientific analysis. For me it is the aspirations of spiritual things that lifts my mind above the natural chemistry of my aging body to things of the richness of character and the sacrifical love of living in the delight of our purposeful design. Living in the image of God. God is Spirit independent of testable chemistry. He is primarily the God of the living spirit not the God of the dead body of decaying chemistry.

Philo,

On many occasions I have stated truthfully, I do no mind what you believe. The thread began by my reporting the vilification of Atheism by the clergy. This is not in dispute and I defended the Atheist position by pointing out the dangers of religious indoctrination. That indoctrination differs from mature assessment also is not in dispute. I went on to explain how politics can be skewed in an unrepresented manner because of this.

Atheists are questioning the indoctrination process (Any indoctrination process) and simply ask that children be taught about all the main religions, their history, their lack of evidence in support, the problems involved and allow for choice on maturity. If a mature person chooses a religion on faith and not indoctrination, then that is a choice, which has the support of Atheists. The proviso is, as long as it is a private matter between consenting adults and not used to impose laws and mores on the rest of society. We may consider it a poor choice, as you may consider Atheism a poor choice, nevertheless, to each, their own.

The response to this reasonable position was one induced by fear, as is most always expected. It is the fear of being wrong. Atheists do not have such a fear, for if we are wrong, we will change. To an Atheist, religious persons, as improbable as it is, might be correct. But if they are, they are right, as Richard Dawkins has said, for the wrong reasons.

David

David,

Quick p.s.

"As a final comment, I have been annoyed at your referral, on a couple of occasions that Richard Dawkins is willing to enter the murky field of null hypothesis with his staunchest opposition. It may interest you to learn that RD will not even debate them." - David

-- "I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis. Even if is hard to practice..." - Richard Dawkins

In Science the alternative hypothesis is tested after null hypothesis. Binary investigation requires trying to prove and disprove your proposition. It is because of his staunch opposition, he should test his belief and disbelief. That is Science.

-- My arguments to an alertnative David would be along the Dawkins in some cases. But I would also defer to comparative theocracy in history. The latter would better demonstrate the commonalities and patterns among many religions than it would the ultimate existence/non existence or non existence of god. It would however demonstrate there is a strong case that humans invent gods for political reasons and that the character of gods evolve as civilizations change.

The danger for the Reseacher to "indwell" [Polanyi in the performance of Dawkins or a Religious Creed. We need to be independent and have the conviction to try and falsify [Popper] ourselves.

Take care.

Philo,

Best wishes. I will catch-up with and David, perhaps, in a month or two.

Oliver,

Many people have mentioned the god word even though they did not accept the concept as having any meaning in reality. Einstein is the quintessential example with his; “God does not play dice”.

What I find somewhat annoying about the particular quote of RD is that the god word has a capital ‘G ‘. That is the name of the Christian God. I therefore suggest he is influenced by his own culture just on that point. If one suggests a god is the initiator of everything, then that has to be a lowercase ‘g’. Dawkins would not consider it was Yahweh/Jesus.

You did leave an important word out of the quote and one that your case rests upon. Here is your quote with the word inserted by me in uppercase: “Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to TEST in practice,…”

RD cannot say the word ‘impossible’ to test as that is unscientific and absolutist and he therefore uses the word ‘hard’ when he really means the highest probability possible is that the notion cannot be tested. If you like, he was accommodating both the scientific and the religious audience alike in that statement.

As with Einstein’s loose tongue example, friend and foe alike, jump upon the usage of such language. I personally think he should have been more careful.

I disagree with Dawkins on this point. I would not link the concept of a god with a scientific hypothesis, rather I would call it a hypothesis, or better said, a guess.

David

David,

"You did leave an important word out of the quote and one that your case rests upon. Here is your quote with the word inserted by me in uppercase: “Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to TEST in practice,…”

RD cannot say the word ‘impossible’ to test as that is unscientific and absolutist and he therefore uses the word ‘hard’ when he really means the highest probability possible is that the notion cannot be tested."

Look back on my earlier post where I say am a 6/7. In fact, I took that same anti-absolutionist position with a US Freethinker group ten years ago. That is why am anti-abolutionist and anti the concept of infallibility. Why I see extreme the Atheist at the opposite pole to fundamentalist religionists. I don't need Dawkins to tell me that.

As a 6/7, myself, I test, else, I really am "deluded", to borrow from RD. Given latitude for any possibility we are wrong, we should test.

Moreover, we should share the burden of proof, I posit, not just listen to the religionist position. As I have said explicitly and RD stated implicitly, we, all sides have limited knowledge. Any side placing the burden of proof on the other, and sitting back, is a poor methodology.

O.

Oliver,

You are getting your knickers in a knot. If you wish to share the burden of proof on popular guesses, then be my guest. I won’t impede you. But don’t expect me to follow you down this road to Mount Impossible.

I kinda like to think, as we are attempting to be scientific, that an infinite regression of gods created each other and the universe. To suggest that only one god is involved goes beyond science and smacks into religion. Prove me wrong.

Just a point of interest; Our present location only allows for dial-up, with broadband Australian style (By wireless) some weeks away. It is extremely difficult to keep this conversation going under this regime. But I will persevere.

David

”You are getting your knickers in a knot. If you wish to share the burden of proof on popular guesses, then be my guest. I won’t impede you. But don’t expect me to follow you down this road to Mount Impossible.”

-- No, I am as calm as can be. I have found studying comparative religions fascinating, without changing my basic beliefs. I respect the views of others yet also I feel I should independently study their casework. I don’t assume guesses. It is possible to research religionist claims, say relating independent historical interpretations against theocracies. Is there a historical record of the Eyptian plagues in Bible? No.

"I kinda like to think, as we are attempting to be scientific, that an infinite regression of gods created each other and the universe. To suggest that only one god is involved goes beyond science and smacks into religion. Prove me wrong."

I don’t believe any God created the Universe to the point of being a “de facto Atheist” [Dawkins].

Tentatively, I believe the Universe, now, is a result of its cooling [thermodynamics], gravitational forces [weak and strong], nuclear forces and its expansion [Big Bang]. Were we to regress space-time back far enough; we would find a highly energised state, where fundamental particles are torn apart. This is not theistic religion, as you posit. This is not “one god is involved goes beyond science”; It is physics. Suggest you read the Quark and the Jaguar by Murray Gell-Mann {Nobel Prize in Physics].

To iterate: Einstein doubted his own gravitational constant and Durac his physics suggesting the positron. Both kept returning to proposition they were wrong.

How many universes have we seen created? We cannot readily go back before Planck time. There are theories involving say Phase Space [Penrose]. Yet, things are very spectulative "beyond science", until we better understand singularities and unify cosmology and QM.

Oliver,

I think you missed the point. Maybe it was just a wee bit too subtle. If there is an infinite regression of gods, then ipso facto, that interferes with the notion of what presently the word god means to humans. It further means that the one god scenario is not a scientific concept but a religious one and therefore its assessment is only possible with a religious mind-set. I think we will just have to differ on this.

I tend not to speculate to the point of guessing about precursors to the big bang. (And even that may be a metaphor for something not yet understood) Multi-verses, quantum fluctuations, many dimensions etc all have some mathematical or hypothetical scientific support but not enough to create a consensus in academe. It’s all very interesting, even exciting, but at the moment we have to live with the uncertainty. That’s OK by me.

I agree that history needs checking and rechecking when new material becomes available or with advanced methods of examining the old, and I leave that too those qualified to do the investigation. I am well capable of evaluating the results.

It is a bit much to class RD as a de facto Atheist. He is often in unenviable situations and no one can claim perfection in the use of the language. I think he is such a nice guy he finds it difficult to blatantly upset people. The antithesis of me, you might suggest, but again, you would be wrong.

I assume you realise we are simpatico with most things on this topic.

David

David,

-- Example of my "testing" the concept of the Nicaean godhead with an Anglican Associate Deacon. I am happy to have dialogue. I expect that he wont be able to prove direct thus threatening the Nicean concept, thus, my tentatively rejecting it. I have placed c.c. David on the appropriate post:

c.c. David [invited from another thread.] Posted by Oliver, Monday, 28 January 2008 2:09:32 PM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6825&page=9

-- Richard Hawkins calls himself a De Facto atheist. 6/7 [Look at the definitions}. Me too. That is I carry on [contra] infallibility even with atheists, even years before Dawkin's book.

--Time Out--

Oliver,

If you wish to fiddle around with the term Atheist while Rome burns, fine by me. I describe myself as an Atheist i.e. against the notion of gods as the world needs this right now. The religionists have to know there is opposition to their god guesses. Not so much, just for their god guesses, but the implications of those guesses.

The term de facto has a common understanding as not being the real thing and you should factor that in when using such an expression even though it doesn’t mean that at all. As you know, it is the opposite of not being the real thing.

It is questionable if you are winning the minds of doubters and in fact, you may be off-putting Atheism into the too hard basket. It is not as complex as you make it out to be and I really do wonder about your motives as I have already stated.

David

David,

"It is questionable if you are winning the minds of doubters and in fact, you may be off-putting Atheism into the too hard basket."

I certainly won a Seventh Day Adventist pastor away from Creationism. He admits it.

Many of the posts on OLO suggest the debate is about God, when the discourse is about Christian scripture. Look at your title, for instance. There are many variations of what a creator could be and if that alleged creator had any conscious knowledge or interest in what happened. To philosphers of religion OLO is often starts ten steps down the road.

I did upset some US Atheists in the US pointing out all the State references to God, "In God We Trust", "One Nation under God", about five years before it PC to do so. At the time their nationalism stood in the way of my critiques. And as I have stated on this threas before were Masons among the early US elite. The US atheists didn't like that one bit. How many English athiests would take well to a public protest in from of Buckingham Palace against Elizabeth Winsor being the Defender of the State or C.of E. being a State religion? What about an Australia soldier willing to go to War but not swearing allegance to the Queen on the basis she is presumably a Theist? Would you swear allegance to a Theist?

Oliver,

The battle of minds is bigger than your alleged winning over a Seven Day Adventist. It is about placing before the public a coherent alternative to faith driven dependence, which has no basis in evidence.

It irks me somewhat to have to tell you, that your input on this forum, although directionally correct, is problematical in delivery.

I would wholeheartedly suggest that you move away from pedantic rhetoric into the world in which people actually exist.

David

David,

“You [Kennedy] and I should not now pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied a knot of war, because the harder you and I pull, the tighter the knot will become. And a time may come when this knot is tied so tight that the person who tied it is no longer capable of untying it, and then the knot will have to be cut. What that would mean I need not explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly what dreaded forces our two countries possess.” - Khrushev regarding the Missiles of October [1962]

I realise that Nick is talking about M.A.D. not God (s), yet the same basic principle applies regarding adversarial issues.

I would have no objection to We Atheists running a full page argument in a major newspaper. I would encourage it! Maybe, Dawkins could run a condensation of his latest book, after he has topic experts correct few minor errors. Better still a ten week serial by topic experts paid for by Dawkins. He could put his cheque book where his believe stand. .

The approach you advocate has been tried for 150 years and hasn't worked.

--My time before leaving is running short--

Loose ends: Some key Logical Fallacy definitions [Source: Popkin et al]

Argumentum ad hominem...

[A statement] "against the man, rather than what the man says, in order show that what he says cannot be true."

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam...

"some statement must be true because there is no evidence to disprove it."

Arguing from Authority...

"One cannot prove the truth or falsity of a given statement merely because someone, even an authority says so. It is not the prestige of the authority which makes the statement true or false, but rather the citing of evidence either to confirm or refute the statement."

Please look at the last Sells link to see I will debate with a religionist. This time on the Trinity: Mark says that the only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spirit. If so, how can the ousia of the Trinity be indivisible?

David and Philo,

Take care.

--Could be last post for a while--

Oliver,

Your last post first. That is no news concerning logical fallacies. The question is; who is using them and who is only stating they are being used?

Have you ever considered that you are pushing the wrong end of the horse? It would appear so with the full page advertisement suggestion. No doubt, it would bolster the already existing thoughts of the infidel, but not the prejudices of those with ‘conviction’.

Superstition evolving into religion has been with humans possibly since recognition that death is inevitable. We have evolved with religion and more than most likely there is an inherent component involved. That does not mean the inherent part cannot be rationally evaluated, as we have done with other harmful propensities, but until we recognise this side to our nature, it will be difficult to alter in the majority. A minority has succeeded and this is a positive sign of hope.

You say my methods have been tried for 150 years unsuccessfully. May I remind you of the hundreds of thousands of year preceding this where religious belief has permeated every part of life? It is remarkable that the advancement of Atheism is so rapid when all of history is taken into account. Atheism, so far, is a rocket in time.

The question is: Will humanity as a whole be able to overcome its evolutionary past, or will it peak at an insufficient number to affect remedial change to social life and politics.

The outcome of broad based education and scientific understanding indicates the Atheist rocket will continue ad infinitum. The negative side is will it be too late because of super weapons in the control of zealotry or will other factors, (energy/environmental degradation) precipitate a widespread fall in living standards and conditions and lead us back to the Dark Ages?

Religion is an emotional response to inputs from nature and nurture and I posit, the only way it will ever become a lesser force in civilisations, is to break the indoctrination cycle. The evidence overwhelmingly supports this. Therefore, my energies will remain directed at that goal.

David

Oliver,
I have not read all the recent posts as yet. So I thank you for your previous wishes. Hope all goes well with whatever occupies you these next few weeks.

As for the topic "trinity" you would know I am not a trinitarian. I believe strongly in the unity of the person of God. The Holy Spirit is not another person in a Godhead but is the revelation of God in the created character of the universe, human history and the pure aspirational endeavours of humanity.

For me there is one unified mind that has developed all space, matter time, and life. Man because of self is the only mind that operates in rebellion to the design principles. Because we were created with the same independent thought and creativity as God we can willfully violate his design.

Throughout human history the corporate character evident in a nation represents their actual image of their god. Similarly an individuals idealism of character represents their view of their God, unless they are dissatisfied with their view of life. God for the individual is the image of the ideal of one's personal aspirations of character, actions, motivations and wisdom.

Similarly in Ancient Rome the Emperor was considered god because he represented the idealism of administrative power. If democracy could identify a god then Kevin Rudd in the Roman concept would be god. Unfortunately he for most has unfortunate human frailties, though many worship him as the new Messiah.

If evolution could propel humanity toward being gods then thoses who worship the idealism of human character are most likley to be at the forefront of any new evolutionary development in humans. For the Christian the character of Jesus Christ represents the very nature of God.

Oliver,

I had a quick read of the thread; ‘The rationality of faith’ and even though the question you have posed about the origin of the idea of the Trinity, was pertinent, the response was as expected.

Thanks for the invite, but I really haven’t the time at the moment to delve into the ‘rational’ subjectivity of the religious mind. ;)

Even defending my own compositions adds to the existing workload, but with that, I am more or less duty-bound to do so. Soon I will disengage from the OLO forum and return when posting afresh sometime in the future.

Have a good trip. I hope the state of your health is improving.

David

David,

Thanks.

Progress towards reformation is slow, yet, "the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step [Mao]".

Take care, I will away from OLO, most like for a few months.

Philo and Sells,

Greetings and farewell for a while.

O.

The day after my last post in this thread Heath Ledger died. Heath Ledger played the Joker in Batman and I had told Philo about the apparition of batman on my car. From what appears to be an infinite number of relationships of 'subject' meaning can be inferred. Of course this is what the media does. Every man and his dog is suddenly connected to Heath Ledger, more people claim to have intended to travel on trains that derail than the number of people trains normally carry. The image of Batman was thus a miracle , a message , a warning , a direction, Adam West is afterall American and Heath Ledger died in America. A pentecostal friend tells me Heaths passing is a sign that the Rapture is coming and she has her bags packed, she does , she has strong faith. She has been waiting for that train since Diana Spencer Died and if she was older no doubt she would have waited for the second coming since Elvis gave up the ghost.
Batman has taught me a lesson , there is nothing in superstition. Religion begins by jumping to irrational conclusions. As a reader of History Oliver you would have found that throughout time people were present to point out that religion is rubbish. The Romans, Christians, Greeks and Muslims and Jews always responded by exterminating atheists. In the end every god will have to face the truth and the truth will hurt.

Philo, West & David;

Thanks. Early flight tomorrow.

O.

West,
I suggested to you that you study the teachings and character of Christ from people or Churches other than Penticostal. Much of their interpretations of reality are based upon emotional impressions rather than fact or the Bible

Philo thankyou, I realise that each sect has its own beliefs, every sect believes in a different Jesus and a different God. There is no church on earth that follows the teaching of Jesus other than communes. Evenb these communes dont follow the teaching of Jesus because they have leaders or elders, priests or gurus. Orwells Animal Farm is a good eulogy to the teaching of Christ.

I take your point,your observation of Pentacostalism is correct , it is a thinly veiled prosperity cult who's lust for material wealth is justified on the basis of a weird and creepy phantasmagora. Still its made up mostly of ex-alchoholics, prostitutes, drug addicts and failed business people, we shouldnt expect more from them.

My point was belief requires the lack of lucidity. Patterns in nature are concieved as anything other than what is tested and there for known. A tsunami may be to a believer as punishment from god and so requires a change in personal behaviour , go to church , take part in more rituals, pray more. To the Lucid the cause of a tsunami is due to the physical morphology of the ocean floor, known because facts were gathered an correlated. The politician unburdened by religious beliefs will react to the risk inherent in the geography and take steps to minimise the risk of being affected by tsunami. The next time a tsunami occurs the religious path has led to carnage. The secular path has saved lives. This is resounded in all policy areas throughout history.