TBC
so you don’t want to talk about the glass half full options – would that be a typical mood? I‘ve got a hunch that cynicism will be the mood of the conference- maybe it’s the mood behind the growth of atheism?
My point in responding largely to Squeers rather negative impression of God was to point to the alternative. Please do the same. Most of us have plenty of good reasons to doubt whether God is fair dinkum, let alone loving, but in the absence of any certainty here, let’s talk alternatives, and what happens when we assume “no God present”.
<<Saying HSe’s “just not there “leaves the world open to everyone doing what they like and justifying what they like.>> If Dostoevsky is right, there is little point in making points about whose right or wrong; No God means no right and wrong and even murder makes “sense” ( Brothers Karamazov)
Before we all go mad on this merry go round of rhetoric and blame game , can I encourage you to have a good weekend, and if you haven’t seen it , watch “ Bruce Almighty “ .
The fascinating thing about this film is the way it allows us to consider how God might feel about our situation. See what you think ? Art (rather more than rhetoric ? ) can seem to help us all keep our perspective on this huge subject – what in the world do we know about how we got here ? and what does it all mean ?

examinator, thanks for your explanations.

I suspect that Eire has become a little more secular in its outlook over recent years, as it moved from a very poor and almost peasant economy with a massive diaspora of exiled workers, from the days I used to have family holidays over there in the 1960s, when condoms were searched for as we went through Customs, to today as part of economic Europe, which might help to explain their female leaders.

I am not sure that her election represents a new paradigm yet, any more than Thatcher's election in Britain meant they were no longer as misogynist as ever in relation to women in significant positions.

I see you don't mention Kissinger... interesting twist.

We disagree on what makes a democracy. I regard it as something that 'people' control, with no gods running it from above.

To me, 'gods above' is not a democratic model. I have no need for monarchs, or their representatives being an extension of God to reign over me.

I'll take the parliamentary process, and have the PM report direct to the people, thanks. In fact, there's no reason to have a president either, especially one that is there to take the place of a representative of a god.

"No society can exist without some believe in some greater organization purpose power and articles of faith"... umm, where is that writ?

That is your belief, but I do not share it. I see plenty to consider as reason-for-living without making anything up.

I'm sorry examinator, but the Dawkins-Grayling Axis of Evil simply does not hit the ground. But when one looks at 'the religious' there seem to be plenty of examples of world domination plots going on.

Just tap into the Salt Shakers, Catch The Fire, and the ACL to see real madness at work, (never mind Rome and Canterbury), and all supported via the ATO too, a fifth column white-anting Australia with the tacit support of the government

Dear Hanrahan,

I've seen "Bruce Almighty," and enjoyed it very much.
It did raise a few interesting questions.

As far as religion goes - although it's a universal
institution, it takes a multitude of forms.
Believers may worship gods, ancestors, or totems;
they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rituals,
or solemn prayer. Many religions don't recognise a
supreme being, and a number don't believe in gods at all.
And, obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of
the Western religious tradition alone.

To me, religion is a system of communally shared beliefs and
rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural
realm.

Emile Durkheim was one of the first sociologists who
believed that the origins of religion were social, not
supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever their source,
the rituals enacted in any religion enhanced the solidarity
of the community as well as its faith. Religious rituals
such as - Baptism, Bar MItzvah, Weddings, Sabbath Services,
Christmas Mass, Easter Mass, Funerals.

These rituals serve to bring people together, to remind them
of their common group membership, to re-affirm traditional
values, to offer comfort in times of crisis (funerals) and,
in general to help transmit the cultural heritage from one
generation to the next.

Many people today may no longer deeply believe in traditional
religion, but they've found no satisfying substitute.

Hanrahan "I‘ve got a hunch that cynicism will be the mood of the conference- maybe it’s the mood behind the growth of atheism?"

Indeed, maybe cynicism will be there at the convention, and why not when there is so much to be cynical about as far as 'religion' goes?

But I still have a doubt about there being anything like a 'growth' of atheism in the sense that people are being evangelised and proselytsied to and 'converting' to atheism.

There do appear to be declining numbers of people on census forms in NZ and Aus' declaring any allegiance to any 'faith', but that might be from a change in what people are prepared to tolerate being told these days, and a reaction to the domination of 'spin', rather than any march towards a nation of 'activist atheists'.

This imagined 'rise of atheism' is certainly fueled by a very noisy and bullying evangelical rightwing in politics...an equal and opposite force perhaps, except of course, that 'atheists' hardly bother to regard themselves as a discrete group, so are very poor at organising themselves, because they really have no reason to.

"No God means no right and wrong and even murder makes “sense”", well, I just don't buy that at all I'm afraid, and I regard that sort of thinking as being just a little lazy and selling ourselves short.

It does, of course, provide a sand-like foundation for snake oil sellers to spruik from.

I'm a very poor film watcher, having only just caught up with the Dam Busters, Easy Rider and Life of Brian, but your film sounds a bit like 'Evan Almighty' which is enough to keep me a zillion miles from it.

Besides, we could only imagine how God might feel about us, if we had invented God and his feelings in our image. I assume the script was, like all holy writings, written by a human?

Maybe that could be a Dawkins project... to create a film from God's perspective.

A mercifully short one I imagine.

cont'd ...

I should add that of course there are people
who have found a satisfying substitute - be it
atheism or something else.

Ian Robertson points out in his book,
"Sociology," that:

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

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

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

Hanrahan,
thanks for replying, though what have you said? "Tradition"; you've confronted my position with conservatism, the burden of history, the saws of our fathers (not mothers mind you, that's just latter-day pc). Not only do you defend ancient logic (logic is an ignorant whore btw--to use a suitably chauvinist metaphor), but you offer it up as though it's served us well hitherto. As much as I loath organised religion, I loath conservatism more--from Edmund Burke's to Kipling's (both of whom at least were learned) to the neo-conservatism of the economic/religious right (they're bedfellows), conservatives are the most hateful breed on the planet--propagators of ignorance and viciousness, I despise them to the dregs.
My apologies; I try to maintain a certain bearing, but there are times to let it fall. Conservatism stands for nothing but the status quo it presides over, its traditions are its whores and its members are its pimps (disguised in waste-coats and fob watches). One can sympathise with the Reign of Terror (whose brash notoriety among a history of conservative carnage and debauch speaks volumes about historians!).
My father was conservative, a great admirer of Enoch Powell and all the self-serving dogma he stood for in Britain's long tradition; but unlike you, I never had the least inclination to follow my parent; what he stood for stunk to high heaven even in my childish nostrils. I don't defend the strawman atheism you try to prop up (pop-hedonism), but a humble atheism that know's only its own insignificance and ignorance, and mistrusts the monumental hubris of those who use their God as a rubber stamp on whatever evils they care to excuse.
And please don't invoke poor Dostoevsky from his troubled slumber as though he was a confederate; he would castigate you far more passionately than I do!
"Whose would be a man must be a non-conformist" (Emerson).