TBC,

You continue to confuse opinion with fact.
>"apart from noting that they have been put upon for hundreds of years by the Vatican, and that has corroded their ability to understand too much?"< that is absolute hogwash blind prejudice!

>"It is not possible to be a democratic liberal democracy and have a state religion like Christianity"<. Why not? Just because the country doesn't allow abortions, the pill. That's a bit extreme as a statement don't you think?

I don't see them becoming boat people.What I do hear is objections to specific perhaps misapplications of Catholicism.

Need I point out that they have had two females as president one a famed peace envoy. And from a Catholic country too. tsk tsk ;-)

Catholicism is no longer the definition of Christianity, not that it ever really was...consider The Orthodox churches, The Copts, and a plethora of Middle eastern 'Christian' churches that predate and have always existed with Catholicism.

Do I point out that Bishop Tutu was a recipient of a Nobel peace prize.

The two highlighted statements just don't hold fact or reason.

I would argue that a totally secular state can't exist. Even the USSR and Nth Korea have a 'beliefs' be that perverted communism or 'beloved leader'.
People aren't automatons, they're all different and have varying genetic/psychological/conditioned capacities to cope with unknowns. They NEED varying degrees spiritual and religiosity.

Ergo my secular Humanist stance for an imperfect world......live and let live.
Oh yes, keep an angry computer to savage the odd emotionally, excessive, repressive dogma. Not to mention the occasional opinion masquerading as fact.

NO! you've had breakfast SIT! Down! that's a good boy, No! Siiit! good boy. :-)

Dear TBC,

Perhaps instead of being concerned about a
voluntary program in schools like the
Chaplaincy program it would be better to
look at why our schools are failing in their
academic responsibilities?

Scores on Standard Achievement Tests and other
measures have declined over the past years.
Standards of reading and writing have sagged.
Many students are unable to complete job
application forms or balance a checkbook.

Surveys show that incoming students into tertiary
education have less academic knowledge than their
predessors had two decades ago, and their lecturers
consider them less prepared for the experience of
tertary education.

Why have our educational standards declined?

That would make an excellent new thread to start.
Especially since Australia is a "credential society,"
one in which there is overwhelming importance attached
to educational qualifications of various kinds.

Examinator... you do not make sense, at all, I am afraid.

I see no link between what I have said and Eire having two female presidents, nor the relevance of Tutu's prize to this.

The granting of that peace prize is a purely political exercise, and I am not sure that winning one is such a big deal, otherwise that great Irish man O'Bama wouldn't have earned one two weeks into his first term. It just means that you have played a role in someone else's powerplay and in order to shore up the impression of 'doing good' a Nobel is doled out. This is how Kissinger was given one in 1973 after his carpet bombing game... very peaceful, eh?

Yes, the Vatican imposes its limited view on women, and men for that matter, as far as all contraception goes, and that certainly has had a detrimental effect, probably more in years past than today, in that, and other, countries across the world.

And what on Earth is the reference to Nth Korea and the old USSR for? Are you confusing 'atheist' with 'secular' perhaps?

The US is a secular state, as is France, and Turkey and Indonesia, all of which have religion running rampant at the personal level. And all of them not 'perfect' but at least with a clearer idea of not having the state supporting religion with financial assistance.

Now, I could be wrong, and Indonesia and Turkey may well provide some support, but in general, unlike here in Australia, they do recognise the need for a split between church and state.

America is full of debate on this all the time, and of course its political leaders are not very good at keeping their religious views private, so it certainly looks and sounds as if it were a raging nation of evangelical fruitcakes..(oh, it is isn't it?) but at least they have a debate about what it means, and we do not.

Foxy...yes, that is another thread altogether.

As far as you insisting the NSCP scam is voluntary, we'll just have to keep disagreeing.

Dear TBC,

Thank You for this robust discussion.

See you on another thread.

Squeers,
Have been meaning to get back to you for some time.
I am sure many readers would prefer a more detailed point by point critique. As you say correctly, I prefer playing the violin on the roof ; I avoid going into too much detail simply because I want to highlight the low level of intellectual and philosophical depth in the rhetoric pond below.
Thankfully other correspondents have helped us to keep balancing on the roof Thanks - Examinator and George. I also want to avoid getting involved in the word warfare wastage that will come from those whose aim is just to try and score points.
Will try and answer some of your points tommorrow though - just not up to it now.

On another matter,I did think of a tune hearing TBC's great first line ..which i identify with.
<<there is no explaining the Irish>>
Possible 2nd line
<< There is no understanding much >> ,
<<there is no explaining the Irish>> ,
<<Me thinks they worry too much >>
Pleasant company y'all .

examinator,
>>Even George's extended definition of Atheism still falls short of absolute proof that god(s) don't exist . One can't prove something doesn't *absolutely* exist. That is a logical nonsense.<<

Foxy, not I, brought up a definition of atheism that she found on the Australian Atheist Foundation's website. I just commented on it and rephrased it into a definition expressing the, in fact, OPPOSITE “acceptance”, i.e. belief, namely that not everything that exists is reducible - i.e. part of - physical reality that can be investigated by science. I did not define the verb “exist” but neither did our Australian Atheist friends. The same for “credible scientific or factually reliable evidence”.

This is not how I would formulate the starting point of my word-view (and I would say of most world-views that cannot be called atheist). I just performed this verbal acrobatics in order to make more explicit my contention, expressed in the last sentence, that world-views based on BOTH of these beliefs (about the nature of reality) are legitimate. For political and social implications of this see e.g. http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html. For my formulation of the alternative position see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883.

Also, you do not “prove” the fundamental pre-suppositions (axioms) of your world-view, and certainly no definition, nor axiom, can contain any proofs, not even in mathematics. So whatever you mean by the statement “god(s) don‘t exist” you can - not to prove it, there you‘re right - provide evidence supporting it, or supporting its negation, convincing to some, unconvincing to others, thus explaining why you chose the Australian Atheist Foundation's position or my position. However, even such explanation will make sense only to those who agree with your understanding of the terms “god(s)” and “exist”.

The meaning of (objective) “existence“ is not simple, not even in the context of phenomena studied by science, as I tried to argue in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82793.