Examinator,

I haven’t read this entire thread, so forgive me if I’ve missed something here.

<<Religion isn't the cause of problem, any more than a gun is violent.>>

Which problem(s) do you mean? I can think of a lot of problems that religion is the root cause of.

There are a lot of otherwise decent people there who do some awful things that they normally wouldn’t have done had it not been for their religious convictions.

To argue that there may just be some correlation is naive in the extreme when one considers that many problems occur because of religious people who make no effort to hide the fact that religion is the driving force behind what they do.

<<It's the intelligence of the brain at the trigger end, that makes the difference i.e. it would be churlish/arrogant of me to criticise my 85yo mum who is a fundy. It keeps her happy and she does no one harm, nor she doesn't expect or want the laws to reflect her beliefs.>>

That’s good to hear. My parents are so moderate in their religious beliefs that they don’t even deny AGW.

But no matter how benign a Theist is, the fact remains that without the passive support of the moderates, the real loonies would either be gone or wouldn’t have the powerbase to influence politics.

There is nothing churlish or arrogant about pointing this out. Nor is pointing this out arguing by extremes and implying that people are either are either “deluded fundies” or “atheists”.

<<I would argue that [Dawkins] isn't a true scientist because he presupposes an absolute conclusion without definitive proof.>>

I’m guessing you haven’t read The God Delusion or seen too many of his speeches then, because even he admits that it would be unscientific to speak in absolutes and thus refuses to do so - instead speaking in probabilities.

I grow really tired of people misrepresenting the outspoken Atheists like Dawkins et al. I can understand Theists wanting to doing this, but as to why an Atheist like yourself would feel the need to just baffles me.

Examinator.... you are either pregnant, or not.... no half measures.

Christians, and all others, either believe the holy books are real or they don't.

Any half measures amounts to cherry picking, as Dawkins talks about.

If it is all metaphor/allegory/whatever, rather than dead accurate fact, that's fine, I can understand that, but then what do all the hangers on, and the buildings, and the dogma and all else attached to promoting a single world view have to do with it?

And if it's not metaphor/allegory/whatever, then we really are in trouble, because there are so many versions of The Truth that it is not likely they can all be correct.

Your mother is not a PM, so in the scheme of things, she is not relevant to this.

Rudd is, and how he uses his language is very important.

He chose not to say that he was 'a Christian', but that he believed in creation, and that he believed that meant an intelligent designer.

We cannot see how he spoke those words, only hear them. If they were capitalised words, with a big C and ID, then what he says has a different meaning.

A trick that Howard was very good at, saying one thing to all his publics at once, meaning different things to each, as they each interpret what they want.

It's called 'dog whistling', and Rudd is as good at that as Howard is.

I agree with you if you are saying that all Christians are creationists and all believe in an intelligent designer, but some are believers in Creationism and Intelligent Design, which is a bit different.

Given Senator Fielding's comments about how Rudd evangelised to him from his top pocket Bible, I think he might be a big C and a big IDer too... or he could be pretending to be that, to capture the ACL votes he so desires... and buys at our expense.

We'll just have to disagree on Rudd miring himself in religion, like Hanson and the flag.

I see it, you don't, but many others here can see it too.

AJPhillips,

Experience shows me that most, extremists have a psychology that is susceptible to rigidity in their thinking, about abstract concepts. i.e. they tend to think in terms of absolutes, right or wrong. Their way of reassuring themselves of their identity via the efficacy of the group. It reaffirms that they are important not some set of genes in an indifferent, pointless system.

If it wasn't religion, it would be some other substitute, spiritualism etc.

Not everyone in the world has the capacity to survive without it.

I have dealt with enough murderers to know that the gun was the means not the cause.

You are very wrong about my knowledge of Dawkins I have most of his books and in Biology he's brilliant.

However as someone who understands the human condition he sucks. He epitomizes the difference between hard science and the humanities.
A variation on a theme of nature V nurture. Perhaps I should have explained that IMO that he is not scientific in his approach to humanities OR at the extreme edge of cosmology.

NB neither side can prove absolutely that their perspective is the only view much less that the other side is absolutely wrong.

I did say earlier, that the best that can be said is at the current stage of our understanding is that god(s) appear to be unlikely.

NB I am decidedly secular in my personal views.

Notwithstanding I believe in a qualified live and let live. i.e.
religion has no part in education or government.
Providing the religion breaches no laws and harms no one it is merely another private opinion.

As a matter of fact I object to proselytizing on private matters from either side.

IMO Dawkins tends to want to stamp out the human element and as such his version of atheism is a quasi religion/cult by definition.

I'm not interested in a debate on what Dawkins or others say as I believe that pointless. I discussing the principals.

From examinator <<
Words take on new meanings in the context of this topic and need clear definition >>
An excellent point amongst many- adjudicators on words we need. In the absence of one recently, let suggest a great point of confusion.
The panelists on QANDA , like us, tend to use evolution as a process and evolution as an answer to everything as though they are the same thing . They are not. One is a word with some action potential in cells/science , the other is a way of trying to see how far the stimulus might extend. Both views, to my mind, are useful to talk to.
Scientific words have a lot of power , but they are not always morally neutral . Maybe we do have a choice? ( consider adrenalin)
Do we not ALL bring words of value into our own worldview to give it passion power –
And we all multiply our favourite values with additional words that have perceived to have some value too- george and squeers might adjust me here .

A suggestion ONLY :examples ONLY
High value words If you move them too far to the right they become god like in their power – passion.

Word/value -- Reality in science --World view
Evolution -- DNA changes /adaption(EP)--Evolutionary Determinism (ED )
Adaption--Cell knowledge -- GUYA?
Aggression--adrenalin--Pacifist or Tyrant
Non agression --nor adrenalin -- Pacifist / Doormat/ woose
Love --cooperation-- Monotheism / ?
Competition--territory --Capitalist/ Materialist
Science--structure and function -- Scientology/ atheist?
Disorder-- DNA / environment --Nihilism / ED/ Tyranny

Notice that making any valuable word/ reality into the main thing doesn’t make it right – All I am suggesting is this is what we tend do and its value is in exploring reality . All of us . We make symbols and others watching us are afraid of the power of those symbols ( whatever they are ) see May in Power and Innocence
None of the above categories , are all complete !
Enjoying your contributions

I watched "Q And A," on the ABC, Monday night
with great eagerness. I thought that I would
see Dawkins (the Lion) roar.

Unfortunately, Dawkins was not equally matched,
intellectually, that is. And I can only assume
that he wasn't challenged enough to respond.
Which was somewhat unfortunate - because he
did not create a very good impression as a result.

Had they invited a stronger panel (intellectually)
for Dawkins - it may have proven to be a more interesting
discussion.

Disappointing evening all round!

Tsk tsk Foxy.... Julie Bishop was there, the intellectual powerhouse of the Liberal Party, and Tony Burke representing the finest minds from the ALP....what more do you want?

Maybe the ABC under the 'deeply religious' Mark Scott (who gave Critto the short end) wants to achieve a sort of 'The Australian' notion of balance?

You know, where they allow Adams to spruik his wares for years as evidence of 'balance' while all the rest of their journos seem to belong to the Vatican and their private columnists represent every horrible rightwing thinktank imaginable.

So, Dawkins gets on, to boost the ratings, but to ensure he is not afforded a platform he is partnered by a bunch of lightweights?

(And I'd exclude the Oz of the Year fellow from that description- he was there to be 'on display' as the community's new 'shiny thing' and clearly he was on the wrong episode, should have had a mental health show focus-with Jeff Beyond Blue and Nick Sherry maybe).

Where was Pell and Jensen, Houston and Nahlliah, (Jim) Wallace and Grommett?

It was interesting to hear the cock crowing three times whenever Fielding uttered anything though... and that gem about Rudd and his pocketskyrocket was worth the boredom.