examinator,

Oh, I see, you haven’t moved on at all. Amongst the unnecessary wording, you say my version of Atheism is a ‘belief’.

A ‘belief’ in what exactly? A ‘belief’ in reason maybe, a ‘belief’ in logic or a ‘belief’ in the fact there is no credible evidence for the supernatural.

Because I hold there is no evidence for a god, somehow that makes my stance aggressive and considered superior by me. You state this even after I explain the very simple mechanism responsible for humans holding beliefs. Those mechanisms tie up with the known facts and are undeniable. I think your have a problem with your own feelings of superiority and you surely are more aggressive than me.

I don’t believe many Atheistic missionaries descended on the New World promoting there is no god. Indigenous peoples were left in a state of confusion about their world view and to blame half of the problem on Atheism is ridiculous.

What are my cultural and philosophical blind spots when I am only pointing out consequences of limited knowledge?

I find your placing the word ‘superior’ in inappropriate context a little ignorant of you and it is meant only as a crowd pleaser. More knowledge is preferable to less knowledge is not a position that invokes such a word. More knowledge for an Aztec child would have that child not choose to be sacrificed. More knowledge for a child indoctrinated with creation science would have a child not choose that falsehood.

“In essence I was saying that your perspective of No (as opposed to anti) God is very conditional (relative) and highly qualified even in or 1st world culture.”

This is the kind of sentence you come up with and is reminiscent of your posts when you are in panic mode and it really is rubbish. Explain that sentence so I may make proper comment.

The obvious reliance on having the last word is one of your weaknesses, but the last word only goes to the best argument. You have failed this test and do not deserve a final say.

David

David, You have great unerring faith that Science never suppresses new knowledge. I have no such faith in Science or rather those that have the power over scientific discoveries...

The good news is the proposed Act says you have the freedom not to hold a particular religion or belief. Appendix 1 R2.3

On to other things. This Act could create more problems than it says it needs to solve.
It proposes the prohibition of female genital mutilation while male circumcision is not mentioned. Surely those who believe in female circumcision will use this (and their 'cultural belief') to prevent its inclusion in the final Act, so why bother with its inclusion?

It proposes to legalize blasphemy. What sort of society would suggest it is polite and respectful to condone blasphemy? Does this mean we will soon hear 'For Mohammed's sake' in the streets and on the airways of Oz because there must be no discrimination?

Witchcraft and fortune telling is to be de-criminalised. When was someone last sent to jail for being a witch?

Artistic work will remain exempt from religious vilification laws as long as it is reasonable and in good faith; but who is to be judge of this? The panelists on the review?

All that will happen is more work will be created for the legal profession ..... and taxpayers money will be spent by those with no funds to sue.

WWG,

I think you mean, you consider those with an interest to do so, can distort the practical application of science. Science as a means of discovery is still the best method humans have.

The HREOC paper is only about ‘recommendations’. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out before making assumptions and interpretations of the conclusions.

Thankfully, I think there are a reasonably fair number of submissions from secular individuals and organisations included on and going to be included on the final list. Not all of the recommendations will be accepted, but a few will.

As the words expressed in Lucretius’ famous poem, ‘De Rerum Natura’ - On the Nature of Things – state; “By degrees They melt, and are no more the things we know.”

Lucretius’ was speaking of things but the same is true of ideas. Small successes eventually lead to large changes in social constructs. The evolution of ideas is a slow business in human lifespan time but rapid within the context of historical progress. How fast depends on many variables, as well as how quickly the irrationally unjust concepts are recognised and excluded.

Obvious mistakes in the resultant HREOC Act, as you have pointed out will cost by way of lawyers and I would ad - injustice. The next Commission will then look at these. There is no rule that says the present re-evaluation will be an instant fix for everything. But it is far better than not having one.

David