Most understand I believe in no God.
Most too know I once believed in Christ.
Maybe it is my upbringing or my lost faith, but I live still by the great words of wisdom in the Bible.
Followers seem to be less each year or am I just letting the empty or closed Churches influence me?
Can we do with out religion.
Some most certainly can not . many could.
I have no grudge against the followers of any God,but increasingly am concerned at actions that interfere with my life.
PC in relation to belief can be restrictive to the point of criminal.
No discussion can take place about this subject without referring to the Elephant in the room.
Muslim religion, its very DNA is opposed to every thing my upbringing told me, Women are treated badly child brides everything my upbringing told me, is against this religion.
Yet as a nonbeliever I am asked to allow all this and more in the name of PC to change my country and me.
Would one single religion for every one be the answer? uniting us all, will that religion ,as those of my youth fade be the Muslim one?
Are the rights of non believers the same as those who believe?
I doubt man is ready to have no God, but fear until he is, more harm than good comes from some.

I don't think we need religion in this modern age when most intelligent people can think for themselves, and don't need 'holy' people or ancient books to tell them how to think or act.

However, I don't understand how Muslim people affect anyone else's daily lives here in Australia Belly? There are so few Muslims in Australia, compared to other cultures, that I fail to see any impact by them at all really...

Suseonline let me first tell you of my positives , in my view from having no religion.
I know if I answer your question the thread will take off, many posts but be a failure.
Maybe if you know my views, and the thought no creed is as restrictive, to others, as the one you mention.
Why in a world that teaches us evolution do we give tax free status to beliefs not shared by all.
Find me something Churches did not form and control our views in.Sex marriage law politics allow rules to belief as much as deep thought.
Why must I respect and stay within walls built around any religion, even in some be described as inferior, but not have the same right to disrespect them.
A world without religion, within decades, would be united as one humanity.
Suseonline show me another religion with as much power, that has a concept like Sharia law, even in other country,s and other cultures, even if against that country,s laws.
And, if we agree there are no Gods, tell me why it happens?

Religion do we need it?

Definitely not ! I much prefer education.

Religion, like most others thing nowadays, has been commercialized to a large extent.

Gone are the days of passing the plate around to collect a few 'tax free' coins, as many of the religious groups here and abroad are now multi million dollar 'tax free' havens.

As far as us needing religion, I say we do, for those who believe, but we equally need protection for those who don't.

I say any followers should be entitialed to follow, BUT, non followers should not be solicitored by those wanting to introduce us to what they see as a better way.

As for their tax free heavens, these should be abolished immediately.

Suze

As for religions like Islam, i will answer your question, however I won't be drawn into any anti Muslim debate, however, I think they simply don't belong here as we are a peace loving nation.

As for your comment about not having many Muslims, I would simply say to you, just one person who believes in beheading is one too many for my liking.

Belly,

Suppose, in a single stroke, you were able to abolish and eradicate every organized religion in the world today, what do you think you would accomplish?

Since the dawn of time, mankind has believed, if not worshipped, all manner of things. As understanding and application of science has evolved, so many religions have ‘died out’, only to be replaced with others. Many of the religions reigning supreme today might be considered archaic and patriarchal, and I have no doubt they too will eventually succumb to modern pressures, but you will never rid humankind of its need to believe.

It might be argued that we have come full circle and that our concern for the environment is simply a new-age interpretation of the ancient worship of the Mother Goddess. For others, money is the only god; or power; or material possessions. I find the concept of atheism amusing because while a professed atheist might claim not to believe in ‘God’ (at least, according to the general accepted definition) I doubt they believe in nothing at all. They may not think their belief manifests as an ‘organised’ or formal religion, but any ideology can easily be classified as a religion.

In essence, this answers your question: yes, we do need religion. Not necessarily the religion we know or have grown up with. But we most definitely need to believe. Many of mankind’s greatest achievements in the arts have been inspired by religion. Just as many great achievements in science have stemmed from a need to disprove religion. Take it away, and we are left with nothing.

Not for me, i see no benefit in religion at all. The world would be a better place without it.
The sauce of conflict and hatred.
Ancient ideas and ancient ways.
Kids are born with a predetermined religion, where's the choice in that.
The churches have disgraced themselves, and needs to be disbanded.

no one seems to define religion. Everyone has faith in someone or something. The atheist has great faith in their dogma. They call it science but really it is fantasy. To deny one's Creator is blindness while to reject one's Saviour is stupidity.

the moral outrage against the Catholic church and other molestors demonstrate clearly that we are moral creatures. It shows that even god deniers have a conscience despite the conscience being seared. Those who reject God can't help but form their own morals ( usually consisting of immorality). Without God morals we have no right to tell others that child abuse is wrong ( as it is cultural in many places), that killing is wrong etc. We are left with every man doing what is right in his/her own eyes. That is why secularist can murder the unborn, commit adultery, fornication, practice homosexuality, lying etc etc and really have no compass to know their actions are even wrong. People who claim they don't believe in god usually put themselves in the chair as god picking and choosing what they think is right and wrong usually with very sad outcomes (murdered babies).

*They call it science but really it is fantasy.*

Funny that Runner, but a scientifically designed 747 tends to work
better than the priestly magic carpet.

Runner is a good example of why people no longer believe,and a replica of the person who showed my me faith was wrong.
We nearly all of us, have lines we will not cross, they came from religion.
Why not replace the religion with our own charter to live by.
Then ten commandments could well be 25, a list of mans most used moral fences.
Remember, as it is now,some will climb the fence or push it over.
How would we do this, well tax Churches, take the massive fraud in Islamic education, millions given by us all, transfered to the head Islamic council.
In the name of a God.
Catholic CoE Child sex scandals, in the name of a God.
Humanity needs to be one, but inclusive,in most things not possible if we let rules that divide us in the name of many ONE TRUE GODS.
Yes some need God, a new one is invented nearly every decade, why not use the list of 25 as a new foundation one God.
IF aliens ever land, if they already are known, Governments will, maybe have, covered it up.
Because of its impacts on belief, a controlling influence.
A fear probably wrong, that we could not handle the truth.
The evolution of man includes a move away from conventional God, but in some parts of the world the growth of the most dangerous one.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-yearly-cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/
OK link is American, but anyone care to challenge the figure, of tax free gifts we all pay for.
What is the total world cost?
Australia,s?
Yet what is, IF no God exists THE OTHER COSTS?
A section of our community's think it is OK to sit and wait for God to fix every problem.
Even here see runners words in another thread re child abuse, what are the costs of waiting?

Atheists don't "reject" God. To reject something means you accept its existence.You may as well say you reject unicorns.

As for morality being God-given, that's utter nonsense. Religion is the ultimate act of selfishness and is totally amoral.

Religion dictates that you act only for the sake of avoiding punishment or to gain a personal reward - not for the goodness of act itself.

Salvation is something that is totally personal - it can't be traded or given away and that fear of inevitable death is the entire point of the existence of religion.

There would be countless burned harassed and slaughtered witches, Jews, heathens, infidels plus generations of slaves that may have a different view of the so-called moral blessings of religious belief.

Any social benefit from religion has long been swept away in the rivers of blood and the shattered lives it has produced.

The intent seems benign but it's the followers of such beliefs that fail and then everybody pays the price.

Morality is no more than an agreed set of social standards meant for that time and adjusted as required.

I don't understand why I'm paying taxes to subsidise a belief system that I don't belong to.
Let the Churches pay their own way - or does the Catholic Church have a secret Concordat with the Australian Government that guarantees their tax-free status?

Dear Belly,

I fully agree with Scribbler:

Scribbler described religion from a social point-of-view and concluded that it is a blessing to society. I would like now to continue from where he ended, deeper into the underlying cause:

Do we need air to breath?

Well the need for religion is even greater and more basic than that.

There is nothing but God - neither the air we breath, nor the water we drink or the food we eat, not even the thoughts we think, etc., including ourselves. Religion is the process of coming closer to God - and life is all about that: God discovering Himself. Without religion, without approaching God, there is simply no point to life.

We are all heading towards God, including the atheists among us and all others who comment here fiercely against religion, only some do it consciously, others not, some do it faster, other slower.

Now, as many contributors mentioned, there is the question of "organised religion" - and that's different, that indeed is not an absolute, so it does warrant a good discussion on a case-by-case basis.

An organised religion is an organisation that was set up for the purpose of promoting and accelerating religion. Organised religions need therefore be judged on their actual success: do they in fact promote religion as they claim to be doing? do they in fact accelerate the spiritual progress of their followers towards God - or do they perhaps achieve nothing or even the opposite?

We do sadly find groups who claim to be "a religion", but truly are not; or clergy who are in fact bad examples of religion and fail to inspire and accelerate religion in their flock; or scriptures not worth the scroll they are written on.

It is well and good to scrutinize religious groups and orders, there are justified reasons to be angry about some, but not to throw the baby with the bath-water.

Y I admire you commitment, once had it.
Do you not see it is unnerved by thoughts other than yours.
Can I yet again ask, with some feeling, what about all the other Gods?
No I will not except the SIMPLISTIC answer there is only one God.
The rest are false, not my view, yours.
Not good enough, God, every one of the many, created the heaven and the earth, no one else, not my view, yours.
We, even many of ANY FAITH learn and believe evolution.
The tax free part of religion is probably not as damaging as its stifling our ability to live together.
Yes we need a God.
But as all are mans invented crutches, fences not to be crossed, and as those things are dieing in modern Churches.
Start again, leave survival tools of the past,need to hate out neighbors out.
Construct a God that unites us all, that leaves no ground for child rape to be considered a sin not a crime.
That gets out of humanity's way as we learn to take responsibility for our actions.

>>There is nothing but God - neither the air we breath, nor the water we drink or the food we eat, not even the thoughts we think, etc., including ourselves. Religion is the process of coming closer to God - and life is all about that: God discovering Himself. Without religion, without approaching God, there is simply no point to life.

We are all heading towards God, including the atheists among us and all others who comment here fiercely against religion, only some do it consciously, others not, some do it faster, other slower.<<

If there is nothing but God we're not heading towards God: we're already there. So no need for religion.

Cheers,

Tony

"...So no need for religion."

If I require self-worship, yes there is.

Suseonline>> However, I don't understand how Muslim people affect anyone else's daily lives here in Australia Belly? There are so few Muslims in Australia, compared to other cultures, that I fail to see any impact by them at all really...<<

Suse, a toddler was supposedly stolen from her home through a window a few years back and the Moslem parents have just been to the Coroners Court on the issue. The mother is expecting her 13th child.....that is how Islam will be dominant.....look at Europe.

In fact Caucasians are dying out. Whites represent 15% of the globe and we are averaging 2.2 children per couple.

Suse, that a racial group becomes numerically dominant over another is not an issue. That they impose their culture and religions on others is, and that is the prime agenda of Islam.

Dear Belly,

How did our friend Jesus say: "if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off": If the story of creation causes you to sin - then cut it off!

That story was meant to draw you nearer to God, not to push you away from Him - so if it doesn't serve its purpose, then chuck it in the bin. If instead what helps you find and love God is evolution - then go, study and teach evolution!

Yes you are right, men invented crutches - if you no longer need them, or if you need new ones, then throw away the old ones. God bless you!

Dear Tony,

<<If there is nothing but God we're not heading towards God: we're already there>>

But ARE you? is this your own experience? For that time-being this for you is book knowledge (if you believe me in the first place): religion is what makes this your everyday reality, your own direct experience.

>>But ARE you? is this your own experience?<<

Yes: It's sitting right next to me. And everywhere else as well of course.

>>religion is what makes this your everyday reality, your own direct experience.<<

No: I am not religious. Formal or informal, organised or disorganised, mainstream or marginal: all religions have a common defining feature which is a belief in the supernatural - in souls and spirit worlds and etheric vibrations and centaurs. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is all just stuff people have made up because people like to tell stories. Stories are nice but they aren't the same thing as reality.

Cheers,

Tony

This thread was never going to be easy.
Feelings on both sides are tightly held on to.
I as much as any one, let my feelings speak a one sided bias.
Maybe not.
I know much good has come from Christians, and take it for granted from any faith.
Today, by acedent, I heard a grumble that people talking politics or religion are rude? really, what is being hidden.
I believe we need a code to live by, but not all will chose to live by it, religion or law.
HOPE we need hope we will see our dead, and live again.
Even non-Christians [include every creed] think that some times.
Are the promises of eternal life and forgiveness , along with rules that threaten those who do not complie the reason we have religions?
Is the good unweighed by the bad.
I note we still have the Muslim influence, I started it.
But should we cringe in the corner? ignore sonofgloins words.
Is it OK 13 Children, and never worked from the day of arrival in this country?
Is it OK this is the normal thing?
And may I say without being branded racist, Girl Children in SOME Muslim homes suffer every bit as bad as the victims of the Catholic Church, every bit as evil and anti God too.
Last how dare we! no one wants to confront our opinions of every other God bar ours.
I have seen the rainbow serpent, you have too on a wet day, but no other God.
Christian God fought on both sides in ww1 he fought on most sides in every battle ever fought.
Are we afraid of standing alone?
Some one said all art came from God, some truely wonderful words and paintings songs and hims
Via however the hand and mind of man.

Dear Tony,

<<all religions have a common defining feature which is a belief in the supernatural>>

That's not a prerequisite. If that disturbs your relationship with God, then either find a religion without this element, or start one yourself.

<<this is all just stuff people have made up because people like to tell stories. Stories are nice but they aren't the same thing as reality.>>

Indeed stories are not reality, but they help many at one stage or another to come closer to the reality of God and remove some obstacles on the way. If they don't serve you at this time, then simply don't use them.

Sonofgloin <"Suse, that a racial group becomes numerically dominant over another is not an issue. That they impose their culture and religions on others is, and that is the prime agenda of Islam."

Gee, that sounds exactly like what happened to the Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, and Native Africans.... Only it wasn't Islam there was it?

Yuyitsu, your invisible person in the sky is your 'reality', not mine, and not for many others either.
Mankind may well have felt the need for sight unseen beings who they could 'pray' to with no result back in the good ol days, but most of us can now think for ourselves...

Dear Suse,

<<but most of us can now think for ourselves...>>

Right on! Pity so few use that ability of theirs.

Included in that are many among those who consider themselves religious but still believe that God is up in the sky, or pray with the expectation of material gain, as if God was an ATM. You are doing better and likely to be more religious by not believing at all than to believe in such notions.

I don't think so sonofgloin.

Wikipedia Definition of religious .... something I am not.

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.

I don't want to upset religious people though, because I know that belief in a God can bring a lot of comfort in certain situations.

Sorry, I addressed my post to sonofgloin, when I meant to say Yuyitsu...

Dear Suse,

I appreciate your sensitivity.

Belief in and reverence to God are closely related with religion, being excellent tools in the service of religion. This is why outsiders, including dictionary-makers, identify them as religion itself.

Etymologically however, the word "religion" comes from Latin "Re-Ligare" = "to bind [with God]".
Interestingly, the word "Yoga" means the same - which developed into the English word "Yoke" = "to unite" or "to attach".

Belief and reverence are some means of binding with God, but so are humility, service, kindness, introspection, ritual, learning, charity, purity, keeping fit and healthy and others.

Not all means suit all people at all times and not in the same measures.

Yuyitsu, all those things can be attributed to anyone with a kind heart and humanity, and not necessarily need a belief in a God.
I have met many 'good' people who also happen to not believe in a God.
I am sure you have too.
By the same token I have also met some truly nasty religious people.
Thus, belief in a God or religion does not have a mandate on good behaviour...

One can discuss the philosophy of deity "belief" or non "belief" till the cows come home, **BUT**, only one thing matters ........ does a deity/deities exist? The answer is "no". That one fact is more profound than ALL the religious beliefs and non beliefs invented by mankind since the dawn of humanity.

Therefore, end of story.

There's a HUGE difference between a belief that no deities exist, and a statement that says "no deities exist".

As I said, "the answer is no, therefore, end of story."

Eventually, probably it'll take another 10,000 years or so, science will provide all the answers regarding existence, the beginning (if there was one) and the end (if there will be one). Then there will be no intellectual need for "belief". Humanity will then finally be fully educated and aware.

No deities exist. End of story. Next subject please .....

Dear Suse,

You are perfectly right.

We are talking here about 3 different concepts:
1) Belief in God.
2) Religion.
3) Being a good person.

There is some correlation between those three, but they are all different and one can find people with any combination of the above.

Dear Pete,

Our current society places too much emphasis on existence.
Knowing what exists and what doesn't is not such a big deal.
Yes, science may find out about it, including the beginning and the end (if we don't destroy ourselves earlier).
So what? I see nothing profound about it because existence itself is superficial.

I don't know whether deities exist - you would probably need to define "deity" pretty well before we can give an intelligent answer.
Personally however, I don't find this question interesting enough.
But just to remove any doubt, God is not a deity.

Yes, I am aware that there are quite a few people who believe that God is a deity - they are mistaken, but if it helps them to come closer to God, then so be it, good for them.

As I explained to Suse, belief in God is just one possible technique out of many to come close to Him. Belief is a mental activity - it helps some, but can hinder others.

For the next subject, click on "Forum Main Page".

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/womans-death-shows-risks-of-putting-the-church-before-civil-law-20121118-29k4w.html
Welcome back DiamondPete, missed you.
However, ALWAYS all views have a right to be heard.
The link is about an unneeded death.
It reports weeks before,note that, the death of this woman in IRELAND she was told her child was dead.
But was refused abortion because of a law based on religion, not true law, she could not abort.
IRELAND! a land torn for a century by two sides fighting for the SAME GOD!
a non existent one.
My respect for suseonline is without reserve.
But men and women do think differently.
WOMEN are, in my view, victimized by followers of God, any God.
As God IS A CONTROL THING,HE/SHE HELPS some men control women.
Walking behind men, try it with most and wait your punishment.
It will not be hundreds or thousands of years before religion is a minor belief for most.
But the influences bad and good may take longer to leave in the caves.

Dear Belly,

<<WOMEN are, in my view, victimized by followers of God, any God.>>

What evidence have you that those people follow God? Just because they say so?

<<As God IS A CONTROL THING,HE/SHE HELPS some men control women.>>

Wrong. God is not a control thing and has nothing to do with it - it's only people who abuse God's name for their selfish agenda who do such things.

<<But was refused abortion because of a law based on religion>>

Wrong again. The law in question is based on the social ideas of a particular religious order, not on religion.

<<IRELAND! a land torn for a century by two sides fighting for the SAME GOD!>>

Wrong again, although both claimed that they were fighting for God, they were in fact fighting for political domination of their respective religious orders.

suseonline>> Gee, that sounds exactly like what happened to the Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, and Native Africans.... Only it wasn't Islam there was it?<<

Yes Suse the irony in your comment is appreciated because it is correct.

But without defending the previous crimes and genocide, my only caveat is that we are now living in the 21st century and first world society has evolved. That is why the Caucasians in the first world have a break even birth rate.

Maybe, Yuyutsu. But then again, maybe not.

>>Etymologically however, the word "religion" comes from Latin "Re-Ligare" = "to bind [with God]".<<

The OED is deliberately equivocal on this matter.

The Latin root, according to Cicero, was relegere, to read again. "Later authors", says the OED, connected it with religare - to bind again - "the latter view has usually been favoured by modern writers in explaining the force of the word by its supposed etymological meaning".

Note the gentle admonition in the use of "supposed", pointing out that the favoured meaning was retrospectively applied. A convenient manipulation of history, one that religions everywhere seem to be unable to resist.

Incidentally, I'm not at all sure that you are on the same page as the rest of us. To the vast majority of people, a) a deity is just another word for a god, b) religion consists of a form of worship of a particular deity and c) belief is what separates atheists from religionists.

Arguing against each of these in such an absolute and tendentious manner places you, as I see it, firmly outside the discussion, not within it.

Just repeating stuff like "wrong" and "wrong again" is definitely getting your own personal message across. But unfortunately, because it has no contact points with what the rest are talking about here, it is just unnecessary noise.

When I see 20 youth off the Street decide to come into our Church youth service deliberately to creat trouble, and leave initially changed I can ignore the question,"do we need religon?" Youth having problems with their families, personal relationships, the Law, and struggling with self worth. Atheists have no organised set up to deal with these problems where youth attend.

Dear Pericles,

I think we have been on that page before, there is a documented dispute between Cicero and the others. I have no time to get into it today, but I think I've made it quite clear what I mean when I refer to "religion", even though it's the view of some and not others.

When being asked, "Religion do we need it?" and when such horrible atrocities (by ordinary men) are attributed to God, it is only natural that I must come to religion's defense.

The reason you attribute those a-b-c assumptions "To the vast majority of people" is that the dominant religion in Australia is Christianity. Those statements may be true for Christians (and the other Abrahamic religions), but this thread (and Belly's report about that Indian/Irish woman) challenges all religions, not just Christianity or the Abrahamic religions - how then can you expect me to stay out of this discussion?

<<a) a deity is just another word for a god>>
Exactly. There may be many gods, but I would ignore them and worship God alone.
If you find it hard to differentiate, here is a simple test: if it exists, then it's a god, not God.

<<b) religion consists of a form of worship of a particular deity>>
That's a valid religious practice or technique, which many find useful, but it doesn't encompass the whole of religion.

<<c) belief is what separates atheists from religionists.>>
Depends what you call "religionists" - do you count me as one?
Nothing prevents one from being an atheist AND religious at the same time. Buddhism is a common example.

It might be nice to just try - really try - having a truly secular society. This would mean no funding for religions, including religious schools, unless all discrimination (for both students and staff) is abolished, or for clients of religious charities - if religions can't see their way to abolishing discrimination, then they are welcome to operate without public funding. All religious content in schools would be taught outside of class time, and only to those who opted to receive it. School chaplains would be removed and replaced with qualified school counsellors. Religions would have to pay local council rates and state property taxes, only receiving reductions or exemptions if the property is used for a charitable or non profit purpose, or was a heritage item (ie provides a public good of some kind) - this would mean profitable private schools would have to pay rates and taxes. In all schools, ethics classes would be part of the curriculum, and scripture/religious lessons offered outside of class time. Public schools would offer classrooms and resources free for scripture lessons, but only outside of class time. Just think of the revenue gain to local councils, state governments, and public schools (as public schools would get the money removed from schools like the exclusive brethren ones who are certain not to be willing to remove discrimination). We all pay a lot for subsidizing religion, even if we are atheists.

Apartheid, remember that, my methods may have lacked social acceptance but still.
I protested against it, because in my view all men are or should be equal.
A recent arrival and rare for that time, from Somalia, a Confirmed and active CHRISTIAN.
Lectured me.
You should not take on Gods work, if he wants it to change it will.
There is the danger of belief in fantasy's.
We each of us,should be accountable for our own actions.
Y wants me to beg a non existent God I will not do so.
Humanity must get things done not let them lay at the feet of idols.

I'm not entirely sure that lets you of the hook, Yuyutsu.

>>...there is a documented dispute between Cicero and the others. I have no time to get into it today, but I think I've made it quite clear what I mean when I refer to "religion"<<

But what you actually said was:

>>Etymologically however, the word "religion" comes from Latin "Re-Ligare" = "to bind [with God]"<<

Tut tut. Nothing at all about "this is what I personally mean by religion". Also, you have to agree, there is absolutely nothing etymologically inherent in "religare" that indicates a god of any kind. Another convenient afterthought by the religious, methinks.

>>...when such horrible atrocities (by ordinary men) are attributed to God, it is only natural that I must come to religion's defense.<<

That's odd, too. It never occurred to me that God was directly to blame for man's atrocities. But you have to admit that a great many have been committed "in His name", do you not. And by association, in the name of [insert any one of many religious affiliations here].

I also disagree that the definitions are relevant to Christians only. These simple concepts are accepted by the vast majority of all religious people, not just Australian Christians.

A deity = a god; religion = worship of a deity; religious people believe in a deity, atheists don't. Which of these would anyone - even a Buddhist - object to?.

>>Nothing prevents one from being an atheist AND religious at the same time. Buddhism is a common example<<

Not really. This statement does not square your definition of religious, for a start (Reminder: "the word "religion" comes from Latin "Re-Ligare" = "to bind [with God]".)

So if they are "binding with God", Buddhists cannot be atheist.

Also, I suspect that even his disciples would like to think of the Buddha's teachings as something a little more meaningful than a cutely-worded self-help manual.

Josephus <" Atheists have no organised set up to deal with these problems where youth attend."

Where on earth did you get that idea from?
You are suggesting that all atheists can't deal with youth problems?
How do you know which youth workers are atheist and which aren't?
Do you even know any atheists ?

God believers do not have a mandate on goodness Josephus.
There are good and bad amongst all of us.

wobbles “To reject something means you accept its existence”

No “God” is a concept. One can reject a concept, whether it has any factual basis or not. It's all theoretical, as is science. This is why scientists reject theories that other scientists accept. All human conceptions, whether religious or scientific are *theoretical*. We can accept or reject the concepts people have conceived so far.

“Religion dictates that you act only for the sake of avoiding punishment or to gain a personal reward”
And this differs from secular law and custom how?

Tony Lavis “Stories are nice but they aren't the same thing as reality”

There are a myriad of persons who have experienced some “supernatural” phenomena of one type or another. Just because you haven't, doesn't mean their experience wasn't real.

Johnj “It might be nice to just try - really try - having a truly secular society.”
We have. It failed. See: Soviet Russia, Communist China.

DiamondPete "the answer is no, therefore, end of story."
No, the answer is “I don't know”, therefore atheist stupid, agnostic intelligent. End of story.

Suseonline “You are suggesting that all atheists can't deal with youth problems?”
Do you have the number for the Atheist Youth Outreach Hotline?

“Gee, that sounds exactly like what happened to the Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, and Native Africans”
And gee, that was a bad thing, right? So why is it a good thing when *we* get overrun by alien peoples?

I find it ironic that it's fanatical atheists and their new religion of political correctness (Thou shalt not be racist, Thou shalt not be sexist, etc), which attempts to rid mankind of its “sins”, are the most ardent defenders of Muslim immigration, Muslims being among the most intolerant, politically incorrect people on Earth.

The science-is-all atheists often promote a mechanical, physical model that's long been redundant. Today's scientists are speaking of "consciousness" creating the universe as we speak. Isn't this “consciousness” just the “God” so many mystics intuited and wizards channeled?

I agree churches and religious schools should not get tax breaks or public funding.

Shockadelic, neither communist China nor Soviet Russia count as secular societies - and certainly not secular democratic societies. In both cases dictators (Mao, Stalin) set themselves up as "godheads" and ruthlessly suppressed all other religions. Almost by definition, that's not secular.

Shockadelic, do you know if ALL youth workers in all organizations believe in a God?
Does it really matter?
Do you honestly think that a person has to believe in an invisible being in the sky before they can be good or helpful to others?
No, of course not.

Shockadelic, since when was Australia "...overrun by alien people..."? (Since the Europeans overrun it, that is!)
Australia is a secular, multicultural country that is highly prized as a destination of choice for immigrants and asylum seekers the world over.
We must be doing something right...

All the arguing, rationalisation, philosophy, punishment threats, twisting of words, denials, belief etc etc etc can't negate one simple fact .... no deities exist.

No deities.

No spirits.

No ghosts.

No demons.

No gods.

No hell.

No angels.

No God.

No purgatory.

No devil.

No heaven.

However, because current knowledge of existence is so markedly tiny, "belief" in the supernatural flourishes amongst many different types of people. Nothing whatsoever will sway many of them from their "belief". They have a right to "believe" whatever they choose, and no right at all to impose those "beliefs" upon any society.

In a free society, people have the right to believe, the right to not believe, and others have the right to make a different stand ... one that says "no deities exist".

Supernatural existence is an invented concept by mankind. Throughout history, the concept has been used for the purposes of control. The more educated, informed and free a region becomes, then the concept becomes less controlling. The concept had it's roots in ancient, ignorant and uneducated times that date back to many tens of thousands of years before the birth of the 2 main current beliefs, Islam and Christianity. Modern Christians are often in utter denial about the horrendously evil and violent history of Christianity (just as historically violent as Islam), and are experts at making "excuses" for the history.

Have we noticed Christians, some of them are non-beivers too?
The strongest supporters here seem fixed on religion being about their God no other.
Yet their God came from,is the Jewish one.
500 years after,the Islamic one came from the same source.
How about Budda.
What about EVERY OTHER God.
EACH we are told by the followers made this world.
Why is Y trying to tell us it it is wrong not to believe, but does he in all these others
Who of us believes in Scientology God.
The exclusive Brethren God, seemingly fixed on cash and property.
Those American television preaches, some who went from Diamond studded Mansions and great wealth to Prison, who follows their God.
Can the Catholic Child Molesters believe in God?
Are they contentedly waiting still for a place in heaven.

It's a wonder NASA hasn't come across this heaven as yet, if it exists.
I think compost is the closest anyone will ever get to heaven.
The whole idea of religion belongs in ancient times, when people believed in after life. There's enough people in the world now, without being told birth control is against the church rules.
Religion needs to be outlawed, then everyone will be equal, heathens.

secular. adjective. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal.

Nothing about democracy there, Johnj. The only way you would ever get a "state" that's 100% "secular" (which in your statement appeared to mean *all* political agents have no religious motives or agendas whatsoever) is through dictatorship.

A democracy, in a liberal society, with candidacy open to all citizens, inevitably results in the election of *some* people with religious perspectives, inevitably influencing their decisions.

Suseonline, the question was put to you that there's no "organised set up" by atheists for social problems, like atheist counseling, atheist food kitchens, atheist homeless hostels. Where are they?

"since when was Australia "...overrun by alien people..."? (Since the Europeans overrun it, that is!)"

Today's immigration is highly discordant with our ethnic history, with 3 out of 4 immigrants arriving in the last decade being non-European.
You admit *Europeans" overrun Australia, which makes "Australians" what, susie? European, not "the world over".

What happened to the Aborigines is happening to us, only slower. Inevitably "Australians" (i.e. descendants of those European overrunners) are perpetually declining as a *proportion* of the population. But that's okay, because white people are evil, right?

DiamondPete "Nothing whatsoever will sway many of them from their "belief""
Or you from yours. You don't have a "fact", you have an opinion.

Belly, you equate the religion of a criminal with their crimes. There are atheists who molest children, defraud little old ladies of their life savings and promote bogus life solutions. Is that also a product of their atheism?

Atheists are the first to link the religious to crime, but the crimes of the irreligious (e.g. Stalin) are somehow nothing to do with their irreligiosity.

579 "It's a wonder NASA hasn't come across this heaven as yet, if it exists."
And you call others ignorant. The concept is not part of the physical universe, genius.
"Religion needs to be outlawed"
By your "secular" state? Secular meaning no involvement in religious affairs?
Do you even understand the concepts of "liberty", "privacy" or "individual sovereignty"?

Sorry shock a, not buying that.
Any Sunday count those in Church, and at the same time those at the local club.
Club is not teaching fear and loathing, or promising things it can not deliver.
But has decreasingly more followers.
Any thoughts, would you care to give us your views on all the other religions?

Dear Pericles,

So there is a dispute about the meaning of the word "religion". I think that it stems from the difference between viewing religion from inside or from outside. An outsider would naturally pick on the visible activities of those inside, so suppose they see an orthodox Jew swaying to-and-fro in his prayer or a swirling Dervish, they may conclude that religion is a kind of physical exercise.

From the inside, I can say that the only meaning of "religion" I care for is binding with God.
However, you have a point, so let Belly who started this thread clarify exactly what he meant: is it "Connecting with God who needs it?" or "worshiping a deity who needs it?". Let also "579" who plans to outlaw religion specify his exact criteria as to which of us he intends to throw in concentration camps - are they the ones who worship a deity or the ones who are coming closer to God (including the atheists amongst them).

This discussion may change direction based on their answers, but at least I will be able to tell whether I am being blamed for the atrocious actions of some stupid Irish people; or just shrug it off as a lingual misunderstanding.

<<So if they are "binding with God", Buddhists cannot be atheist.>>

Why? They may believe Buddha's words that "there is no God", yet continue practicing the noble eightfold path which leads to God.

My point cannot be summarised any better than by the story of Buddha being asked "Does God exist?":
I would love to quote it here, but it's too long, so here is the link: http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Stories/Conditioning/Buddha_explaining_existence_of_God.htm

Dear Belly,

<<Y wants me to beg a non existent God>>

I don't recall anything like it, can you please provide a reference?

Shokerdelic Liberty, privacy, individual sovereignty.
Some how this is tied to religion.
When religion has rules that effect the rest of the nation, that means it effects me, being a non religious person.
Door knockers, Contraception, Govt; handouts, religious opinions, abortion.
If you want your church you pay for it.
And stick your door knockers where they fit.
When you are dead you are on your way to compost.

Fact = no deities exist. Not opinion, not belief, not non belief. It's a straightforward statement that's 100% factual.

Fact = anyone has the right to believe.

Fact = anyone has the right to not believe.

Fact = nobody has the right to force their belief, or non belief, on others.

Fact = mankind's intellectual biology it still at a VERY primitive level. Science is in it's mere infancy. Within the next 10,000 or so years, when all existence is eventually decoded by science, belief in the supernatural will be a thing of the long distant past and viewed as primitive and uninformed.

In a free society, people must be allowed to have any religious/supernatural beliefs they wish to have, as long as they don't attempt to force those beliefs on others. History has shown that many religious denominations (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam ... plus dozens of others) have used varied and diverse methods of force and coercion upon societies and regions .... in the name of their invented deities (yes, even Buddhism has denominations that believe in, and worship, gods).

Dear "579",

How is it that it's the same people who despise religion who also despise liberty, privacy and individual sovereignty!

<<When religion has rules that effect the rest of the nation>>

Trying (by using "rest") to Imply that religious people were also part of your nation?
Nay, religious people belong to the Kingdom of God, not your petty silly nation!
You count them in without their consent, but that's of course typical to those who have no respect for liberty, privacy and individual sovereignty.

<<If you want your church you pay for it.>>

I agree, but isn't there a contradiction? 6:34:13 hours earlier you stated that "Religion needs to be outlawed", how come you changed your mind in between?

<<And stick your door knockers where they fit.>>

The vast majority of those who come knocking on my door are employed by greedy secular companies who want my money, the religious being but a few in between. If we had individual sovereignty in this country, then door-knocking would be considered criminal trespassing. You could then even put a sign warning them that your door is electrocuted, so if they attempted knocking on it they would drop dead and their relatives charged for the costs of removing their corpse from your property.

<<When you are dead you are on your way to compost.>>

When I'm dead I will no longer have to worry about being dispatched to your gulags or secular re-education camps.
When I'm dead, no one will be able to try interfere with my relationship with God!

Y you use the word despise? then give thoughts to those you claim despise?
I think you draw a long bow.
In relation to your wish to twist the threads purpose?
Include if you wish, any God deity.
Any creator any moral anchor any fable you wish.
But lets not duck and dive to avoid the ultimate challenge.
Did man invent all Gods, my answer yes, do we still need them to face fear of the dark?.
Dieing, loss of loved ones, never seeing them again.
Mans mind is inventive.
The first God may have been a mothers invention on a black stormy night to quieten children.
Do we need our mum forever.

Dear Belly,

Sorry, but you keep attributing to me things I have not said, then accusing me of saying them.

You claim that I asked you to beg God (existent or otherwise) while I wrote nothing like it.

You keep referring to God as a deity, a creator and as one who causes fear in children and the death of loved ones, then address it to me despite me saying the opposite.

Either you don't care to read what I write or am unable to differentiate between my words and those of others (probably Christians) that you read or hear around you.

I put much effort into choosing my words here and making my statements as accurate as possible. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, then please try to concentrate and do the same.

In my discussion with Pericles, I found it important to understand your definition of the word "religion" as you introduced the title:

"Religion do we need it?"

Would you be kind enough to provide us with your own understanding of the word "religion" in the context of this title?

Thank you.

Shockadelic "Suseonline, the question was put to you that there's no "organised set up" by atheists for social problems, like atheist counseling, atheist food kitchens, atheist homeless hostels. Where are they?"

And I asked how do you know all the people who work or volunteer in these "organized set ups" believe in a God?

Atheists don't believe there is a God, any God.

Why on on earth would a group of atheists set up a help organization and label it "atheist"? They are not trying to get out there and spread the word about their God and use their good works as an advertisement for a religion are they?
Maybe they just quietly get out there and get things done without the need to advertise their beliefs or non-beliefs?

Why can't we just have help organizations that are secularly named, rather than feeling the need to advertise their religion at the same time ?

Belly “Sorry shock a, not buying that.”
Not buying what?

“would you care to give us your views on all the other religions?”

I consider Islam more than a religion. It is societal totalitarianism.
I actually admire the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Taoism), but none of them are part of our history.

579 “Shokerdelic Liberty, privacy, individual sovereignty.
Some how this is tied to religion.”

Ah, yes, very much so. And to your proposed prohibition.
These concepts also permit your own atheism.
If you want to live somewhere you are told what you can think, please leave. I won't be joining you.

“When religion has rules that effect the rest of the nation, that means it effects me, being a non religious person.”

Atheists are guilty of the same interference (e.g. getting public displays of Christianity removed from schools, courts).

Everyone affects everyone, that's just part of living *communally*.
Don't like it, find yourself a desert island where you can live alone.

“If you want your church you pay for it.”

Agreed. But you stated before "outlaw" it.

“When you are dead you are on your way to compost.”

Your physical body is. Our social customs and laws even honour the dead (You can't defile a corpse, vandalise graves).
Do you propose we cease showing such respect for “compost”?

Suseonline “rather than feeling the need to advertise their religion at the same time?”

The religious ones are doing what they do *because* of their beliefs. Why shouldn't they state so?

“And I asked how do you know all the people who work or volunteer in these "organized set ups" believe in a God?”

Because the sign above the door says so. Why would an atheist join?

“Why on earth set up a help organization and label it "atheist"? They are not trying to get out there and spread the word...”

Why not? Maybe then you wouldn't be accused of doing nothing!
Maybe you could get to those lost youth's impressionable minds before the bible bashers do.

Don't tell me you don't want to spread your message. Just look at this thread!

I've never heard of atheists "...getting public displays of Christianity removed from schools, courts." Shockadelic?
I do agree that publicly funded secular schools should not favour one religion over another, or be seen to promote religion at all. If one wants their children taught about religion, then send them to a religious school.

Atheists don't promote anything Shockadelic, they merely don't believe in unicorns, vampires, Gods, aliens or any other fairy tales.
I agree though, that no one should knock what others believe or don't believe, as long as those beliefs are not forced on unwilling people or do not affect governments decisions.

In the final analysis, only 3 words matter in this topic ....

(1) No

(2) deities

(3) exist

They are the 3 most profound, and accurate, words so far in this topic.

Y you fish in a dry water hole.
My reference was to all who follow a God, you must have known that but used it to?
Lets be honest, who is uncertain about what I meant by religion?
Not referring to butchers or bakers was I.
A negative this morning can be found about religion, it could have been any one.
Once we let our fantasy's get involved in law making we suffer.
It was about the young Christian girl, set up by an aged and bigoted Muslim teacher, in the name of his version of the one God.
How blind are we? letting a primitive by nature religion , parts of its followers, threaten the worlds very peace, in the name of?
As is the case with every God,a phantasy's of our forefathers making.
WE DO think Gods of ancient Greece and Egypt never existed,we would most of us, say they are inventions.
Trace some of them back to Sun worship, but stall at opening our eyes to those we cling to.

Dear Pericles,

Can you help me interpret Belly's words?
They are like the Greek oracle (sometimes even like the bible) - one can interpret them any way they want.

<<My reference was to all who follow a God>>

Well, everyone follows God, even the butchers and the bakers - some do it consciously others not, some believe so, others not, but ultimately that's the direction we're all heading to, whether or not we've ever seen or heard about a church or a synagogue or a mosque or a temple.

Belly's use of the word "follow" can be read either as "all who approach (come behind) God", or "all who worship (serve) God", but the later is not the same as worshiping a deity because God isn't a deity; or it could be read in a dozen other ways.

He then turns to tell us about abuse by Muslims, etc. - of course if that's what he means by "religion" then we don't need it, but then he could just the same refer to the pie which was burnt in the oven and came out overcooked as "religion", then claim that it's something we don't need.

I wish God knew what Belly means, but I'm afraid He doesn't.

As for the writing of others, the idea came to me that perhaps several people here are mixing up the Abrahamic model with religion. These are not the same of course, but perhaps it's that idea as if they were which got stuck in people's minds. In that case, it can then be fruitful to have here a discussion titled: "The Abrahamic model, do we need it?"

Hi Yuyutsu,

Regarding "confusion"....your own words are a little that way also.

From my previous understanding of your notions of the concept of "God", you believe that we are already God, indeed that everything is already God, and that we (as humans) are on a journey to that realisation.....yes?

So your referring to God as "He" is a little puzzling.

Yuyitsu, I find your thoughts far more confusing than Belly's!
We all know what is meant by religion, and I don't feel it is as relevant in today's world as it used to be.
Many want to believe in Gods, but I don't believe there are any Gods.
Is that plain enough?

Dear Poirot,

You couldn't summarize my view any better!

Thank you for pointing this out and please rest assured that I have no gender considerations in mind.
I simply use the English notion of a capital 'H' to indicate respect and reverence.

Note that "It", can be very misleading because it refers to objects (which God isn't):
perhaps I should instead use 'She' half the time?

Yuyutsu,

If I was you, I'd avoid gender references altogether. "It" can also refer to other more nebulous ideological/psychological entities...but maybe there is another designation just waiting to be thought of - a bit of a challenge for you perhaps : )

Y! Gday bloke can I say your self confidence is sadly miss placed.
I graduated with the highest levels,in GBR and MBC.
Garbage bin removal, and Milk Bottle Collecting.
In a school of at its smallest 13, got honorable mention for drawing a nude girl during scriptures.
Now that smarmy put the other bloke down, pretend I do not understand.
Is clear evidence, education is wasted on some.
Over my shoulder ABC news is reporting Gaza.
And tells us the hundred plus deaths so far, an awful toll, is not being morned as much.
Because Martyrdom is respected over there.
Sad is it not, deaths for a God, any God, all Gods, who never existed.
Took the wheely bin up , did it very well.
No milk bottles now, but as a lad the teacher picked me to collect them.
Said it kept me out of the class longer.

http://christianity.net.au/questions/what_is_religion_do_we_need_it_and_if_so_why
Thought I would duck back and drop this in your lap Y.
Has an interesting view of the word you wanted.
Still a God bothers thing, must dash bringing the bin home.

Belly,

I suspect Yuyutsu would say that the destruction taking place in Gaza has nothing whatsoever to do with God - that it has everything to do with what goes on in the minds of men...who are, for all their intelligence, quite base and carnal creatures whose real talents lie in their ingenuity to invent more diabolical and expedient ways to kill and maim their own kind.

What other earthly creature attacks its fellows as does man, (aside from ants and occasionally rats)?

Not sure I can, Yuyutsu.

>>Dear Pericles, Can you help me interpret Belly's words?<<

But they are as gently flowing crystal water, compared with your own musings.

>>Well, everyone follows God, even the butchers and the bakers - some do it consciously others not, some believe so, others not, but ultimately that's the direction we're all heading to, whether or not we've ever seen or heard about a church or a synagogue or a mosque or a temple.<<

It is the involuntary nature of these followings that muddy the waters so. If, as you suggest, I am "following God" whether or not I am aware that I am doing so, and whether or not I accept that there is such a thing (or equally, a non-thing) how are you able to detect this movement?

It is not sufficient to say "you just do", by the way. That would be a complete cop-out.

Add to this your confusing claim that God simultaneously exists and does not exist - much like Schrodinger's damn' cat - and Belly becomes the very model of clarity and substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Another definition of the word religion.
And the advice it is thought 4.200 different ones exist.
Poirot I understand.
But find it impossible to separate those acts done in the name of God, by his/her followers.
In fact the very reason I think we must confront Gods, is the things we do, in the name of nonexistent Gods.
How do we consider the 4.200 Gods?
Each loved cherished and followed.
Have we the right to say 4.199 are rubbish?
And is a unified human race possible if we continue to squabble over God?
Is that the out come a divine God would find good?

Suseonline I've never heard of atheists "...getting public displays of Christianity removed from schools, courts."

By your own statements, you want all reference to religion removed from schools. Hello!
If it isn't atheists demanding the removal of crosses from hospital chapels, ten commandments plaques from courts or prayer from anywhere, then who is? Not the majority Christian population!

“or be seen to promote religion at all. If one wants their children taught about religion, then send them to a religious school.”

Religion is part of the world/society we live in.
It's one period a week, and you don't even have to attend! I never did.
Me and the other exemptions just sat in the playground and caught up on homework. Big deal.

DiamondPete 3 words. Dietyless religions exist.
3 words. Certainty is impossible.

Belly “WE DO think Gods of ancient Greece and Egypt never existed.”

Quit it with the “we” stuff. Each person has their own opinion. Say "I think".
Most of the god-forms exist in all religions. They just have different names.
The essential meaning of each archetypal element is the same. (e.g. fertility, death, war, art).
The notion of gods is that these essential forces may indeed exist as distinct entities beyond our own consciousness.
Can you know for sure they don't?

BTW To everyone presuming I actually adhere to any known faith, I don't.
As Frida once sang, "I know there's something going on".
I'm just not sure what. I certainly think there's more going on than just atoms and flesh.

I respond to these tiresome "debates" only because a Devil's Advocate (pun intended) is rarely heard.
Just the usual crowd of atheist Veruca Salts, stamping their feet and pouting because everyone doesn't agree with them.

>>I certainly think there's more going on than just atoms and flesh.<<

Like an energy field created by all living things that surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together?

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Poirot,

<<I suspect Yuyutsu would say that the destruction taking place in Gaza has nothing whatsoever to do with God>>

In broad terms yes, but to be precise, since everything is God, even Gaza, I would have said that what happens in Gaza has no more to do with God than tasting ice-cream.

Dear Pericles,

<<It is the involuntary nature of these followings>>

Just as riding on planet earth, you follow it around the sun - I didn't hear you complaining about that.
At least while following God you can always [almost] stop, rest and watch the view.

<<how are you able to detect this movement?>>

Did I say I can?

<<Add to this your confusing claim that God simultaneously exists and does not exist>>

Have I not made it clear that God does not exist?

Anything that exists has defects (if nothing else it has the defect of not being able to not exist).
Abrahamic followers claim on the one hand that God exists, and on the other hand that He has no defects. That's a contradiction!

Western culture places a disproportional emphasis on existence.
Why should existence be a condition for love and worship?
that's just a prejudice!

Of course if you are out to gain something, then you would look for an existent body that can provide it. If you treat your deity as a provider, then you attempt to bargain with it, to please it. True love, however, is not asking for anything, hence existence should not be required.

Dear Belly,

Perhaps there are 4200 deities as you say (though I doubt there's even one), but personally I have no interest in mere deities.

<<And is a unified human race possible if we continue to squabble over God?>>

Why only humans, what about all others?
Once you realise that you are God and so is everyone else, then you are united with them!

Yuyitsu <"By your own statements, you want all reference to religion removed from schools. Hello!"

Is that right? Where did I say that?

I was only talking about public supposedly secular schools as you well know.
There aren't enough atheists around to make much of a difference to what happens at public hospitals or schools, surely?

I would suggest that it is more often political correctness within Government owned institutions that lead to the removal of religious symbols of Christianity in places where there are many other religions and cultures that don't want to be swamped by Christian symbols?

Deities don't exist.

A singular deity doesn't exist.

Gods don't exist.

A singular god doesn't exist.

The human species is not God.

God is not the human species.

Nature is neither a deity, deities, god or gods or God or Gods.

They are the FACTS. The more educated and informed humans become, the less likely we are as a whole to believe in ancient, uneducated myths and superstitions.

Long live knowledge, science, education and freedom. These four things are "slowly" bringing us out of the dark ages. The old, ignorant myths and superstitions will eventually be a thing of the past.

Dear Pete,

I see no point in a engaging in a shouting match with you about what is and what isn't, etc.
- it's fruitless, I have no use for a hoarse throat and it wouldn't change reality one iota anyway!

I only refer to one of your sentences:

<<Long live knowledge, science, education and freedom.>>

Does 'knowledge' accommodate anything but that particular part of objective knowledge that can be ascertained by scientific empirical evidence?

Does 'science' accommodate non-empirical science?

Does 'education' accommodate any teachings that are not based on empirical science and objective information?

Does 'freedom' accommodate the freedom to worship, follow and live by what either doesn't exist or is deemed by yourself or by the regime of the day as non-existent?

Or are the above to be surpressed in your ideal world and their practitioners jailed, tortured, killed or forcibly brain-washed in secular re-education camps?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Nice "strawman" argument there Yuyu. I love the way you twist my words to mean something different, then you conclude with a series of "implied" assertions regarding my world "implying" that this is what I believe in.

This strawman technique enables you to then adopt the high moral ground, by arguing against something that I didn't actually say, and against a way of life and retribution that I don't remotely condone (clearly you have not bothered to properly read my other posts here on this topic where I address certain issues regarding your accusations).

Then you say I'm shouting at you .... because you have no logical reply to my previous post. You've been shown the facts of life, and it annoys you immensely. So you pretend you're being shouted at. Are you trying to gain the sympathy vote?

Nice try Yuyu. Believe me, you are no God. You are as mortal as any creature on this planet.

The 4 pillars of an informed populace:

(1) Education ..... encompassing ALL knowledge available

(2) Science .... encompassing ALL knowledge available

(3) Knowledge .... logical conclusions encompassing ALL knowledge available

(4) Freedom .... a byproduct of education, science and knowledge. An informed populace is MUCH more likely to be a free populace.

"Some" believers of old myths and superstitions are quite anti education, science, knowledge and freedom for all. Why? Because the possession of these 4 things empowers people, and makes it very much harder to control them and subject them to myths and superstitions.

Dear Pete,

I acknowledge that you haven't said such things on the violent side, but your friend "579" did, so I was simply enquiring whether or not you hold similar views to his. I am glad you don't!

I am not a creature. My association with a creature (a homo-sapiens, so it happens to be) is of a very temporary nature, rarely lasting over 100 years. My body is mortal, my memories are mortal, but that has nothing to do with who and what I am.

If you want, I have no objection to a civilised discussion on the points you raised, just please not at this uncivilised time of night.

Just saw your new post, please rest assured that I am not among those who object to education, science, knowledge and freedom. None of those clashes with religion.

Yuyu, you are 100% "creature", just like every other living thing on this planet.

You are 100% mortal. You are not immortal, nor are you supernatural.

When you die you will not come back, nor will you live on.

Death means death.

These are the facts.

You are also 100% entitled to believe in any superstition you wish to embrace, regarding your perceptions of mortality and immortality, or anything else whatsoever.

Y R U OK?
Seems to me some one different is posting in your name.
Never had any trouble following you before.
Did you read the link?
How did you get the word dietys,not Gods out of it.
Do you think just a little,your words do little to support any God?
What are we to think of the other 4.199 Gods?
What do you think of them, remembering current thought is freedom to follow your own God is assured?
If we invent many more Gods we can have 5 for every day of the year and are serve bench in case of injury,s.

>>Does 'knowledge' accommodate anything but that particular part of objective knowledge that can be ascertained by scientific empirical evidence?<<

Yes. Knowledge gained through science is a posteriori but you can have a priori knowledge. Consider the following claims: all bachelors are unmarried; cubes have six sides; if today is Tuesday then today is not Thursday; red is a color; seven plus five equals twelve. I have good reasons for thinking each of these claims is true, but the reasons do not appear to derive from experience. Rather, I seem able to see or apprehend the truth of these claims just by reflecting on their content.

>>Does 'science' accommodate non-empirical science?<<

There isn't any non-empirical science Yuyutsu. If it's not empirical it's not science: it's some variety of philosophy - another example of a priori knowledge.

>>Does 'education' accommodate any teachings that are not based on empirical science and objective information?<<

Yes. They're referred to collectively as the 'humanities' or the 'arts' and include disciplines such as art, theology and literature.

>>Does 'freedom' accommodate the freedom to worship, follow and live by what either doesn't exist or is deemed by yourself or by the regime of the day as non-existent?<<

You don't have the same constitutional protection of your beliefs that you would in the US but Australia's track record on this matter speaks for itself: we are an extremely tolerant society where people are free to worship as they please without fear of government persecution.

>>Or are the above to be surpressed in your ideal world and their practitioners jailed, tortured, killed or forcibly brain-washed in secular re-education camps?<<

No. And the only person who has suggested that they be or would seriously entertain the idea is you. What's up with that? Are you a self-hating New Ager?

Cheers,

Tony

"My body is mortal, my memories are mortal, but that has nothing to do with who and what I am."

Nothing? Really? Surely it might have something to do with it - could your memory be playing tricks?

I am an aggregation of quantum mechanical electron cloud probability densities... pleased to meet you.

Yuyutsu, merely for my own satisfaction, could you please reconcile for me these two statements that you have made on this thread.

>>There is nothing but God<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5473#149564

>>Have I not made it clear that God does not exist?<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5473#149748

In my simplistic, chemical-free brain, this equates to:

"There is nothing but non-existence".

If you believe this - and I actually suspect that you do - can you enlighten us as to how you are making these views known to us on this thread?

I have tried to visualize a non-corporeal energy force that causes messages to form themselves, but my poor imagination keeps falling short.

Any assistance you could give would be greatly appreciated. I guess it would help first of all if you were to let us know whether you have a corporeal existence or not.

On this planet.

Or even on this plane.

Pericles,

Perhaps what Yuyutsu is intimating is that "everything" (material) thus comprises of "an aggregation of quantum mechanical electron cloud probability densities" - and this where "existence" becomes a nebulous notion.

What is it....that 99.99 percent (or something to that effect:) of the atoms that comprise matter is vacuum?

Tony Lavis, “Like an energy field...”
Maybe. What if “energy” is more than physical. That would explain the persistence of “ghosts”.
Some part of their “energy” remains, despite the loss of the physical body.

Our bodies/brains perceptions can be altered by external (magic mushrooms) and internal (hormones/memories) factors.
Which is why I get so annoyed by people telling me they *know* what's “real”.

If a consciousness is creating the universe in real time, unicorns and dragons may have indeed been “real”.
No evidence of them now, the consciousness eliminated it from “reality”.
But it left titillating clues behind, like paintings and fairytales as a sly wink.

Belly “And is a unified human race possible if we continue to squabble over God?”

A unified species (not race, that term relates only to subdivisions not totalities) is impossible, whether we squabble about God or not.

Firstly, we'll still squabble about other political, economic, aesthetic, moral, ethical perspectives.

Secondly, there are too many distinct types to ever “unify” them.
Unlike other species, where all look and act the same (except for sex differentiation, shock horror feminists!)
We don't live as a species. We live as ethnicities.
We look and act in thousands of permutations, some related and some unrelated.

Suseonline “I was only talking about public supposedly secular schools as you well know.”

And.... you, an atheist, are demanding the elimination of religion from them. Then turn around and claim atheists are doing no such thing.

“There aren't enough atheists around...”

In these days of political “correctness” (cough), all it takes is *one* petulant complaint and out go the crosses, lest a frivolous lawsuit ensue.

“political correctness within Government owned institutions”

Yes, your *secular* government, secular supposedly meaning neutrality?

DiamondPete, you are just shouting. You present no argument, you just stand on your pedestal with your bullhorn, blasting all with your opinions and calling them “facts”.

“An informed populace is MUCH more likely to be a free populace.”

Free? To only think logically? To only follow orthodox authority/experts?
To never be wrong, defiant, stupid, crazy, absurd, ironic, devious?
I don't want your “freedom”.

Dear Pericles,

There is nothing but God. God does not exist, nor anything else in truth - existence is an illusion, a distorted perception of reality.

We perceive the objective plane by virtue of us all suffering from the same illusion.
(this does not exclude the possibility of others suffering a different illusion, but in that case we cannot communicate with them)

Religion is what takes you out of this illusion, from truth with a small 't' into Truth with a capital 'T'.

Dear Trevor,

<<I am an aggregation of quantum mechanical electron cloud probability densities... pleased to meet you.>>

Science tells us that the likelihood of any atom, probably any particle, remaining constantly in our body and especially in our brain for the decades from birth to death, is practically zilch.

Given that, it would require a miracle for our memories NOT to play tricks on us.

Now an interesting exercise: as an aggregation of quantum probabilities, should anything stop you from hopping along with the respective atoms from one brain to another?
(I wouldn't of course expect you to remember it if it happened)

Dear Tony,

Your suggestions are out of context: in the original context, 'knowledge', 'science', 'education' and 'freedom' were meant "as perceived by DiamondPete", not as commonly understood. In that context it was clear what we were referring to, rather than the examples you provided relating to the common understanding of those terms.

"579" suggested making religion illegal. What would he then do about those who refuse to forsake God? He could imprison some, but jails would soon become full, so the remaining options are turture, killing and concentration/re-education camps. This actually occurred in the past and still occurring in some countries.

Dear Belly,

Yes, thank you, I did read that link. I did also read many similar articles in the past. I don't think that Christian evangelism is relevant to our current discussion, nor are those 4200 little gods, the Christian/Abrahamic one being just one of them.

Following a particular deity (little-god) may help some to come closer to God, but it's not required.

>>What if “energy” is more than physical. That would explain the persistence of “ghosts”.
Some part of their “energy” remains, despite the loss of the physical body.<<

An interesting hypothesis. How many joules do you reckon the average ghost contains? Do you think this energy could be harnessed to perform work? Maybe we could find a way to put that energy to good use and lead the world in renewable energy with the world's first ghost-burning power station.

If ghosts, Gods and other ghoulies have an objective existence then they can be observed, described and possibly quantified.

>>Our bodies/brains perceptions can be altered by external (magic mushrooms) and internal (hormones/memories) factors.
Which is why I get so annoyed by people telling me they *know* what's “real”.<<

Which may lead to ghosts, Gods and other ghoulies having a subjective existence. Is that the same thing as being 'real'? For a young child Santa Claus may have a subjective existence: does that make Santa and his magic flying reindeer 'real'?

The human ability to imagine that something is real doesn't make it real. If I could imagine - not merely suspend disbelief for the enjoyment of a story - but actually imagine that Gulliver's Travels were a truthful account of man's ocean voyages would that bestow reality on Lilliput and Brobdingnag and all the other fantastical lands described in the book? Would cartographers have to start updating their maps? Would I be able to book a holiday in Laputa?

TBC

>>A unified species (not race, that term relates only to subdivisions not totalities) is impossible, whether we squabble about God or not.

Firstly, we'll still squabble about other political, economic, aesthetic, moral, ethical perspectives.

Secondly, there are too many distinct types to ever “unify” them.
Unlike other species, where all look and act the same<<

I'm taking it you've never encountered more than one dog in your life. Dogs exhibit an amazing amount of variation within their species, more so than any species I can think of. Domesticated cats, cows, budgies, humans etc.: they all look basically the same - but dogs range from Chihuahuas to Great Danes and from Whippets to British Bulldogs. Their temperaments show similar variation because of how we've domesticated them for certain purposes - a retriever thinks differently to a fighting dog; a terrier differently to a herding dog. Dogs fight but they can also be packmates even when one is an Irish Wolfhound and the other a Toy Poodle. We could learn a lot from dogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-fvr2qLc0

Cheers,

Tony

>>Your suggestions are out of context: in the original context, 'knowledge', 'science', 'education' and 'freedom' were meant "as perceived by DiamondPete", not as commonly understood.<<

I rather suspect - and I'm sure that he'll be happy to confirm - that 'knowledge', 'science', 'education' and 'freedom' as perceived by Diamond Pete are exactly the same thing as 'knowledge', 'science', 'education' and 'freedom' as commonly understood.

His comment 'Long live knowledge, science, education and freedom.' certainly gave no indication he meant them in anything but the conventional sense.

>>"579" suggested making religion illegal. What would he then do about those who refuse to forsake God? He could imprison some, but jails would soon become full, so the remaining options are turture, killing and concentration/re-education camps.<<

I love the way you jump straight to torture, murder and concentration camps. Thank god you're not a judge is all I can say - you'd be handing down sentences of life in solitary confinement for jay-walking. A lot of misdemeanors receive no more punishment than a small fine or a good behaviour bond. Even if they did criminalise it: it's not really illegal unless you get caught. Avoid saffron robes, rosary beads, hijabs and public worship and there's not much the police can do: they have yet to train a religion-sniffing dog.

Cheers,

Tony

Shocka and Y thanks blokes, for telling me what we are talking about.
It got a bit hard to know there in the middle.
Y are you enjoying what ever it is.
First post in the thread I think, not sure was mine, so nice to be told what it is about.
Humans then are not one race?
Sorry to hear that thought a chance existed we could be.
Glad to find Christianity is not a religion, bit baffled too.
I will follow and see how far we get to answering the question posed in the title.

This does not actually help, you know, Yuyutsu.

>>There is nothing but God. God does not exist, nor anything else in truth - existence is an illusion, a distorted perception of reality.<<

I note that you here reiterate the notion that there is nothing but non-existence. Which unfortunately renders your next assertion - that existence itself is an illusion - even more impenetrable.

If existence is an illusion, what can non-existence be? Bear in mind that any explanation you come up with, automatically describes God, according to your own determination (I won't insult it by calling it logic).

But the good news is that you have let it be known that somewhere in your thought processes you are aware of something that you call "reality". Of which existence is "a distorted perception".

Are you able to point us towards your definition of reality, in this context? How do you recognize it - you must be able to do so, in order to describe our perception of it as being distorted.

Come to that, how are you able to tell that it is distorted - what are the clues?

I note that you carefully avoided my direct question on whether you exist in a corporeal form. I'm beginning to think that I know why.

Nudge nudge. Wink wink.

No Shockadelic, you are missing my point. It's not atheists who are the major complainants re 'crosses' in public schools, but people from other religions!

They don't want just Christian symbols adorning a supposedly secular school, and I don't blame them.

By the way, I am not an atheist!
I am a sceptic...

Dear Belly,

<<Glad to find Christianity is not a religion, bit baffled too.>>

Worshiping deities (small-gods, including the Abrahamic god) is one religious technique which helps certain people at certain times to come closer to God. It cannot take us all the way to God, but for some it can carry them a long stretch of the way, so I don't wish to discard it.

Christianity has done great things for religion, but unfortunately it did bad things as well, which gives religion and God a bad name. Perhaps Christianity can best be described as a hybrid, consisting of a religious part, a social part and a political part. It is the political part of it which tends to anger others most and make them turn against religion.

Dear Pericles,

As you conclude yourself, no words can describe Reality, so I won't try.

<<Are you able to point us towards your definition of reality, in this context?>>

Reality of course, is not a definition. To point at Reality, perhaps I can, if I'm good and spiritually evolved enough to guide others, but not in words. I can suggest practices that may help you over time to perceive Reality undistorted, but it takes work and dedication, not just words.

<<How do you recognize it - you must be able to do so, in order to describe our perception of it as being distorted.>>

Partly by my own direct experience (which is subjective), partly by scripture and partly by listening to living teachers.

<<I note that you carefully avoided my direct question on whether you exist in a corporeal form.>>

I've just been asked so many questions today that I'm well behind in my work. Do I exist in a corporeal form? I do not exist in any form, corporeal or otherwise. I know myself beyond existence, but that would make no sense to you until you experience it yourself.

Just an observation:

Most of us debating on OLO do so from the vantage point of our egos. We feel compelled to defend our point of view and/or to swagger our way through, often employing a condescending manner towards our opponent.

I'm not sure I understand entirely where Yuyutsu is coming from, but I note a distinct lack of egoism and arrogance in his explanations - most unusual to say the least....and quite refreshing, in fact!

Sorry Poirot, my fault.
See I am just an average bloke, haveng very real trouble following Y in this thread.
Have found him an interesting contributor before this.
I am to blame, my thoughts on starting this thread was to talk, and even learn , about why some do need a God.
And some never will.
I have thoughts that God is our invention, not me and you, but wise if not nice men from our past.
Who put together a plan to control us and enrich them selves.
Such folk exist today, my worst example are ALP power brokers.
Ego? any one know anyone without an ego? dead are they?
Can I ask why the wars?
Why so many Gods?
How do we exclude any of them.
Truly, could we ever be one humanity without them?
Or if we invent one,suppress the others, in how many generations would we be one humanity?
Is being one a worth while thing?
I have enough trouble speaking my own language and have no idea what Y is trying to say.
Again my fault without doubt.

Dear Belly,

<<my thoughts on starting this thread was to talk, and even learn , about why some do need a God. And some never will.>>

According to the Bhagavad Gita (7:16), there are four types of people who approach God:

1. Those who seek refuge from the sorrow and suffering experienced in the world.

2. Those who who see God as a means to fulfill their worldly ambitions.

3. Those with the desire for knowledge, including philosophers who seek to understand the phenomenal world.

4. Those wanting to to attain complete unity with the Divine.

Belly,

There's no need to be so sensitive. Obviously most of us operate from an egoistic standpoint. I'm forever getting into scraps around here trying to defend my point of view......I was just musing on Yuyutsu's approach.

Buddhist sages maintain that real happiness can be found somewhere beyond the ego - beyond the attractions of the sense world, in detachment.....all worth pondering.

"Now an interesting exercise: as an aggregation of quantum probabilities, should anything stop you from hopping along with the respective atoms from one brain to another?"

Yes.

Specifically, the lack of the aggregation would stop the hop.

Belly, I think for many people the answer might be:

'Thanks to religion you'll never have to confront the eerie silence of the heart of your being, until you're lying terrified on your deathbed.'

(With acknowledgement to Mitchell and Webb)

Having been at many, many deathbeds over the years WmTrevor, I can attest that the mention of God or religion was made in only about half of the patients.

The ones that didn't had no more frightening a death than the religious ones.

Yes, Suze, it occurs to me that most of the fear would be "before the deathbed"...and that on the deathbed itself one would be more likely to embrace a type of calm and acceptance.

Tonight we had a Thanksgiving meal, courtesy of my daughter and her American husband. They had it last year with just the two of them, but I liked the idea so much they included all of us this year. No religion there at all, just a family get together. It's pretty well non-commercialised in the US, compared to Christmas (except maybe for turkeys and cranberry sauce)

Tony Lavis thanks for your sarcastic suggestion of “ghost power”.
My point was that “energy” may not be purely *physical*.
We, living with sensory perceptions, only see the energy that exists on *our* plane.
Does that mean no other plane exists?
What do you “see” when you dream? An apparently real world. How many “other worlds” might there be?

“subjective existence”?
You're the subjective one. Because *you* have never experienced anything supernatural, you state it isn't “real”.

Gulliver's Travels? Facetious. Nobody claimed this is real, including the author.
Mystics experiencing a “revelation” may indeed filter that through the subjective mind, simply because otherwise it would be incomprehensible.
The source inspiration is still real.
You like Belly, are confusing the anthropomorphic interpretation with the original source.

“Dogs exhibit an amazing amount of variation”

Because *we* created it, just as we created our species' differentiations.
Not animal species in the wild. All males the same, all females the same. Look the same, behave the same.

Belly “God is our invention, not me and you, but wise if not nice men from our past.”

Why suspect an evil intent? Because of the abuses of *later* generations?
The original “inventors” may have been 100% sincere in their desire to share their insights, but knew their mystical visions would be beyond the average person, so “invented” simpler anthropomorphic symbols to help people understand.
Being an educated, intelligent person, one would think you could see *past* the symbolic imagery and see the “truth” underneath.
But no, you only see the form and reject it as false.

“Why so many Gods?”

For precisely the reason I was stating about our impossible-to-unite species.
Each cultural/ethnic ancestry developed their own expressions of these “essences” and gave them different names, just as they created different forms of language.
You may as well ask, why so many languages?

Suseonline “It's not atheists... but people from other religions!”

Well, excuse us for having our own heritage!
I wonder how many Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist symbols would be removed because a minority of remnant colonial Europeans in Asia were “offended”.
My guess: none.

Hi Poirot, that sounds like a good time with the Thanksgiving meal.
Yes, most on their deathbeds are resigned to their fate and indeed look forward to the release from their sickness or old age.
I was merely answering the previous post that suggested that unless you believed in religion you were terrified on your deathbed! That is just rubbish.

Shockadelic <" I wonder how many Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist symbols would be removed because a minority of remnant colonial Europeans in Asia were “offended”. "

And there is the proof that at least some of the 'religious objectors' who still want their crosses, with tortured ancient men hanging on them, up on the walls in secular public schools, are really just upset about multiculturalism.

Lucky we have a majority " of remnant colonial Europeans " here in good old Oz hey Shockadelic?

Fact..... no deities exist.

There is not even ONE tiny shred of actual evidence of any type for the existence of anything whatsoever that's supernatural, let alone proof. This fact is meaningless for "believers". Why? Because their myths and superstitions are based on "belief" only, and it's irrelevant to them that their beliefs are not factual.

That's ALL they have ..... "belief", and nothing else whatsoever. Some admit it (the honest ones who are proud to live by their faith and belief), others deny it and claim they can prove the supernatural, other believers just don't care either way and continue "believing" regardless, and others become quite obtuse and make up their own personal beliefs (people like Yuyu).

They are entitled to their "beliefs", no matter how non factual those beliefs are.

Poirot no offense taken, as usual you have my respect.
I know of suseonline,s death bed story, have seen folk wait until we[family] arrived then die.
In fact had advice I should leave, as mum would not go while I was there prove true.
A bloke I know, real bloke real life, thinks the sea holds his God, or is his God.
He is most happy talking to it,he has made his God, given it power and totally believes in it.
I think this is the way Gods, every one of them, became our comfort blanket.

I think that just about wraps it up for the voyage around your belief system Yuyutsu.

But just for the record:

>>Dear Pericles, As you conclude yourself, no words can describe Reality, so I won't try<<

That is your conclusion, not mine.

>>I can suggest practices that may help you over time to perceive Reality undistorted, but it takes work and dedication, not just words<<

I take leave to doubt that, since you would be unable to identify a reality, distorted or undistorted, that has any objective meaning.

Which only leaves the subjective. Your position relies entirely on the subjective, since you scorn any attempt by us mere mortals to define, classify, describe or make manifest any or all of: religion, God, reality or even existence. Such a stance enables you to categorically set yourself apart from the rest of us, and lecture us from afar without fear of contradiction or even simple enquiry.

You have impressed Poirot, that is clear.

>>I'm not sure I understand entirely where Yuyutsu is coming from, but I note a distinct lack of egoism and arrogance in his explanations - most unusual to say the least....and quite refreshing, in fact!<<

I see exactly the opposite. A condescension born of the most complete form of egoism - the awareness that because you can make everything entirely subjective, you need neither defend or explain your position to others.

At least the rest of us are making an effort to understand, to learn and to benefit from each other's views.

Thank you, Belly, for making the attempt. Sorry it has been somewhat hijacked.

Pericles,

I've had many a debate with Yuyutsu attempting to punch holes in his approach - so I wouldn't say I'm "impressed" - more fascinated. I've disagreed with him on a few issues on this forum quite vehemently. This time I merely studied the machinations of the debate - which I found interesting.

It seems to me that any "scorn" you derive from his responses is a result of your annoyance that your usual technique for whittling away someone's defences failed to work on Yuyutsu on the subject of his belief system

....so your last post seems to me you projecting your frustration onto Yuyutsu - and me by default.

Pericles,

I just noted your sentence "A condescension born of the most complete form of egoism."....er, cough!....that's the pot calling the kettle black.

You're an intelligent debater on OLO who delights in dissecting other posters arguments almost forensically. Condescension is part of your technique, because you're eloquent and logical, and usually one step ahead of your opponent. It's mildly amusing to see you accuse someone else of condescension and egoism because you can't wrap your logical mind around the perspective described.

Yuyutsu explains without defending - I believe that is the crux of your frustration. It's not a feature of egoism to practice defencelessness.

As long as humans contest with resolving mind/body/consciousness questions some people will continue to need religion… It's one way of sidestepping the awkwardness of deciding whether on the one hand you're in two minds about Cartesian dualism or on the other hand unequivocal in supporting neutral monism (pron. 'moan'-ism).

But the beauty of belief systems – both philosophical and religious – is that we can always grow a third hand and, for example, decide instead to agree with the concept of epiphenomenalism. Which, to my way of thinking, falls far short of how grand it sounds… Exactly like all religions do.

Had the topic of this discussion been: "Can we prove that religion is needed?", I would have responded in one word:

No.

In order to disprove a statement, one must show that every possible model in which that statement is true, is logically inconsistent.

I present a model wherein religion is needed and this model is logically consistent, hence while it cannot be proven that religion is needed, it is also impossible to prove that religion is not needed.

This model is consistent, not because I am a genius, but because it is conferred in scripture by ancient seers who directly experienced the Reality of God.

Some create their own God, themselves.
I see we are not even touching the questions asked.
Not surprised ,but still not willing to even try to untangle Y s posts.

Belly,

Re: - "the questions asked":

Surely the question as to whether or not we need religion is a subjective. One person will say no, while another will say yes.

There is no definitive answer to such an inquiry - only philosophical opinion.

(a more pertinent question is: "Bunnings ads - do we need them to keep exploding out of their defined area and obscuring the posts underneath?" :)

Yuyu wrote, "ancient seers who directly experienced the Reality of God".

That's so true Yuyu .... you ARE a genius.

Yep, they all experienced the "Reality of God" in several ways ...

(1)They made up the idea of supernatural perspectives

(2) They then made up the theory that these perspectives were truthful

(3) They then entrenched those "belief" systems in themselves and others

(5) "Belief" then permanently replaced accuracy of fact

(6) And finally, they wrote their "beliefs" as if they were "facts" in ancient scripture

So yes Yuyu, you are correct. They DID experience the "Reality of God". They experienced the reality of making it all up, then believing it as fact, and then writing it down in ancient scriptures.

And Yuyu, you need to know this model is consistent throughout those scriptures, not because I am a genius, but because it is conferred in scripture by ancient seers who experienced this Reality of God".

I'm so happy that I have had the opportunity to explain it to you Yuyu.

Up to a point, Lord Copper, err... Poirot.

>>I just noted your sentence "A condescension born of the most complete form of egoism."....er, cough!....that's the pot calling the kettle black.<<

I did qualify it by aligning the egoism on display with Yuyutsu's completely subjective argumentation. Which has the effect of making it entirely bulletproof, and invulnerable to rational, objective discussion.

Nonetheless, it's good to be pulled into line occasionally by someone whose views you respect.

>>Yuyutsu explains without defending - I believe that is the crux of your frustration.<<

I'm not sure about that. It is more that he explains without actually explaining. It is relatively simple to construct a world that is entirely self-referential and subjective, because it means that you don't actually have to explain yourself at all.

Moreover, I'm not at all frustrated. The journey through Yuyutsu's mind has been both informative and entertaining. But as far as I am concerned it has reached its logical conclusion.

Fair enough, Pericles,

As I mentioned, I have had occasion to debate Yuyutsu on the subject of his belief system.....and found it fairly impervious to my charging batons....although I believe on a few occasions he was as confused as I was.

Cheers : )

"This model is consistent, not because I am a genius, but because it is conferred in scripture by ancient seers who directly experienced the Reality of God."

Veni, vidi, vici vedic?

Y lets see, not sure what you meant.
*Not because I am a Genius*
Is that a statement of fact?
A denial?
I am trying to keep up that is all.

Dear Belly,

Sorry I have no more time today to respond fully, I'll be back on Sunday.

What I meant is that the reason why the model I present is consistent (eg. why it has has no contradictions, neither internal, nor with external evidence), is not because I am so intelligent that I was able to work out such a wonderful bullet-proof model myself, but rather as Newton said, because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.

See you Sunday.

Suseonline “really just upset about multiculturalism.”

Why wouldn't people be upset with the demolition and negation of their heritage?
If it was anyone but white people, you'd agree.
Oh no, the Taliban blew up a giant Buddha. What a tragedy!
Australian culture stripped of Christian symbolism, Whatever! White people are evil.

We aren't a remnant population. Do you know what “remnant” means?
We aren't merely a “trace”, we are the principal population group, and it is *our* culture that defines this country, not Aboriginal or minority immigrant cultures.

Keep repeating your delusional mantras about how we are what we aren't, and we aren't what we are.
If you say them enough times, the space-time continuum will warp to match your wishful thinking.

BTW, ever heard of swastikas? Who'd be offended by them?
Can't wait for that new Buddhist temple in Hurstville with the giant gold swastika.
What a cultural enhancement!

DiamondPete “That's ALL they have ..... "belief"

No, they have *experiences*. A myriad of documented experiences.
Which you dismiss because they can't be objectively proven.
Okay, you claim you ate breakfast this morning. I don't believe you. Prove it. Where's the proof?
Oh, an x-ray? Yes, there's something in your stomach, but is it “breakfast”? Prove it!

Poirot “There is no definitive answer to such an inquiry - only philosophical opinion.”

Agreed. The “debate” is redundant. It's all just opinions, not “facts”, as one particularly irritating contributor keeps screaming.

Shocky wrote, "no, they have experiences". Shocky therefore denied outright, in direct reply to my post, that believers have beliefs.

I've noticed throughout my long life that "some" followers of the various religions deny their faith and belief. They get deeply offended when it's pointed out to them that their various superstitions are based on faith and belief. Whilst other, more grounded followers, embrace their faith and belief and recognise that their religions are faith and belief based.

To directly answer Belly's subject .....

There will always be a need for religions whilst it remains impossible to currently prove that Flying Spaghetti Monsters In The Sky don't exist. The fact remains that science currently can't prove that floating pixies don't exist, that invisible fairies in your garden don't exist, that undetectable pink unicorns are not guardian angels to every horse in Australia etc etc etc etc etc.

In other words .... until science can prove that no deities, or any supernatural life whatsoever exists, then there will be a need for religion amongst the more gullible of us.

Hopefully, within the next 10,000 or so years science will have the "factual" answers to all questions regarding all existence. Remember, science is currently in it's mere infancy.

Then, and only then, will religious superstitions be a thing of the past.

There indeed is a requirement for God, for some.
God, every one of them, have given us rules to live by, not always good rules.
God has fed millions of preachers no matter what sex or name that God has.
Those preachers and their servants have used God for power and privilege.
Our governments do and always have, use the Gods to control us and pacifies us.
We march off to war knowing God is on our side, some times both sides.
We know our deaths will not be forever, God sees to that.
If UFO ever lands they may bring a new God for us, may have bought some before.
Those of us who have no God, and there are many, may be happier.
We see the trees the sky the flowers, the works of art and hear the music, for what it is, humanity's greatness.
We sometimes created God in our image, what better way to honor your childhood teddy bears?

DiamondPete “Shocky wrote, "no, they have experiences". Shocky therefore denied outright, in direct reply to my post, that believers have beliefs.”

No I did not.
Your actual statement was “That's ALL they have .....'belief'”

"That's ALL they have". Notice the emphasis on ALL?

I responded to *that* statement, by reminding you people have experiences.

Did I really need to add “too” or “also”?
An intelligent person wouldn't need any superfluous additional words to comprehend what I said.

“science is currently in it's mere infancy.”

And already scientists are speculating on the possibility that a *consciousness* is creating the universe, creating *you*, me, everything, right now in real time.

In 10,000 years these kind of theories will be elaborated and refined.
We won't have “science” and “religion”, we will have The Church of The Quest for Truth.

Ha ha, nice try Shocky. Of COURSE people have "experiences" ...duh !! Do I "really" have to point that out to you with the words "of COURSE" ?? An intelligent person would have comprehended exactly what I meant when I wrote "that's ALL they have". But biblical literalists like yourself can only comprehend literally. Poor boy Shocky .... I'd recommend a good English Comprehension course for you. It may assist you with your written communication ability. Glad I could be of assistance.

Another good one .... you falsely "imply" that science is now embracing Gods. Umm Shocky, I guess you also believe the "science" (ha ha ha) of "creation science". When gullible followers of ancient superstitions don't like what "real" science says, or doesn't say, they create their OWN "version" of science, one that's entirely sympathetic to the ancient superstitions people like Shocky "believe" in. In other words, the conclusion that a deity is real, is believed in **BEFORE** the fake religious science is applied as an attempt to back up the "belief".

Nice try Shocky. You're a funny guy. Keep trying though. I'm waiting .......

Sunday morning, getting ready for it soon.
Sea side market day.
Will come home with more plants and some fresh food.
You can bet your house on this.
Far more will go to that market than the how many? 8, 10, near empty churches in my area.
Dreadful thing to say.
Tasteless and I know that.
But my morning newspapers AGAIN tell of mass rape and bashings.
Of young boys by Catholic Priests.
Is there any wounder they are empty?
What would your God think of this?

Dear Poirot,

Earlier you wrote: <<I'm not sure I understand entirely where Yuyutsu is coming from>>

There are people even on this forum who would be glad to outlaw religion, who care not for logic and wisdom but enjoy mockery, contempt and blind hate of all that others hold in reverence.

Some are just bullies who enjoy attacking others, minorities which they perceive as weak. Against those, no words will do, only a big stick.

Then there are others who join them because they were, perhaps still are, subject to coercion by people who claim to be "religious".

Coercion is not part of religion - it goes against religion.

Yes, religion often calls for austerities, for restrictions, for foregoing comfort and pleasures - but it is always one's own comfort and pleasures that are restricted, always voluntarily and NEVER the comfort and pleasures of others. One can be dragged to church, but one cannot be brought closer to God by being forced to act or not in certain ways - only by free choice.

Those who restrict the freedom of others, even be they priests, bishops, cardinals, rabbis, mullahs, gurus - whatever, know nothing about religion!

It is so unfortunate that those who suffered under the hands of so-called "religious" people, join the bullies and blindly attack religion without even understanding what religion is all about. They fail to understand that in doing so, they also undermine themselves and their own religious path (even when they may not be aware of being on it).

Unless we bring fresh and clear understanding of what religion is - but especially of what religion ISN'T, the bullies and ignorants would be on their way to celebrate together a Kristallnacht against religious people.

I am not here to make anyone believe in what I say.
I am here to defend the people of God from persecution.

Defend the people of god from persecution. Pell is the number one ticket holder of defense from persecution.
Door knockers, out dated rules, scientoligists, the people of god need a good look at what they are supporting.
Religion belongs in medieval days, when the earth was flat and heaven was north and hell was south.
Bullfrogs and whales, walk on water, is that educational.
God botherers need to pull back and say, what in heavens name is going on here, our superiors are are not practicing what they preach.

DiamondPete “Of COURSE people have "experiences" ...duh !!”

Supernatural experiences.
You said BELIEF was ALL they had. Experiences are not beliefs.

“But biblical literalists like yourself can only comprehend literally”

I'm not a biblical (or any religious) literalist.
If you actually *read* my comments, you'd already know I stated I have no religious affiliation and have argued that religious iconography *is* symbolic.
You're the one who can't comprehend English.

“you falsely "imply" that science is now embracing Gods”

I didn't imply anything. Holographic Universe is a *real* scientific theory.
It hypothesizes a “Consciousness”, not “Gods (plural”), is creating the universe.
I have no trouble expressing myself clearly.
You are either just stupid or playing games.

Keep trying to deliberately distort everything I say though.
I'm waiting...for anything of substance from you.

Belly's at it again, comparing church attendance with markets (not clubs this time), as if it's an Australian Idol show, where the “winner” is the one with the most votes.

Tell me, Belly, how exactly do you know how many people attend 10 different churches on the same day?
Do you go to each session and do a headcount?
When do you get the time to go to the market and the club, what with frantically running all over town counting churchgoers?

How about this for votes: religion is on the census, whether you go to markets or clubs is not.
What does that say about their relative social significance?

Yuyutsu “I am here to defend the people of God from persecution.”

Me too. And I don't even have any beliefs.

I'm also very concerned about the potential “heritage amnesia” atheists seek.
Even if everyone in Australia ceased to be Christian tomorrow, that's no reason to bulldoze our heritage out of the way.

Even the Christian churches avoided such irreversible damage to pagan monuments, but not the atheists (Religion: closing down, everything must go!)

Y you are playing mind games.
And sorry but my words to you and was it Pelicans? stand for me.
I hate no one, but highlight these people of your God include child rapists.
Your words are no less controlling than any used to control us over the centurys.

Dear Pete,

<<Hopefully, within the next 10,000 or so years science will have the "factual" answers to all questions regarding all existence.>>

May your wish come true:

You will then know when and how the world started (if it did), you will know when and how it will end (if it will), you will know how it works (if it does), you will prove that there are no deities anywhere and never where (if that's indeed the case), you will have every bit of information, then what?

Once everything is discovered, science will be used up and dead, curiosity too. Once you have all the facts in the world (literally!), you will become fed up with facts, yet still not wiser.

Once you reach that stage, then perhaps out of sheer boredom, you will begin asking yourself those questions that really matter, those questions which science cannot access, those questions that do not pertain to the objective world, those questions to which no empirical evidence can exist, those questions which go beyond facts.

Science is excellent in answering questions such as 'Where', 'When' and 'How', it can also answer many 'What' questions, but not for example "What is good?", because search as you may with microscopes and telescopes, you will never find "goodness". Science is also helpless answering questions such as of 'Who' and especially 'Why'.

Dear Belly,

<<but highlight these people of your God include child rapists.>>

Raping children is not a religious technique or teaching.
Raping children does not bring one closer to God.
Raping children goes against the First principle of religion: non-violence (ahimsa).
Is that not clear enough?

<<Your words are no less controlling than any used to control us over the centurys.>>

Care to explain?

What have I told you to do?
What have I forbidden you to do?

Thanks.

Y in the post I disliked, and in your last 0ne, now forgive me, but Saw a symptom of religion that threatens me.
You know do you, these rapes took place?
And mostly in Church owned buildings?
Mostly art the hands of SERVANTS OF CHURCH/GOD?
How does your view differ from those who covered this up?
I see only your attempt to blame others , and too, feel the very real pain and terror, some times lifetime, sometimes life ending, of the victims.
Y WHAT IF IT WAS YOU?
Your child or sibling?
Filth is only covered up by filth.
That is not a reference to you but all who hide the truth in life.

Yuyutsu "May your wish come true"

I have a sneaking suspicion we will never have any final definite answers. Science is mostly "workable hypotheses", not "facts".

If a Consciousness is creating the universe, it may:
(a) know what it's doing, but doesn't want us to know, so will keep putting red herrings and smoke and mirrors in our way
(b) be not sure what it's doing, the universe being an experiment-in-progress, and therefore open to further "editing"

If either is the case, we will never know The Answer.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<If either is the case, we will never know The Answer.>>

That's sad, because then DiamondPete will still be looking for one, forever, what a torture.

As far as I am concerned, I don't need "The Answer", I can live quite happily without it.

Were you ever upset upon waking up from a dream, about not knowing how it started and how it ended?

Dear Belly,

<<Y WHAT IF IT WAS YOU?>>

Should I get a machine-gun and shoot everyone wearing a blue shirt (because my tormentor wore a blue shirt at the time)?

<<Mostly art the hands of SERVANTS OF CHURCH/GOD?>>

A servant of church is not necessarily a servant of God!

Shall I repeat it?

A servant of church is not necessarily a servant of God!

Once more to be sure you understand:

A SERVANT OF CHURCH IS NOT NECESSARILY A SERVANT OF GOD!

Y that upper class newspeak is lost on me.
Been washing the piggery out have you.
Hogwash came to mind.
I am researching the Catholic Church world wide and its crimes against children.
I may even agree, in fact should, that such perpetrators are not Christians.
Why did mums and dads send the kids there? because they thought/think they are.
Being of lessor intelligence than you, probably true,am I wrong for questioning how you can tell a bad Priest from a good one?
Surely we do not have to wait for a victim to tell us?

But it isn't likely to happen any time soon, is it Yuyutsu.

>>Once everything is discovered, science will be used up and dead, curiosity too<<

It is a pretty big universe, you know. That "everything" is quite a lot of stuff, when you think about it. So I doubt that boredom is likely to set in just yet awhile.

But I do find this a little puzzling.

>>Once you reach that stage, then perhaps out of sheer boredom, you will begin asking yourself those questions that really matter, those questions which science cannot access, those questions that do not pertain to the objective world, those questions to which no empirical evidence can exist, those questions which go beyond facts.<<

Actually, quite a lot of people are unprepared to wait for the full revelation bit, but instead are already spending a reasonable percentage of their thinking time pondering notions that will never be cracked by logic, or reason.

Women, for example. We know that they have a particular chemical make-up, can be seen, weighed, measured and - to some extent - categorized. But show me a man who says "I understand women", and I'll show you a stand-up comedian, and expect a punchline to follow immediately.

No, we don't need to exhaust our understanding of "everything" scientific, simply in order to turn our attention to the eternal mysteries of life.

And in the cold light of day, science is unlikely to persuade anyone here away from their existing belief systems. It is just possible however that science might one day discover that a part of the brain that we have inherited from our ancestors is more susceptible in some people than others, to emotions such as fear, or a desire for security, or just simply a need for companionship/fellowship. That will still not be an "answer" to why some are religious and others not, but it might at least provide a working hypothesis.

And while it might give a clue as to "how" , it will still leave the question "why" essentially unanswered,

Dear Belly,

<<am I wrong for questioning how you can tell a bad Priest from a good one?
Surely we do not have to wait for a victim to tell us?>>

You are not wrong at all, these are excellent questions!

So we have two questions.

The first is very difficult to answer unless you are well and truly spiritually evolved - only then you may be able to tell whether a particular priest is indeed religious or not. There may be good indications, but no absolute and definitive external/objective criteria.

Fortunately, you don't need to know the answer for the first question in order to answer the second, which is whether the priest in question is likely to molest your child.

This second question is mundane, it does not require understanding of religion: I can try to advise you there, but no better than others who never heard of God.

Try for example to avoid sending your kids to institutes with poor records such as the Roman-Catholic-Church. If you must, then have the priest-teacher undergo a polygraph test first; or maintain constant supervision; or take up remote learning.

The best course of action IMHO is to prepare one's child or grandchild, to talk with them in advance, to explain them the dangers, to teach them assertiveness, to assure them that you will not be angry at them if it happens, that if they tell you about it then you will get them out of there. My parents did just that, long before any public awareness. There is no substitute for good parenting.

For that you don't need religion, just common sense.

Dear Pericles,

Nice try, but before science can ask 'why' some are religious, it must first find out 'who' are religious. That's incidentally Belly's first question. Science can find accurately which human-bodies go to church, use beads, etc., it can then correlate such information with their brain-waves and detect patterns, but how can it possibly find who is approaching God when it has only empirical data at its disposal?

Yuyu and Shocky can waffle on with their "beliefs", page after page after page.

But ....

They can't escape that there's ....

No ghosts

No heaven

No spirits

No supernatural life

No Gods

No god

No deity

No deities

No devil

No angels

No demons

They hate being told that. It really offends them. Too bad.

Y Good morning.
You speak in tongues, as far as I can make out.
I see no answers to last nights late line ABC TV.
A story of mass rape and a Church welcoming the offender back after his prison term.
I see a duck and dive game in your words, maybe I am wrong?
Show me the concern for the victims, the loathing for the perpetrators.
Tell me of you thoughts that why our first known Christian Church has 6 times the offenses than all other churches.
Maya those who some claim warn us this world ends this year.
I shudder at the long walk, the last walk, those children to be sacrificed took.
Yet far more committed suicide after their treatment at the hands of Catholics.
Do we need God?
Well we need every God to have morals, even if like all Gods they are imaginary.

Dear Belly,

<<You speak in tongues, as far as I can make out.>>

Allow me to simplify then:

I am no expert on detecting child abusers.
So why ask me? Ask the experts.
I don't think it matters whether the abuser is a priest or not,
but I may be wrong, so ask the experts, not me.
You asked me a question, so I was obliged to answer,
but I can only offer a layman's advice.

I can tell you about religion and God,
but the people of the church are not necessarily people of God,
they are not necessarily religious
and their behaviour has nothing to do with God and religion.
This whole abuse thing is a social issue, not a religious one,
so go ask such questions to those who do social stuff,
not me, it's not my expertise.

Thanks.

Bloke know I take no ill thoughts about you from this thread.
I see an intelligence coming from you.
But it is not convincing me now or ever, you feel as bad as I do about specifically the Catholic Church and its victims.
Your words do not offer hope, or answers, why is it children going to the church of their parents faith.
Seeking shelter in the very house of thier God,in all churches and such.
Are treated so badly.
I can not avoid the Catholic Church, is the worst, in western country,s.
Or that it wants men to remain virgins for life.
What type of men assault these children, do they even believe in any God?
What man wants the job.
Words, no matter how well intended can not hide the raw truth, Children torn and life ruined in?
A place of WORSHIP?

<<Your words do not offer hope, or answers, why is it children going to the church of their parents faith.
Seeking shelter in the very house of thier God,in all churches and such.
Are treated so badly.>>

Sorry Belly, I have no answer.

<<I can not avoid the Catholic Church, is the worst, in western country,s.
Or that it wants men to remain virgins for life.>>

If you feel that what you can lose in the Catholic Church is more than what you can gain there, then don't go there, then stay away from it.

<<What type of men assault these children, do they even believe in any God?>>

Most likely, No.

<<Words, no matter how well intended can not hide the raw truth, Children torn and life ruined in?
A place of WORSHIP?>>

Any place is suitable for worship.
It is YOUR worship which counts, not somebody else's.
The environment may be impure, but all it takes to worship is a pure heart.

It is somewhat chicken-and-egg, I grant you Yuyutsu.

>>Dear Pericles, Nice try, but before science can ask 'why' some are religious, it must first find out 'who' are religious.<<

A scientific approach to this might involve asking people a series of questions about their religious, moral and philosophical beliefs, from which it would be possible to derive a statistically valid working definition of "religious", that can be applied across a population. If I were running such a programme, one of the defining questions would be "are you religious". This would enable me to cross-reference the traits held equally by religious and non-religious people, which I would then discard, leaving only the defining traits.

I would then use a technique such as neuroimaging, to compare the high-order patterns across all participants as they respond to various stimuli, to determine whether there were any significant differences in the stimulation/response profiles.

From this, I might be able to determine whether "being religious" is in fact a response to some form of brain activity, in which the religious respond differently to feelings of e.g. fear, hurt, loneliness, alienation etc.

That would certainly satisfy my own curiosity, principally on the basis that it is probably better to allow individuals to determine whether or not they consider that they are "approaching God", rather than establish some form of external benchmark.

If we were to find that there is absolutely no discernible difference in the characteristics of the "religious" and "non-religious", then the chances would be far higher, I would venture to suggest, that Belly's question, "Religion do we need it", would be confidently answered in the negative, would it not?

As is often the case, religious believers will often defend religion, when other religious believers sexually abuse children. ALL the "excuses" in the world are offered to exonerate religion, religious belief, religious practice, religious history etc etc etc. This is done not just with child abuse, but with all the other evils throughout history that have been embraced by religious believers.

These defenders display an inhumane lack of empathy towards abused children, are mostly "male", and they are aggressively defensive regarding religions and religious believers.

That horrible man Cardinal Pell has now been removed as the Catholic Church's spokesman. The church is trying to now put on a more gentle and responsive "veneer" ..... but it's a con. It's just public relations, in order to reduce further damage to the church.

They care MUCH more about their church than they do about children abused by their clergy. Nothing "really" changes.

Let the "excuses" continue. Come on Yuyu and Shocky .... what other "excuses" can you make up? I'm waiting .....

DP unless my memory fails me you are of an age that says answers may or may not come soon.
I confront an issue, soon to know one way or the other, that puts me there too.
I am content to know no God exists.
Unafraid of death my burial will not be Christian.
I wade through the words of Y unable to understand the need to not talk, in truth about victims.
I remain concerned at so many Gods, each the only one.
We have less political party s than Gods.
Maybe we know we will find little joy in them.
And how do we confront a single world , while divided by? GOD?
WE LEAP, me too, in indignation at FGM find it so easy, for me needed, to target Muslim actions.
Yet is FGM any worse than the Catholic Church?
Both are unforgivable crimes against children and the God being followed.

Dear Pericles,

Suit yourself - your experiment will correlate between those who think they are religious and those who do not think so (assuming that no significant portion of responders are lying).

How many truly know whether they are religious and to what extent?
Perhaps I only wish I were religious but do not truly deserve this title?
Perhaps you are more religious than me?

Can you tell for sure? I can't.

Perhaps, if there will be no discernible differences, the conclusion of this experiment will be:

"Considering oneself religious - we don't need it".

Dear Belly,

<<I wade through the words of Y unable to understand the need to not talk, in truth about victims.>>

It is not the topic of this discussion.
The topic is "religion - do we need it".

I know very little about the history of child-sexual-abuse in the Catholic Church,
I do not belong to that church,
I have very little contact with it,
I don't know any case personally,
so I rather not talk about things I don't know about.

If you excuse me, there are another 22 million Australians who also did not write about the victims on this particular OLO thread.

What I CAN say, is that child-abuse (sexual or otherwise) is NOT a result of religion.
Religion is the process of coming closer to God.
How possibly can coming closer to God lead to child-sexual-abuse, is well and truly beyond me.

Y thanks that will do it for me.
I see no point in going on.
Cars then have played no roll in deaths during a crash.
Guns do not kill it is those who hold them.
I think symptoms of control can be found in all religions.
And in the covering up of even sexual assaults.
I question followers who think they can hide that from the God they follow.
Or just maybe God approves their action.

That's exactly what I had in mind, Yuyutsu.

>>...your experiment will correlate between those who think they are religious and those who do not think so<<

If you don't allow self-selection on a question such as this, the word itself will lose every scrap of meaning. The cross-checking of responses will arrive at the meaning that the majority of people relate to.

The alternative is to create your very own, personal definition, and use that as a yardstick. Problem is, you will find that this will tell you nothing about other people, only about yourself.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Except that it allows you to say things like this:

>>What I CAN say, is that child-abuse (sexual or otherwise) is NOT a result of religion.<<

Sadly, what is going on in the real world at the moment tells an entirely different story. People who have been using the cloak of their religious beliefs to protect themselves from the law, are being exposed as sexual deviants of the very worst kind. And there is evidence to suggest that religious practices such as enforced celibacy and the sanctity of the confessional, have aided and abetted such criminal activity.

>>Religion is the process of coming closer to God.<<

You have mentioned this before. But you should have become aware by now that this is not a description that helps the discussion along.

It may be your own personal theory, but it is a bit like describing the Mafia as a close-knit, supportive and loyal family. You can defend its logic and its accuracy as a statement, but it sheds no light at all on what most people would contend is mafiosi-like behaviour.

>>How possibly can coming closer to God lead to child-sexual-abuse, is well and truly beyond me<<

Ummm, isn't this what Belly was wondering also?

DiamondPete “They hate being told that. It really offends them. Too bad”

I don't hate being told there's “no this, no that” by an idiot.
It's simply not an actual argument, just a statement of opinion, which you just assert over and over, as if you actually “know” something that's impossible to know.

It doesn't offend, merely irritates.
Religion offends you? Too bad.

And for the millionth time, I haven't “waffled on with [my] "beliefs", page after page after page”.

I don't have any beliefs, so how could I?
You are the waffler.

“what other "excuses" can you make up?”

I haven't made any excuses for child abuse. That is not what the fundamental discussion is about.

Religion wasn't *intended* to foster child abuse or any other tragedy.
State orphanages are just a guilty, so Belly, “Do we need orphanages?”
Is child abuse what they're *intended* for?

Belly makes a comparison to guns and cars.
Well, those things cause many deaths and injuries, but do you then overlook the benefits and blessings those things are *intended* for?

Guns, do we really need them? Ask the lumberjack staring at a snarling grizzly bear. Or the village invaded by rape-and-pillage marauders.
Cars, do we really need them? ROFL!

Belly “And how do we confront a single world, while divided by? GOD?”

Or divided by language?
Or divided by politico-economic theories?
Or divided by incompatible aesthetics?

We don't have a “single world”. That's precisely why there are so many religions.
Our species lives in *many* worlds, and worlds within worlds.

Our “worlds” have only multiplied with time, as one ethnicity split off into two or more new branches, then those split off again.
Culture works the same way as that biological evolution you love so much.

As new ethnic identities may form in the future, other religions may appear, the same archetypal concepts morphing along with the cultures.

Strange that your type claims to love the many cultures of Man, but fails to include religion in that adored “diversity”.

Shocka while I hold no ill against you I differ greatly with your thoughts.
I have an idea throwing SOME catholic priests at that charging bear rather than a child may be worth while.
Lets face it, I avoided putting the Muslim faith here, we could have had 100 more posts now.
And in truth only the news, here in NSW not far from me, and Victoria turned the thread.
I while out in the garden thought about child rape.
Never ever forget children grow up, never forget they remember.
We must see all kids are left to do so.
Forget creed, ask about GOD, what one would skip around the horrible things done to these kids?
PEDOPHILIA is never acceptable never to be forgiven.

Shockadelic
It sounds like you might be close to a position espoused by David Eagleman

"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
http://www.possibilian.com/

Shocky is soooooooo offended by the fact that no supernatural life exists, that he's now resorting to name calling. When the believers can't win the debate, they almost always then resort to name calling.

SPOR, the logic in the words you quoted is actually false logic. Why? because it "creates" an intellectual environment where absolutely everything that doesn't exist MUST be considered as "possibly" existing.

Using the same logic it can therefore be argued that floating, invisible, supernatural pink fairies "may indeed" inhabit your garden.

This type of false logic enables religious believers to easily defend their religious belief in the supernatural. This can ONLY be fully countered when science eventually proves that there's no supernatural existence whatsoever ...... I suspect that will take another 10,000 or so years of scientific advance. Science is currently in it's mere infancy.

Oh I don't know, Diamond Pete.

I'm surmising that somewhere buried deep in your repertoire there might exist a skerrick of humility.

Just because it's not in evidence shouldn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Dear Pericles,

First I must apologise for an awkward error I made in my last post to you:

Assuming the experiment was conducted as you describe and there were no discernible differences, that would still be insufficient to declare that "there is no need to consider oneself religious", only that there are no tangible or measurable benefits in considering oneself religious.

<<The alternative is to create your very own, personal definition, and use that as a yardstick.>>

Try, say, to define 'orgasm' for someone who never experienced it.
You can detail the movements and sounds, but it will never amount to the actual experience.

Likewise, ignorance about religion is rife because attempts were made to describe it from outside by people who had no such experience.

And... like orgasm, religion also can be faked!

<<People who have been using the cloak of their religious beliefs to protect themselves from the law>>

People who escape the law would use anything at their disposal.
You make two unsubstantiated assumptions:
1) That these people are religious.
2) That they truly hold religious beliefs.
In other words, they managed to trick you!

<<And there is evidence to suggest that religious practices such as enforced celibacy and the sanctity of the confessional, have aided and abetted such criminal activity.>>

So here's another unsubstantiated assumption that enforced celibacy is a religious practice.

Wrong. Enforcing practices on others is foreign to religion.

As for [voluntary] celibacy, total celibacy is a pretty advanced religious practice. It should not be tried by novices who are not yet prepared for it. One must first learn and practice how to channel and elevate the sexual energy, otherwise it may end in ruin.

As for using confession as a religious practice, one should truly consider what they've done to be sinful. If so, then they will do everything possible to avoid repeating it. Otherwise it's a mock-confession. Just stating facts without repentance is not a confession, hence need not be considered as such.

<<Ummm, isn't this what Belly was wondering also?>>

The answer is simple - it doesn't!

Belly “Forget creed, ask about GOD, what one would skip around the horrible things done to these kids?”

Are you forgetting that the judgment of the dead is virtually a universal concept present in religions past and present.
What makes you think anyone will get away with it?

DiamondPete, calling you an idiot is merely descriptive, like calling bananas "yellow".
“When the believers can't win the debate..” You haven't even attempted to “debate”.

SPQR, Possibilianism sounds pretty close, except it's an “active exploration”.
I prefer to just float in an ocean of Doubt on my Absurdist li-lo.

Poirot “Just because it's not in evidence shouldn't mean that it doesn't exist.”

Especially if the Consciousness creating the Holographic Universe keeps rewriting the story he's making up as he goes along.
“Dragons, what dragons? Hehehe!”

Shocka,

I came upon this post by AJ Philips over in the articles section - as in the case against the Christian God - quite succinctly put:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398&page=0#248464

Shocka,

Calling people idiots shows a certain frustration and lack of argument....take a leaf out of AJ Philips' book - use your smarts and eloquence to get your message across.

Y thanks, from your continuing claims every crime committed by an existing Churches members /workers is not an act by religions.
Therefore we have no God,as these acts are not of God = no God is represented on earth.
No sorry but not buying it.
Shocka, come, you can not think that?
Are you telling me every criminal ever convicted of anything was a waste, God was going to fix it?
Well bloke he/she is not.

Belly,

These are "religious" institutions. It's the "institution" part of the equation that harbours the culprits...which is why the RC is going after institutionally condoned abuse.

Albeit, there's something particularly diabolical when a morally triumphal institution such as those of religious persuasion protect pedophiles.

My take is that it's the fundamental model and make-up of human institutions (whatever their colours) that provide the perfect mechanisms for cover-ups of this nature.

Dear Belly,

<<Y thanks, from your continuing claims every crime committed by an existing Churches members /workers is not an act by religions.
Therefore we have no God,as these acts are not of God = no God is represented on earth.>>

Of course we HAVE no God - we ARE God!

If you look for representors of God on earth, you need look no further than yourself!

<<No sorry but not buying it.>>

But when a bunch of child-molesters tell you things, like that they are religious and know all about God, THEM you believe, don't you? THEIR stories you do buy!

Not the best analogy, Yuyutsu, but an interesting and quite useful one.

>>Try, say, to define 'orgasm' for someone who never experienced it.
You can detail the movements and sounds, but it will never amount to the actual experience.<<

The fallacy here is that when you do experience an orgasm, the chances are that you would recognize it from the description that you had previously heard - or subsequently learned, when you ask "what on earth was that?"

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for religion. When you define it as "the process of coming closer to God", the scope for misinterpretation is massive... "what on earth was that" can only be answered by "I dunno. What did it feel like?" Compared to identifying an orgasm, which has some reasonably well-defined parameters, independently verifying one's approach to a deity would be distinctly challenging, would it not.

>>...ignorance about religion is rife because attempts were made to describe it from outside by people who had no such experience<<

Unfortunately again, this argument falls down if the only description available from one who has had such an experience, is "the process of coming closer to God"". Which clearly has meaning for you, but is impossible - unlike describing an orgasm - to communicate effectively to others.

The only possible way to interpret your approach is that all the religions that we presently regard as religions, are no such thing. While this might be valid from a purist point of view, it is of no assistance when addressing the impact of what most of the rest of us would call a religion - Christianity, Islam etc. - on the world.

>>...here's another unsubstantiated assumption that enforced celibacy is a religious practice.<<

There you go, you see. The Catholic church a) is considered my many to be a religion, and b) enforces celibacy on its officers.

By dismissing the entire Catholic church as being unworthy of the description "religious", you effectively deny the crimes committed by its members.

Which is, I think, why Belly gets a little cross with you.

Dear Pericles,

<<The fallacy here is that when you do experience an orgasm, the chances are that you would recognize it from the description that you had previously heard - or subsequently learned, when you ask "what on earth was that?">>

If you practice religion long enough you will recognise the result from the description of the sages. The more you practice the more often you will say "Aha, so that's what they meant!". You can then communicate about it with others who are on the path (not necessarily of your own religious order or organisation, if you even belong to any).

<<The only possible way to interpret your approach is that all the religions that we presently regard as religions, are no such thing>>

Most "religions", I believe, started as a religious initiative, but then deteriorated over time, some less some more - and along with that also deteriorated the understanding of the world about what religion is.

<<By dismissing the entire Catholic church as being unworthy of the description "religious", you effectively deny the crimes committed by its members.>>

I don't consider the entire Catholic church as either religious or irreligious, but rather as a mixed bag.

I have no clue why by that I would be denying the crimes of its members: There is no doubt that the Catholic church exists, regardless of its degree of religiosity, nor is there a doubt that some of its members committed crimes.

<<Which is, I think, why Belly gets a little cross with you.>>

That would be a bit strange: suppose the Catholic church is not a religion - would that entitle it to molest children? I think not!

Y thanks, having been elevated to God it is my view I am the only one.
My followers will take the ten commandments as a rule.
Then make up their own.
But these I say are not to be broken, all humanity is one.
And equal, all must respect each other.
Any one practicing the now dead term, racism will be cast out.
All who molest children, any sex or social standing shall be de sexed , just before burning at the stake.
How am I going my Child?
Bit cruel? not so every God has a blood fixation.

Sadly, that won't work either, Yuyutsu.

>>If you practice religion long enough you will recognise the result from the description of the sages<<

"Recognizing the result" would surely be a self-fulfilling prophecy, given that your only working definition is "the process of coming closer to God". I could independently determine that the process of coming closer to God was to sacrifice a virgin at the high altar on midsummer's eve. If the result was a good harvest, I wouldn't have much of a job convincing gullible folk that this was a result they should recognize. I'd become a sage, in fact.

>>You can then communicate about it with others who are on the path<<

Again with the self-fulfilling prophecy. You would be uniquely able to determine "the path", n'est-ce pas. Good luck with that harvest.

>>I don't consider the entire Catholic church as either religious or irreligious, but rather as a mixed bag.<<

With respect, that is rather ducking the issue. Catholicism is a religion. Look it up.

People can be either religious or irreligious, of course (by anyone's definition, not merely yours), but that does not detract from the fact that the "mother church" is a branch of the Christian faith... in other words, a religion.

>>I have no clue why by that I would be denying the crimes of its members<<

Once again, you elide religion and religious. The Catholic religion is responsible for creating an environment in which its members were allowed to transgress, and to be "forgiven". This is the part that you appear to deny, mainly by swapping between your definitions of "religion" and "religious" whenever it is convenient to do so.

>>That would be a bit strange: suppose the Catholic church is not a religion - would that entitle it to molest children?<<

But it is.

And they did.

Dear Pericles,

<<I could independently determine that the process of coming closer to God was to sacrifice a virgin at the high altar on midsummer's eve. If the result was a good harvest, I wouldn't have much of a job convincing gullible folk that this was a result they should recognize. I'd become a sage, in fact.>>

The result of coming closer to God is being closer to God, and ultimately, God, not a good harvest: uniting with Him, realising you were never separate in the first place. Along with that comes the loss of one's false human identity and an end of all suffering, including the ontological fear of death.

If all you are after is a good harvest, better not waste your time and efforts on religion, rather upgrade your farm machinery and agricultural practices (you could experiment sacrificing a virgin, but I predict this experiment will fail to improve your harvest).

<<Catholicism is a religion>>

There is SOME religion left in Catholicism, but some rubbish as well.

<<the "mother church" is a branch of the Christian faith... in other words, a religion>>

Jesus initiated good religious practices, so Christians are religious to the extent they follow his instructions. Mere belonging to the church is not more religious than belonging to a footie club.

<<The Catholic religion is responsible for creating an environment in which its members were allowed to transgress, and to be "forgiven">>

The Catholic CHURCH is.

The purpose of confession is not to be forgiven, but to be reconciled with God, to stop having the sin stand between oneself and God.

The later invention of hell and that absolution saves from its flames, was introduced by the church for secular motives and is a degenerated form of the original practice. The only hell there is, is the separation from God which most of us experience in this world.

Also, reconciliation with God requires genuine contrition: it seems that some contemporary Catholic priests ignore that requirement.

You too, like Belly, seem to buy the Catholic story as if all their current practices are religious. Why?

Poirot "use your smarts and eloquence to get your message across"

I did. And virtually everything I've said has either been ignored or dishonestly distorted.

I shall exercise my "smarts" by exiting this pointless sham of a "debate".
Adios, amigos.

Lucky for us shocka did not own the bat or ball.
Leaving in a huff, because your view is not valued as much by others as your self is waving the white flag.
Y head spinning stuff!
Religion is not what you think, it is what its billions of followers through out history think and thought it was.is.
Catholic Church in my view mostly looks like a PEDOPHILES structure because it brings men who are other than natural men to its service.

Dear Belly,

<<Catholic Church in my view mostly looks like a PEDOPHILES structure because it brings men who are other than natural men to its service.>>

If that's all the Catholic Church is nowadays, then so be it, then it is no longer a religion.

Any institution (just like our human bodies) degenerates over time, including those institutions that were initially set up for the purpose of promoting religion.
Once an institution no longer serves its religious purpose, it should no longer be presented as religious.

However, through having some Catholic friends (not clergy), it is my humble estimate that not all religion is lost in that church, not at lay level anyway.

Your propositions continue to arrive in the form of completely circular arguments, Yuyutsu.

"The result of coming closer to God is being closer to God, and ultimately, God"

Without the benefit of some external reference point, which you have to agree is spectacularly absent from this assertion, there is no entry point for any discussion. Substituting "Sydney" for "God" makes just as much sense.

More, in fact, given that I can point to the construct that approximately 100% of people would readily identify as "Sydney". Your unwillingness to allow independent identification of the key components of your proposals - religion, religious, God etc. etc. - renders any challenge to your ideas completely impotent, since they disappear into the vortex of inevitable circularity.

Not that this is a bad thing. Only a touch frustrating for anyone looking for some kind of rationale behind your defence of religious institutions who harbour criminals in their midst.

>>You too, like Belly, seem to buy the Catholic story as if all their current practices are religious. Why?<<

That is a deliberate distortion, and not worthy of you at all.

I do not "buy" any such story. I don't even believe that the Catholic church has a "story" that paedophilia is a religious practice.

Nonetheless, Christianity is indeed a religion. And the Catholic church - a Christian religion - has harboured and defended individual paedophiles within its hierarchy, an act that is aided and abetted by the requirements and rituals of that religion.

Could we not at least agree upon those facts, and move on?

Dear Pericles,

<<Without the benefit of some external reference point>>

Sorry, there is nothing "external" to God.

<<there is no entry point for any discussion>>

The entry point is that:
1) There is a way-of-life and some practices which some people find extremely important (often more than life itself) to live by and practice.
2) One cannot verify or understand the importance of that way-of-life without living and practising the same.
3) There are some long-standing organisations who CLAIM to promote this way-of-life and practices.
4) It is likely that the above claims are partially correct.
5) Some of the above organisations did terrible things.
6) It is agreed that the above terrible things are not part of above way-of-life and practices.
7) There are some people, like "579", who want to outlaw this way-of-life and practices (probably because they favour a different way-of-life).
8) There are other people, like Belly, who join such calls due to the terrible things done by the above organisations.

As a result, people who follow the above way-of-life (but not the terrible-things), feel rightly threatened.
Denying their way-of-life is worse than death, so if their way-of-life is to be outlawed they are likely to die.

<<Nonetheless, Christianity is indeed a religion.>>

Following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ is a religion.
Christianity is only a religion to the extent it follows the footsteps of Jesus Christ.

<<And the Catholic church - a Christian religion - has harboured and defended individual paedophiles within its hierarchy>>

Would Jesus approve that??

<<an act that is aided and abetted by the requirements and rituals of that religion.>>

An act that is aided and abetted by degenerated requirements and rituals of that church.

Conclusion:

As there is no way for the religious way-of-life to be verified by secular authorities and differentiated from other ways-of-life, religious people must strive for maximum pluralism, where the state does not interfere in people's lives and ANY way-of-life is legal, even (sadly) if it's not a good one.

In that light, the Catholic Church is therefore one of the worst examples of serving religion.

Y I think you are trying to impress me at least, and your self too, that you are extremely intelligent and that your words have a mystical meaning.
I too think you think, you can convince me and your self, others too, man is his own God.
Let me call a spade a B shovel for you.
The thought I had on starting the thread was that every God ever worshiped was part of a religion.
His/Her followers part of religion.
I hoped for true debate.
True open reasoning talk, do we need religions.
Do they benefit or stall humanity.
Some folk know far more than I ever will, maybe you do, but how can you justifie saying Catholics are not a religion.
Some, far too many, from within the Church are not, not in the true sense.
But little Children sent to learn about the God and Church do not know that.
I see each of these religions Y but not yours.
I feel the very painful acts against kids demands much more than verbal tennis with a triple somersault.

Dear Belly,

I talk with Pericles on a sophisticated intellectual and theological level, but you are looking at the practical side, so I should not bother you with theological answers, only concentrate on the practical aspects.

<<but how can you justifie saying Catholics are not a religion.>>

What I said is that Catholicism is a mixed bag.
Some members are religious, others aren't.
I can tell from personal knowledge that there is life in the lay level.
The priesthood I don't know personally, but I'm told it smells rotten.

A body may have had a life,
but there comes a time when a doctor needs to look at it and say "Nay, now it's only a corpse".

<<But little Children sent to learn about the God and Church do not know that.>>

So you need to tell them.

Instead of blindly believing that since the Church was once religious it must remain so forever, you must take a good sniff and tell them:
"Sorry children, but this church is dead, we shouldn't go near, let's find another".

>>What I said is that Catholicism is a mixed bag.
Some members are religious, others aren't.<<

All Catholics - according to Catholic doctrine - are religious. What is a fella to believe? On the one hand we have this:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Which I have long considered nonsense. On the other hand we have Yuyutsu's kooky beliefs which say that some religious people aren't religious at all. I think this is nonsense. Of course Yuyutsu thinks he is god and probably considers everything he says to be the inerrant word of god. I think this is also nonsense.

But seeing as the choice is between the teachings of a man a lot of people consider infallible on matters of faith and teachings of a self-proclaimed God I'm going to have to go with the bloke who's got the numbers and say that all Catholics are religious. And that if you're not religious you can't qualify as Catholic.

>>"Sorry children, but this church is dead, we shouldn't go near, let's find another".<<

Or just make one up as you go along. Either is good. Hey, it worked Lafayette Ron Hubbard. And Jim Jones.

Cheers,

Tony

Y sorry to intrude on your higher form of talking.
No place for me there.
See it resembles the talk of an insane asylum to me.
It twists the meaning of words,bury,s some deep under the ground so they will not be seen or heard.
Nice of you to remind me its beyond my understanding.
And finally bloke?
As a bush bloke I long ago learned to avoid stepping on the product of the south bound end of a north bound Bull.

Tony Lavis,

Re: Yuyutsu's comment "What I said is that Catholicism is a mixed bag. Some members are religious, others aren't."

I know plenty of "Catholics" who don't go near a church or any meaningful religious practice, save to have their children baptised in the church. Once the children are baptised they are included "in the family of the church" - and therefore, "members".

They are usually baptised by these folks who aren't church attending/religious Catholics partly out of ritual, but often mainly to gain first dibs at entry into Catholic schools.

Friends of mine, who are church attending Catholics, have often regaled me with stories of the church suddenly filling up with "parents" at periodic "Confirmations" and such like. These parents of children at Catholic schools are required to turn up for such events, whereas they usually don't bother.

>>I know plenty of "Catholics" who don't go near a church or any meaningful religious practice, save to have their children baptised in the church.<<

You probably do. But according to Church doctrine those "Catholics" aren't Catholics. Baptism is necessary but not sufficient to make somebody Catholic according to Catholic doctrine.

>>Once the children are baptised they are included "in the family of the church" - and therefore, "members".<<

"Members" they may be but members they ain't: the Church demands a bit more of its members than being splashed with some water as a small child. If that was all it took to be Catholic then I'd be one and I'm not. They are people who have had a Catholic baptism ceremony not Catholics.

Interestingly there is one exception to the rule: the only requirements for the Pope are that he be male and baptized - they don't even specify a Catholic baptism. In practical terms the voting Cardinals elect one of their own. I keep hoping that Benedict XVI will die and the Cardinals will elect Pell so we can ship him off to Rome.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

If you trot up to a Catholic school with your little angel in tow. they will ask you whether the child has been baptised a Catholic on the application form. If your child has been baptised a Catholic, your child will get first dibs for enrollment....ie, the child is taken to be a Catholic even if it hasn't been in a church since the baptism.

Yes, Catholics may be required to do more, but most of them don't do anything and they can still trot off to church and with a minimum of preparation and have their children baptised in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest.

My friends (the church going Catholics) have a large family, most of whom don't go near a church unless it's for a baptism, marriage or something to do with Catholic obligations connected with certain rites overseen through the school.

Church doctrine might say one thing, but the reality is that many "Catholics" ain't religious.

Millions of Catholics pray in Church and at home, do the rosary, sing and play the organ in the church choir, perform charitable actions, teach in church, church-schools and other church groups, raise their children with loving discipline and generally use Catholicism as their religion while ignoring the old man in Rome, his cardinals and their doctrines.

This is like new fresh shoots coming off the trunk of a dead old tree.

It is no wonder that those evangelising for the pseudo-religion of humanism, worshipping its idols such as Science and Evidence, pick on the worst of the worst (eg. the Catholic priesthood and the significant portion of paedophiles within it) in order to denounce, discredit and ultimately criminalise Catholicism, thereby Christianity, thereby religion in general, in order to gain maximum following and power for their own faith in the material and material society.

Isn't it interesting that those atheists take the pope's words and rulings more seriously than the Catholics themselves?

A thought for the day:

If you believe that there is no real spiritual value in religion, then what makes you call a church "religious", but not a football or a golf club whose followers support it no less "religiously"?

Is this really what you think is happening here, Yuyutsu? Or are you just blowing off a little steam?

>>It is no wonder that those evangelising for the pseudo-religion of humanism, worshipping its idols such as Science and Evidence, pick on the worst of the worst (eg. the Catholic priesthood and the significant portion of paedophiles within it) in order to denounce, discredit and ultimately criminalise Catholicism, thereby Christianity, thereby religion in general, in order to gain maximum following and power for their own faith in the material and material society.<<

I see very little evangelizing of humanism here. I do see people expressing concerns about the privileged position of religions in our society, but I don't see any proselytizing for atheism.

I'm surprised you describe humanism as a pseudo-religion, since it has no rules, no procedures, no liturgy, no rituals. Much more like a non-religion, don't you think?

"Worshipping its idols such as Science and Evidence" sounds a little try-hard to me. Why can't you just say "relying for their conclusions on science and evidence".

And the point about "picking on the worst of the worst" is that their individual sins are much like from those of, say, Jimmy Savile, which also involved a serious betrayal of trust. In both cases the hierarchy (church/BBC) was complicit in aiding, abetting and covering up. At least the Director General of the BBC recognized this, and resigned. I doubt we will see the Pope take a similarly principled view.

>>... in order to denounce, discredit and ultimately criminalise Catholicism<<

Unfortunately the very structure of the church is one of its biggest problems - celibacy, "sanctity" of the confessional and all that. These are not criminal activities. But the crimes themselves are perpetrated by individuals - the paedophiles, and those who defend/hide/cover up for them.

>>... in order to gain maximum following and power for their own faith<<

You may call it that if you like.

I'll call it an opportunity after many years of willful blindness, to try to obtain a measure of justice for some very abused and terminally damaged children.

>>If your child has been baptised a Catholic, your child will get first dibs for enrollment...ie, the child is taken to be a Catholic even if it hasn't been in a church since the baptism<<

They have to live local parish as well to get preferential treatment - your type of baptism won't help if you want to go to the nicer Catholic school down the road.

But that's besides the point: the local Catholic school is not the same organisation as the Roman Catholic Church. The first one is a medium scale school educating a few hundred students. The second one is not. It's no surprise that as different organisation they have different membership requirements.

>>Church doctrine might say one thing, but the reality is that many "Catholics" ain't religious.<<

How does that work? Catholic doctrine is what sets out the membership requirements for the Church. How can people really be Catholics if they don't meet those requirements? Because you say so? Because they say so? I'm not a member of the Baker Street Irregulars but I really like Sherlock Holmes. I don't meet the membership requirements but working off the theory that they just forgot to send me my Irregular Shilling could you use your awesome powers to make me an Irregular? Or do you think I should just go ahead and declare myself one anyway?

>>If you believe that there is no real spiritual value in religion, then what makes you call a church "religious", but not a football or a golf club whose followers support it no less "religiously"?<<

A church is a religious organisation because its existence revolves around the idea - however much value it might hold - of God. A football club's existence revolves around football: saying somebody supports it 'religiously' refers to the strength of their devotion not the type of devotion.

And finally this because it's awesome. Except for the weird disco bit at the end. May contain strong language:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB958pxquj0

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

You're splitting hairs. I was referring to Yuyutsu's intimation that not all Catholics are religious.

As for Catholics not attending church or being religious, it's common practice to rely on one's technical Catholicism to get the kiddies into schools. Here's the "priority" list for enrollment at a local Catholic school.

* Catholic students from within the parish.

* Catholic students from outside the parish.

* Other Catholic students.

* Siblings of non-Catholic students.

* Non-Catholic students from other Christian denominations.

* Other non-Catholic students.

Catholic schools are fairly closely aligned with parish affairs and representations. Many parents of "Catholic" students are not religious but feel a connection to the institution and its rituals.

I see your point that if these types don't live up to the doctrine, how can they be called Catholics? But they are called Catholics, and they have the school enrollments to prove it.

Now if I wanted to join the Catholic church, I would have to go through quite a bit of preparation to be accepted. However if I had been baptised a Catholic, I would be already be in - even if I'd never set foot in a church since the day of my baptism.

Y I am aware of the deep intellectual theme to your posts here.
Are you however aware how very remote from most of us that is.
Try telling the mums and dads out side any Church,any Gods Church.
They are not religions followers.
I have lived in a time in my early life that saw the Catholic Church far from the only one that offended against Children in its care.
Yet it had very real strength , far beyond its numbers.
I have been loath to step side ways in this thread, to talk of the non Catholic, some are convinced that Church is the living Devil.
And my reluctance to include the Islamic creed may have ignored my concerns and took a plank awayb from my questions.
Even at this late stage,an underlining theme is.
Do Religions do more harm than good?

For those looking for spiritual reality sould check the words of Messiah Jesus,"The kingdom of heaven is within you" It is not pie in the sky when you die, it does not have a material dimension. It is motives, attitudes and character these values are the basis of Christ's teaching.

Godless tell the world we do not need pure motives, selfless attitudes and moral character based in compassion. It is all about looking after # one. Good Christian Churches are established to express and teach good motives, pure relationships and compassionate behaviour.

Dear Pericles,

<<Is this really what you think is happening here, Yuyutsu? Or are you just blowing off a little steam?>>

Yes, I know some Catholics personally, lay people who run their church, lead religious discussions, childrens' nativity play and youth camps, and do a beautiful job at that. Due to the shortage of priests in Australia (no wonder, how many agree to BOTH be celibates AND obey the corrupt church hierarchy), there isn't a priest every Sunday, so the service is usually led by lay-people. Sometimes they get an imported guest-priest from South America, but then the parish tells him what to do and not vice-versa.

<<I do see people expressing concerns about the privileged position of religions in our society>>

The BIG churches may get privileges, but it doesn't help the smaller groups and individuals of different religions. In fact, it doesn't even help the common church-goers of the big religions.

Humanism and atheism are quite two different things:
Pure atheism is neutral, it just says "such and such does not exist" and leaves it at that without placing value-judgement on anything or worshipping anything.
Humanism OTOH places great value on human achievements, including technological and social "advancement" and "progress", while worshipping Science and Evidence blindly as gods.

True scientists understand that science cannot circularly prove or provide evidence for its own importance or goodness, or that human achievements and progress are good: true scientists humbly understand science's limits and are busy in their labs and with complicated mathematical modelling which the masses don't even dream of understanding. They do not consider themselves as gods or even prophets: nothing stops true scientists from even being religious in every sense of the word. The humanist masses, however, don't understand any of that, thus they treat Science and Evidence as a deity beyond their capacity to understand.

<<try to obtain a measure of justice for some very abused and terminally damaged children.>>

By punishing those who are not perpetrators, not even Catholic priests, not even Catholics, not even Christian, just punishing every religious person on earth? You call that "justice"?

Dear Belly,

<<Are you however aware how very remote from most of us that is.
Try telling the mums and dads out side any Church,any Gods Church.>>

So what do you suggest? To leave mums and dads in their ignorance?

That they continue to believe that all religious people belong to an organised religion, all organised-religions are Christian, all Christians are Catholic, all Catholics are priests and all Catholic priests are either paedophiles or support paedophilia, thus every religious person ought to be burned at the stake?

<<Even at this late stage,an underlining theme is.
Do Religions do more harm than good?>>

Your original question, Belly, was: "Religion do we need it?"

So accordingly, my answer is: "of course: without religion there is no point in life!".

Now you wish to modify and limit the discussion to "religions" (in plural, meaning religious-organisations) and whether they do more harm than good.

Now this is a good question.

Just to make your question clearer, ask:

"Do organised religions do more harm than good?"

Or even better, ask about each organised religion in turn:

"Does the Catholic church do more harm than good?"
"Does Islam do more harm than good?"
"Does Judaism do more harm than good?"
"Does Buddhism do more harm than good?"
...

Then, once the question is set correctly, interesting and meaningful answers will begin to flow, even at this late stage!
(or in a new thread if you prefer)

You're becoming very emotional about this, Yuyutsu, quite unnecessarily.

>>Yes, I know some Catholics personally, lay people who run their church, lead religious discussions, childrens' nativity play and youth camps, and do a beautiful job<<

As I pointed out before, these individuals are not the issue. It is the organization whose rules protect the paedophiles that are under the microscope. Guilt by association does not apply. In other words, no-one is saying "you are a Catholic, therefore you must be a paedophile". It simply doesn't work that way.

>>Humanism and atheism are quite two different things:<<

Really? Do you know many humanists who also believe in God?

The British Humanist Society describes humanism thus...

"Humanists are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason and experience."

No hint of blind worship. In fact, worshipping anything would be a contradiction.

>>By punishing those who are not perpetrators, not even Catholic priests, not even Catholics, not even Christian, just punishing every religious person on earth? You call that "justice"?<<

You see, that's the sort of emotional outburst that I don't understand.

Exactly how are these innocents being punished? And by whom?

Also, I'm not sure your revisionism with regard to the original question is going to be particularly helpful.

>>"Do organised religions do more harm than good?"<<

One of the consistent undercurrents created by religion - any religion - is the exclusion of facts and logic from their belief system. While it is quite often benign, the fact remains that when you allow people to ignore what is going on around them simply because they consider themselves answerable to some kind of "higher power", it is only a short step to their ignoring the rules and laws that society has created in order to live harmoniously.

The example in front of us is of people who consider that "absolution" by a priest equates to innocence of crime.

But the problem, it can be argued, is endemic to the very concept of religion. Which is why, I suspect, the question was phrased the way it was.

Josephus, with nothing but respect,and being an ex committed Christian, words like yours are water of a ducks back.
In fact no more likley to bring folk to Church or God than any others.
It is not a crime to believe.
But too, it is no crime not to.
If Christianity is to survive it must find better ways to sell its message.

Dear Pericles,

<<It is the organization whose rules protect the paedophiles>>

I understand, but those rules are not religious rules, but rather the distorted remains of what once were religious instructions.

When people say that religion is the culprit (rather than the degeneration of religion), then all religious people are in danger.

<<"Humanists are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason and experience.">>

That's how they like to describe themselves.

<<Exactly how are these innocents being punished? And by whom?>>

"579" threatened here to make religion illegal.
Tony Lavis replied that religion should only be considered a misdemeanour.
Others threaten to take away the children of religious parents and force them through secular brainwashing in public/state schools.

<<One of the consistent undercurrents created by religion - any religion - is the exclusion of facts and logic from their belief system.>>

When a religious person makes a wooden artifact, they still hit the nail on its head and use the same side of the hammer just like anyone else. This is an example of proper use of facts and logic. The difference is that religious people know the limits of facts and logic and do not attempt to apply those in areas where they do not belong.

<<it is only a short step to their ignoring the rules and laws that society has created in order to live harmoniously.>>

And so they should!

Why should religious people (or anyone else for that matter) be obliged to follow the rules set by others? What right have you anyway to force your rules and your ideals about that society-thing on others without their consent?

Most religious people reach a stage where they need to live outside society, to isolate themselves and concentrate on God without the distraction of material life. Society has no right to interfere where they have asked nothing of it, not even for protection.

(continued...)

(...continued)

It is but secular propaganda as if society created its rules and laws in order to live harmoniously. The reality beneath that thin layer of civility, is yet another case of Alpha-males wanting to control the rest of their tribe. No harmony is possible so long as we identify with an animal body.

The only way to live harmoniously, is to realise that we are not separate human bodies. Once, or to the extent that we know ourselves to be God and not a human body/mind, and that so is everyone else, we wouldn't knowingly want to hurt another because by doing so we would be hurting ourselves.

Religious people are less likely to murder, rape, steal, cheat, etc., not because they care about society, but because such actions would remove them away from God. It's clear, however, that society must protect itself from such people who make false religious representations, so here's a simple principle:

Society may punish those of its members who fail to follow its laws. However, society may not punish those who never agreed to be part of it to begin with. Instead, it should deal with those outside who pose a threat to its members as enemies and even kill them if that's what's required to protect its members.

<<The example in front of us is of people who consider that "absolution" by a priest equates to innocence of crime.>>

But that's just half the story. The crime has been made and the karma of the crime is still going to reach the criminal. The repercussions must come regardless (including perhaps a jail sentence, or violent attacks by relatives of the victim). What absolution does, if exercised in the right spirit and preceded by genuine contrition, is that the same repercussions, otherwise painful, will subjectively not be experienced in a negative way.

<<But the problem, it can be argued, is endemic to the very concept of religion>>

According to Buddha, what is endemic, is the inevitable corruption of all established religions (he even predicted that his own teachings will become corrupt in 500 years).

Y thanks for those two posts.
For me it clears up quite a lot.
You said I was trying to change the conversation at this late stage.
Then showed me you and I are having a different conversation to each other.
You may well be very smart I have no doubt you are, but your words have little effect on me.
I see ZERO relation to what I thought we would talk of on starting the thread others may, so go for it.

The Humanist Society of Britian can make a definition that defines their groups values and include atheism at their core. However the activities that are humanist in nature do not exclusively belong to that society. For instance the Salvation Army or Fred Hollows are great humanist expressions in our society and are not based in atheism. The word humanism does not have exclusive meaning to one organisation.

I think this is where we part company, Yuyutsu.

>>Why should religious people (or anyone else for that matter) be obliged to follow the rules set by others?<<

If you are unable to grasp the simple benefits of a society that respects laws, there is simply no common ground between us that we can explore.

Have a nice day.

Dear Belly,

<<I see ZERO relation to what I thought we would talk of on starting the thread others may, so go for it.>>

So if I get you correctly, you would like to discuss whether religious institutions are necessary, right?
A good topic with no easy answers!
Any institution in particular, such as the Catholic Church, or just all of them?

I think that one can reach God even if they never in their life heard or read anyone talk about Him, but it is rare and most people need some encouragement and direction along the way, which is what religious institutions are [supposed to be] about.

Dear Josephus,

The exact same external act can be good or evil, only depending whether it is performed for the glory of God of for the glory of man.

Dear Pericles,

<<If you are unable to grasp the simple benefits of a society that respects laws>>

If you live in society, and you do so of your own free choice, then you should respect its laws.

Once one reaches a certain stage in their religious development, they often need to stay away from society, to be either secluded or remain in the company of the like-minded alone. The problem is that society has grabbed for itself every spot on earth, leaving no physical place for those who are not interested in participating and being its members to live in. It has no right to do so.

Y I had in mind every single one of them that ever existed.
That the whole concept of religions, the reason we gave birth to them.
Or that God, any one of them created them.
I wanted to explore the good and bad outcomes of them.
Is the reliance some have on God fixing it all for us good or bad.
Should we hold ourselves accountable for our actions or let God do it?
I HOPE, FOREVER, TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION THAT ANSWERS THIS QUESTION.
*How can we follow our God totally, but so freely cast of every other one*

Now you are just being silly, Yuyutsu.

>>The problem is that society has grabbed for itself every spot on earth, leaving no physical place for those who are not interested in participating and being its members to live in. It has no right to do so.<<

Of course it has.

Every right.

The fact that you prefer not to observe society's rules does not invalidate either society, or the rules it has established. The "right" to implement those rules has developed over centuries, and has been motivated by the people themselves. Individual societies have created these things called "governments", who make and keep laws, and whose legitimacy is derived from the people themselves.

The name for someone who chooses not to live under society's guidelines is "outlaw". Historically, this indicates that those individuals - having declared themselves to be beyond the law's reach - have in fact also removed themselves from its protection. Probably as a result of this, these folk have developed their own laws, rules and habits, simply in order to identify themselves, and to give each other a form of mutual support.

The concept of "honour among thieves" is just one example of this. While at the other end of the social spectrum you have Trappist monks, with rules that encourage deep contemplation, as well as the production of some surprisingly good beers.

But you can always find some space that "society" isn't using, Yuyutsu. Just put your mind to it. There are plenty of examples, if you are genuinely keen to get away from it all. Pirate radio stations in 1960s UK, for example, placed themselves outside the law by occupying sites outside UK jurisdiction.

Think Jonestown. There you have a classic example of a religion that needed to, in your words, "stay away from society, to be either secluded or remain in the company of the like-minded alone".

That they were successful in doing so, is beyond question.

Dear Belly,

<<Y I had in mind every single one of them that ever existed.
That the whole concept of religions, the reason we gave birth to them.>>

We should hope that most institutions that we consider "religious" were born for the purpose of serving religion, of bringing people closer to God. Unfortunately a few of them were not to begin with, while others are no longer.

<<Or that God, any one of them created them.>>

Nobody created God and I don't think you subscribe to that wild idea yourself, but I think I get what you mean - that people created different CONCEPTS of God.

<<I wanted to explore the good and bad outcomes of them.>>

As I see it, to the extent those institutions succeeded in bringing people closer to God, they were good and to the extent they mislead people and drove them away from God, they were bad.

<<Is the reliance some have on God fixing it all for us good or bad.>>

Believing that God fixes it all for us is good for some, replacing anxiety with faith, but others take it too far: if you think "I won't tie my shoe-lace because God-will-do-it-for-me", then you consider God as your personal servant, which is wrong (and your shoe-lace will remain untied!).

<<Should we hold ourselves accountable for our actions or let God do it?>>

We are fully accountable for our actions until such time that we realise by direct-experience that we are not the doer of those actions. That's a pretty-advanced stage, so practically, the vast majority of people are accountable.

<<*How can we follow our God totally, but so freely cast of every other one*>>

We obviously cannot cast away God, we can only cast away other people's concepts of God - but we shouldn't do it!

If other people benefit from different concepts of God than ours, if it helps them to come closer to God, then we should encourage them to continue using those concepts. Their concepts may not be helpful to us, but they are helpful to them.

Yuyutsu,

To the extent that you believe that man (and everything) is God - and that we are on a journey to that realisation, I'm interested in your apparent rejection of society - as if the human condition is bearable without such a paradigm.

I understand that you yourself (apparently) feel that you have moved beyond such a requirement. But if man exists as a mortal being, he needs the company and cooperation of others of his kind. If man were to progress to a level where he considered his mortal existence as superfluous, and was universal in this perspective, then there would be no reason to quibble - but for the time being, as a mortal, he cannot get by without his fellows.

I note that you appear to act on a desire to communicate with your fellows in the virtual community/society of OLO - surely you do this out of instinct and need?

Dear Poirot,

I do not reject society as such, I only reject such societies that force themselves on individuals/families/groups that do not wish to be part of it.

I leave it to the individual to decide whether to live in society and if so, in which society(s) they want to live.

I think it's best for most people to live in autonomous tribes of 50-150 individuals, where personal relationship with everyone is still possible. Then, if one is unhappy with their tribe, they can move to another. I do however acknowledge that it would be quite difficult for those already habituated to live in larger groups to adapt to such a setting. Perhaps the answer is then to reduce the group-size in a gradual way. Anyway, this prattle is not directly about religion. Yet again, I leave it for everyone to decide for themselves.

Regardless of what's best for most people, religious people at a certain stage have the need for isolation in order to concentrate on their relationship with God rather than with other people. This occurs to varying degrees and for varying periods, for some even for life.

What I specifically reject are societies so big that one cannot escape, which take up so much contiguous land (a whole continent in the case of Australia) that one (or a group) who doesn't accept its values and goals has nowhere to go.

<<I understand that you yourself (apparently) feel that you have moved beyond such a requirement.>>

I'm not there yet...

Dear Pericles,

<<Individual societies have created these things called "governments", who make and keep laws, and whose legitimacy is derived from the people themselves.>>

If you're so sure that it's derived from the people themselves, why won't you allow them to choose?

<<have in fact also removed themselves from its protection.>>

I have no problem with the notion of "no free lunch".

<<Jonestown>>

Followers may well have been religious, but the leader wasn't.

While the leader rots in hell (figure-of-speech), we cannot exclude the possibility that followers grew spiritually as a result of their dedication, suffering and death.

Y I have the feeling, may be wrong, you once informed us you are not from Australia.
Not that it makes any difference, but it may explain your thinking so differently than some of us.
Man is my God, not to be worshiped.
But in my view he invented every God, every creation story.
He did so for defense and to protect groups.
For power and control.
Some great things came about because of belief in God.
Some dreadful is human nature, while one paints the sisteen Chapel, others murdered defenseless people.
Every work of art every book, including every holly one, came from the mind of man.
But so too did Hitlers rant.
I believe we have grown out of our Gods.
That they divide not unite us.
I for those who need, think we should plant, then find a new chapter of those ancient scrolls.
Telling of Gods true intention, one God for all.
And sell it exclusively as the only true creed.
Wrong? why in my view each God is an invention.
Let us invent one to unite us all.

Dear Belly,

The contemporary composer Philip Glass included in his 5th symphony several creation-stories and other myths from different cultures.

If they can all live nicely together in one symphony, then they can also all be embraced and live nicely together in the hearts of people.

The Jewish scripture, "Pirkei Avot" (ethics of the fathers, 5:17), reads:
"17. Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven is destined to endure; one that is not for the sake of Heaven is not destined to endure."

Jesus said [John 14:2]: "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you."

The various stories are just ladders along the way, so that people who approach God from different directions can find different ladders to step on. Once they climb those ladders, they don't need them any more (but those who cling to a ladder, remain stuck where the ladder is). These ladders were placed there by those who traversed there earlier in order to help those who will come after. If there was only one ladder, then everyone would need to scramble and come a long way around to that ladder. The goal is God, not the ladder.

There is no one true creed - the creeds are like the support-stations when you run a marathon, it's where you can grab a cup of water to keep running, but they don't do the journey for you, you still have to run on your own. If there was only one creed, in only one spot, then the runners would be thirsty.

<<Wrong? why in my view each God is an invention.>>

Because you can only see the ladders to God. These are marvellous inventions.

<<Let us invent one to unite us all.>>

You can't fix what is not broken, you can't unite what is already united.

If you go to a puppet-theatre, you will see the puppets fighting and hating each other, but beneath the desk, they are all united, all operated by the same operator.

Y united?
What is the reason north and southern Ireland fought/fight.
What drives the west bank vs Israel?
Why are India and Pakistan often close to war.
If not God what drives the hate?

Dear Belly,

Can you seriously imagine God sitting on some cloud and driving hate and wars?

God doesn't do anything - it's people who make wars.

The main underlying reason for war is overpopulation and lack of resources,
genetic factors also play there,
but people like to feel that they are right, to be justified in what they are doing,
they don't like to think of themselves as villains,
so some of them use the name of God and religion as an excuse.
It is pathetic, but that's what people do.

Religion is only a pretext, not the real reason for wars.

Yuyutsu,

"Can you seriously imagine God sitting on some cloud and driving hate and wars?
God doesn't do anything - it's people who make wars."

Yes, it is people who make wars but unfortunately many of those people think their particular imaginary friend in the sky or their particular version of it, wants them to. Many conflicts on the planet are demarked by religious preference.

The demarcation might not be the only reason for strife but it would be interesting to get rid of it and find out.

David

Y I am not coming out in defense of the foundation, it to me is no more needed than religion.
You however fall from that mountain top after that post.
Now not pulling your leg I unable to grasp your thought patten, had thought maybe it is above my understanding.
But no, not the case.
Never heard or remember hearing of a war that did not see God, different ones sometimes , promising victory to both sides.
There is the heart of my view, no God may equal one humanity.

Religion causes wars i think is a for gone conclusion. One teetering on the edge of war is the two types of muslims. One has trouble living with the other, that has got to be religion.
It once happened here, burials for a certain groups, were separated.
One group in particular were even facing the opposite direction, to everyone else, and far removed altogether.
So you can't say religion doesn't cause problems.
A free ride at the tax payers expense needs serious overall.
Leaders of these organizations have disgraced themselves, hopefully to a point of no return.

Dear David,

<<but unfortunately many of those people think their particular imaginary friend in the sky or their particular version of it, wants them to.>>

Then they must be idiots!

But I do wonder how many such idiots and nut-cases actually exist, I think that their number is limited, that most are pretenders.

<<Many conflicts on the planet are demarked by religious preference.>>

Many conflicts on the planet are demarked by religious pretence.

The preference of those pretenders is for their national/ethnic group, not for God.

Yuyutsu,

Twin Towers - Suicide bombers - Abortion Clinic murders - political atrocities such as the situation with gays in Uganda and a long list I don't feel obliged to elaborate on. All for an imaginary god.

Calling people idiots for following the dictates of nature and nurture is, well, idiotic.

Education is the way to go, therefore there is the AFA.

David

Dear David,

<<Education is the way to go, therefore there is the AFA.>>

I agree.

If people can be such idiots to think of God in that way, as if He wants them to fight one another and carry all those other stupid actions you mentioned, then they better be atheists, then perhaps they need that phase of atheism to cleanse their mind of all those false and primitive notions of gods.

Once they go through that phase, they may finally have a chance to come closer to God in earnest.

Thank you for your great work. Perhaps I underestimated the importance of the AFA in the service of God!

Yuyutsu,

Let me assure you, not many folk come closer to any of the imaginary gods as a result of the existence of the AFA.

I think we might leave it there with that thought.

David

Dear David,

<<Let me assure you, not many folk come closer to any of the imaginary gods as a result of the existence of the AFA.>>

Thank God for that, thank you again for your great work and may God bless you and the AFA.

Yuyutsu,

I'll let you know if the AFA or I feel the blessing, whatever that is.

Warning - Do not hold your breath on this one or you may not meet she/he/it sooner than nature intended. :))

David

Only ONE thing matters regarding this discussion ..."no deities exist".

ALL of Yuyu's debating points regarding the existence of his imaginary friend are 100% negated by this one profound fact.

It is something that will NEVER be accepted by people like Yuyu. Why? Because their entire belief system is based on the belief that their imaginary friend "exists".

The most meaningful,profound and deep 3 words in this entire discussion are .... "no deities exist".

Dear DiamondPete,

No deities exist.

Existence is an illusion.

Let's unpack that a little, Yuyutsu.

>>Existence is an illusion.<<

Whose illusion?

Yours or mine?

If it is your illusion that I exist, and my illusion that you exist, then you need to define in some detail what you actually mean by "illusion" and also "existence".

Because if you don't exist except through an illusion, you have no way of forming the illusion that either you, or I, exist.

And if neither you nor I exist, it opens up immense new possibilities

For a start, it will save me a heap on groceries next week.

Yuyu .... you're being obtuse again. That's how you defend your "beliefs", time and time again on this thread. You know EXACTLY what "I" meant by the phrase "no deities exist". And you're quite entitled to "believe" in your imaginary friend (or whatever phrase or word you use to describe it), as I have told you many times on this thread.

Fact .... "no deities exist".

Yuyutsu,

Solipsism is not at all helpful in the real world. Drop a brick on your toe and come back to me that the pain is an illusion.

Bertrand Russell had this to say about existence and if we don’t accept it we should at least accept the disastrous consequences because we don’t.

“To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”

David

Dear Pericles,

If you need evidence for the fickleness of the human mind and how easily it falls into illusions, just look at DiamondPete:
I keep agreeing with him that no deities exist and he keeps bursting into an open door, still thinking that I oppose his statement.

If despite so many repetitions Pete is unable to make simple distinctions such as for example between what I say, and what a typical theist says (that God exists and is a deity), then how possibly could he distinguish between illusion and Reality.

The illusion I referred to was not that I exist or that you exist - existence itself is the illusion. Many things can and do exist within that illusion, just like many things "exist" within a dream. So sorry, so long as you believe in existence you will need to keep paying for your groceries (or go hungry, it's your choice).

<<Yours or mine?>>

Ours!

For something to exist, it needs to be an object, to stand in relation to other objects. In order to stand in relation, the two must be separate.

Part of the illusion of existence, is that we are separate, that you and I are separate, that in fact any two "things" are separate - amid themselves and separate from God. That is not so.

Dear David,

“To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”

That makes sense, but I do not share Bertrand's goal of saving the world.

If a brick falls on your toe in your dream, which surely hurts, you have several choices:

you could crawl back into your mom's womb and cry, you could float across the ocean to find the wizard who will fix your toe, you can enter a time-machine to reverse the brick's movement, you could curse that brick, you could run faster than light so that the next brick you drop won't hit your other toe, or...

... you can wake up!

Trying to save the world is like banging the alarm-clock saying "hush, my dream is not over yet, my toe still hurts and I can't wake until it heals".

Yuyu .... as usual you are using a "simple definition" of what a "deity" is, in order to refute the presence of deities... a simple definition that you try to misrepresent that I "assume" when I use the word "deity".

As I said, you know *EXACTLY* what I mean by "deity", yet you STILL, on purpose, become obtuse regarding the presence of a deity/God/god/supernatural presence/Gods/gods/God ... me/ God ...you/ God everyone/ God ...everything etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc, or any of the other hundreds of terms used by believers like you to describe hundreds of imaginary friends.

Obtuseness is NOT a defense of your "beliefs".

Yuyu, your imaginary friend does not exist, and you are NOT your imaginary friend.

"No deities exist".

>>So sorry, so long as you believe in existence you will need to keep paying for your groceries (or go hungry, it's your choice).<<

But if we convert to Yuyutsuism and start believing existence is illusory we will get free groceries. Seems unlikely. Maybe we'll able to go without food and not get hungry.

No... wait... got it! We'll buy groceries but we'll be paying illusory money for illusory groceries. I can see two problems immediately: the Police take a dim view of anybody trying to pass off 'illusory' money in place of real currency. But even if you can get away with your counterfeiting operation it won't be for long: illusory groceries have zero nutritional value and you will starve on a diet of them.

Cheers,

Tony

Yuyutsu,

May I suggest you stop playing the role of the wise prophet as you are not making any sense to those of us who value a rational approach to life. You may or may not think you have a higher understanding of the universe but if you cannot transmit that knowledge or satisfactorily explain how you got it to other human beings in an comprehensible manner, it is more than likely you are living a delusion.

The life you have now is as real as it is going to get and kidding yourself we are all of an immaterial nature is not helpful to anyone. In fact, it is a cop out.

You are sprouting nonsense and should re-evaluate why you do this. I can only guess and I have no desire to do this.

David

Dear David,

<<May I suggest you stop playing the role of the wise prophet as you are not making any sense to those of us who value a rational approach to life.>>

It isn't enough to value the rational approach - one needs to live by what they value. Living by the assumption that the world is what it seems to be through the lenses of the human senses and mind, is irrational.

<<You are sprouting nonsense>>

You mean such as that molesting children is not part of religion but rather part of the corruption of religion; that Catholicism, indeed Abrahamism, is not the only religion on earth; or that theology need not logically conflict itself and science?

<<I can only guess>>

I write for two reasons:

The first is that I have been addressed and questioned. I do have better things to do with my time, and I did honestly believe that this discussion was over as there was no traffic for 4 days. I did mean it wholeheartedly when I wrote that you and the AFA ought to be blessed for your great work among those whose vision is, for whatever reason, so distorted as to believe God to be a monster.

The second is that religion has been attacked on this thread and as a religious person I am allowed to defend myself and my faith.

What is my life, what my life is all about was threatened to be made illegal in Australia. I am being told that I'm supposed to be content with science, human achievements, technological gadgets and that manner of rubbish. My life is full and rich without any of those, my life is happy and fulfilling, but I already had to leave the country where I was born and here I am told that I may have to leave this country as well and find a new home in my mature age because my religion is unacceptable, because some Catholic priests molested some children, without me knowing, and now all religious people are to blame and be persecuted.

Yuyu, your above post is illogical in the extreme. It's an utter corruption to absolve all religious belief of blame, by implying that religion is only good, and that anything that's bad regarding religion (and there's PLENTY of that) is not "really" religion. Some people apply the same illogical reasoning as you use to "their" versions of philosophy, religion, belief, political view, racial attitude etc etc.

Yuyu, you are religiously blind. You have scant understanding of religion. At the same time you are convinced that you have a deep understanding of religion. Trust me, you DON'T. Your very obtuse answers are your only defence, because the obtuseness allows you to explain your beliefs away via illogical thought and belief. You truly belong to an ancient, bygone era of uneducated superstition. Yes, I know this hurts you (you will deny this), but it must be said.

You have every right to have religious belief, and you have every right to defend your religious belief. Others have every right to see through religious belief, and every right to expose religious belief for what it actually is. These rights are the basis of freedom.

Yuyutsu,

“It isn't enough to value the rational approach - one needs to live by what they value. Living by the assumption that the world is what it seems to be through the lenses of the human senses and mind, is irrational.”

Observation – verification - repeatability – falsifiability or as we say, the scientific method had allowed humanity to see the universe as has only been dreamed of before this was employed. Explain your method…in words and not jumbled subjectivity?

“You mean such as that molesting children is not part of religion but rather part of the corruption of religion; that Catholicism, indeed Abrahamism, is not the only religion on earth; or that theology need not logically conflict itself and science?”

Religious power is possibly the best way known to be in a position to abuse children. They have total trust in it and its clergy. Theology and science are incompatible. (See my first response above)

“I did mean it wholeheartedly when I wrote that you and the AFA ought to be blessed for your great work among those whose vision is, for whatever reason, so distorted as to believe God to be a monster.”

Who believes the god you speak of is a monster? Not atheists, I can assure you. Atheists have the opinion that the gods of many religions as depicted by books and their adherents is a monstrous idea. Calling something a monster that does not exist is not an option.

Sure, you have every right to defend your faith but in the court of rationality others have the right to show your faith is baselessly asserted.

No one I know of who describe themselves as an atheist ‘blame and persecute’ religious people because of the aberrant behaviour of some Catholic priests. There may be the odd idiot who does this but it is not common. Have you some examples other than anecdote?

David

It's fascinating watching you guys debate Yuyutsu.

You take him on as if he's a typical representative of your idea of typical "institutionalised religion".

But he is coming from somewhere else outside the typical human sense-judging paradigm. His take on God and existence emanates more from a quantum level...the place where explanations for "existence" become hazy (as in 99 percent of an atom is vacuum, in a universe consisting of nothing but atoms, all connected and one)

I see his take on things as more akin to Buddhist thought, which is really a prescription for investigating one's own mind - from where one's reality emanates.

(Btw, I'm not "religious" - I'm merely enjoying the machinations of a debate with someone who's ideas don't fit neatly into conventional ideas of "religious thought")

For me, this is the most interesting part of your approach to religion, Yuyutsu.

>>Part of the illusion of existence, is that we are separate, that you and I are separate, that in fact any two "things" are separate - amid themselves and separate from God. That is not so.<<

Here's the thing.

Where does paedophilia fit into this scheme of yours?

Do you perhaps regard yourself as complicit with Catholic priests in their nefarious acts, on the basis that you and they are not separate? Are we to assume that paedophilia is therefore also approved by God, given that neither you, the Catholic priests nor God are in fact separate.

Where does that leave the victims of paedophilia, in your worldview? Was what they suffered merely an illusion too? And the pain they continue to experience, is that also illusory?

Or do you take the view that, because their very existence is an illusion, what has happened to them is also non-existent?

Personally, I find that quite distasteful.

Or maybe I am under the illusion that I find that quite distasteful. Either way, since we are not separate, you should find yourself under the same illusion.

Nope. That doesn't work.

Reality is what those victims felt. And having you dismiss the whole experience as having been enacted in their imagination is, most certainly, inhuman.

But perhaps you don't consider yourself human?

That would certainly explain a great deal.

Pericles,

I think you know that it's a man who commits socially unacceptable acts. That he commits these trespasses under the auspices of various institutional umbrellas is really a separate issue to what religious people believe.

I believe the RC is investigating the role of "institutional coverups". It's a human penchant to construct institutions...these constructions spread responsibility amongst adherents, therefore enabling a buck-passing, smoke-and-mirrors type of arrangement which work against transparency.

It's man who creates the institutions...and it's man who violates social taboos.

Dear David,

Over the last 3.8 billion years, organisms were specialised by evolution for the survival of their genes. Senses and brains were developed to find food and mates and avoid predators, but evolution had no reason to specialise in experiencing the Truth or the ultimate Reality, it just had nothing to gain by that.

For example, more obvious in some animals, but in humans too, the eye detects moving objects much better than stationary ones, which evolution considered "less interesting".

Are stationary objects less real than moving ones?

Therefore, for matters of survival+success I look to science, but for the true nature of things I look elsewhere.

<<Explain your method…in words and not jumbled subjectivity?>>

Words can only go that far. Words assume a common experience: if we're together hunting a bear, then our experience of "bear", though subjective, is similar enough to prevent one of us shooting their arrow at a tiger, the other at a monkey. That was accurate enough for evolution to find it useful to develop speech.

Without a common experience, words are futile. You say "let's hunt a bear" and your friend who's never been outdoors runs to the stock-market to buy cheap stocks. I experience a similar frustration when I talk about God and all that others can come up with is the Abrahamic deity.

<<Religious power>>

When someone charges a battery, or fills a dam, without using it immediately, without dissipating the energy, then power builds up.

When someone practices religious austerities for a while and not indulge as much in mundane desires, power builds up. This power is needed to break one's barriers to God.

If a person who used to be religious, having previously accumulated power, breaks their vows, then for a while they have more power at their disposal than others. That power was meant to lead one to God, hence that's the abuse of power, not religion, but the cessation of religion.

<<Who believes the god you speak of is a monster?>>

As you mentioned earlier: Twin-Towers; Suicide-bombers; Abortion-Clinic-murders... I thank the AFA for straightening those up.

Yuyutsu,

I don’t seek power, privilege, money, trinkets etc and yet your god and by the way, all the other gods, still hide from me. Why is that so?

How is it that one of the gods has revealed itself to you in such a certain manner? What special quality do you possess for that to happen?

David

David, Yuyu "believes" that Yuyu is God, and God is Yuyu. That's the crux of his belief. His confused mind doesn't see any God as "revealing" itself (because in Yuyu's mind, everything is already revealed and everything is already not revealed) .... therefore debating with him using logic and fact is a futile exercise.

His obtuseness allows him to successfully (in his own mind), answer anything whatsoever that's put to him.

DiamondPete,

Yes, but it’s too much responsibility being a god. I don’t think Yuyutsu has thought it through or indeed, thought at all. I once considered, as a child, it would be great to be Superman but then as I matured I realised I would have the capacity to solve all the problems of the world and would be obliged to do so. There would be no time for anything else. :)

Yuyutsu,

You do realise that if you don’t supply empirically supported evidence for your claims, only those who have taken their gullibility pills will believe you.

The problem with fantastically subjective ideas is that the observer doesn't know if you are lying or not. You may genuinely believe it true as did the Twin Tower etc. pilots or you could be fibbing for a whole host of reasons. This is the power of empirical evidence which makes is superior to all other systems. It eventually works out the lies and mistakes.

And even if you believe it to be true, that doesn't make it so and it might not be and most likely isn't.

Have a look at this video and tell me if the person is lying or is telling the truth? Don’t base your evaluation on the date of the video, only the content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YjpcZPT1-NA

David

You and I understand that, Poirot.

>>Pericles, I think you know that it's a man who commits socially unacceptable acts.<<

I am merely curious as to how this simple concept fits into Yuyutsu's view of a "self-less" world.

To me, this approach flies in the face of morality. If Yuyutsu finds it this easy to dismiss the concept of individuality in favour of some kind of communal, joined-up spirit, how can "man" be held singularly accountable for what we might call, for the lack of a better word, sin?

Earlier in the thread, Yuyutsu's quasi-philosophical observations were little more than the vapid musings of a moonstruck hippy, and the fact that they led nowhere was only amusing. But latterly, they have veered off into an area characterized by a complete lack of engagement with conventional mores, and by extension, morality.

Which is far more disturbing.

Dear Pericles,

<<Where does paedophilia fit into this scheme of yours?>>

Though that poor choice of name does not describe the phenomenon ('paedophilia' means the love of children - what love is there?), the phenomenon itself is part of existence.

Yes, existence is an illusion and religion gradually takes you out of that illusion, but so long and to that extant that you are still held within the grips of that illusion (as probably 99.999999% of us are to some degree or another), to that degree you need to face its details.

If indeed you realise yourself, your own true nature, as God, then you would also recognise the perpetrator as God, the child as God, the policeman as God, the judge as God, the executioner as God, etc. etc.

<<But perhaps you don't consider yourself human?>>

Well isn't that obvious?

If you truly were a human, then you must have been a human before you were born and remain human after you die. Surely you don't subscribe to such nonsense...

<<complete lack of engagement with conventional mores, and by extension, morality>>

Complete lack of engagement with phoney, socially-based and fickle mores, such that are broken by ordinary criminals every hour of the day and night - along with complete engagement with higher and eternal mores.

Religious people, so long as they remain religious, are far more motivated to avoid hurting others, as that would take them away from God. They don't need the legal system to tell them that. Non-religious people OTOH have only the police and the like to fear of.

DiamondPete,
Thank God none of your ideas of gods exist, similar with AFA immaginations of what they think God is like.

Josephus,

The Atheist Foundation of Australia doesn't imagine anything. It is an organisation not a person. However, members of the AFA don’t imagine anything about the numerous gods human have invented. They don’t exist and therefore imagining nothing is all that can be said.

David

Jose, you're wrong. My ideas "do" exist. Everyone thinks, and those thoughts actually exist. Or do you "believe" as Yuyu does .... that existence doesn't exist?

Dear Yuyu,
I see in the last paragraph of your last post that you are now running out of ideas, because you now bring up the old and weary Abrahamic god concept of godly retribution and fear of god if one does not remain religious. Gee yuyu, with your fertile "imagination" I never thought you'd run out of original ideas. I'm so disappointed.

Say "G'day" to your imaginary friend for me.

I doubt I will ever get the answers I looked for here.
But if I could only get a view of the thought process that lets some believe totally in Christ, but reject every other God.
I will be told God made every one.
But not why so very many different languages and Gods.
I thank those who did not introduce Islam in to this thread.
But just maybe I got that wrong.
My questions applied to every God.
I had no right to exclude any.
I still think it can not be proved, that we are better for our faiths, in my case no faith.
And that God is the reason most wars are fought.

You are probably right, Belly.

>>I doubt I will ever get the answers I looked for here.<<

But thanks for asking in the first place, it has been very educational.

What has intrigued me most is the glaringly obvious outcome, that organized religions are inevitably flawed, simply by the fact that they are organized religions, with a power base, a political influence and a need to exert mental control over their flock.

Which, of course, leaves Yuyutsu's personal philosophy as the only one that stands any chance of avoiding the pitfalls inherent in the structures we call "religions".

It is a pity that he finds the need to glorify it as religion, since it seems to have all the hallmarks of basic goodness that is supposed to be at the heart of our ability to get on with each other in what we call civilized society.

He unfortunately falls into this trap...

>>Religious people, so long as they remain religious, are far more motivated to avoid hurting others, as that would take them away from God. They don't need the legal system to tell them that. Non-religious people OTOH have only the police and the like to fear of.<<

Which of course is unmitigated codswallop.

Not to mention a tad insulting to ordinary human beings who understand their responsibility to be good, without having to invent a deity in order to do so. The idea that the only thing that stops people murdering each other is fear of the law is one that deists love to bandy around, despite the fact that e.g. Catholics are quite comfortable with the idea of sin (so long as they also seek forgiveness) under the umbrella of their religion.

Where Yuyutsu's theories fall down, is when they creep into deep-mystic territory, where the only means to understand concepts like "non-existence" is to have already drunk that kool-aid.

And the kool-aid metaphor is used here quite deliberately.

Dear Pericles,

<<Not to mention a tad insulting to ordinary human beings who understand their responsibility to be good, without having to invent a deity in order to do so>>

That's taking my words out of context: nobody needs to invent a deity in order to be religious. Even atheists can be religious.

<<The idea that the only thing that stops people murdering each other is fear of the law is one that deists love to bandy around>>

(strange logic - does the fact that deists love X makes X incorrect?)

I stand by my statement: people who are truly irreligious have nothing to stop them murdering apart from fear of the law (AND THE LIKE, as I mentioned in my previous post, such as social censure; being lynched by the victim's family; superstitions of punishment; ghosts; nightmares; etc.).

Those who abstain from murder simply due to the goodness of their heart, or because they don't want that wrenching sensation in the gut, often called 'conscience', are already well on their path towards God, are at least to some degree religious even if they never heard the words "God" or "gods" or anything like it in their whole life.

<<It is a pity that he finds the need to glorify it as religion, since it seems to have all the hallmarks of basic goodness>>

If you find this theological dissection too technical and rather refer to religion as "goodness", then so be it. There is no goodness but God's (as mentioned by Jesus in Mark 10:18), so the terms are interchangeable.

Accordingly, substitute "basic religion" with "basic goodness", which indeed is a requisite for the ability to get on with each other in what we call civilised society.

Accordingly then, substitute also "advanced religion" with "advanced goodness", which is more rare.

Curiouser and curiouser, Yuyutsu.

>>...nobody needs to invent a deity in order to be religious. Even atheists can be religious.<<

How do you reconcile this with your assertion early in the piece, when you explained to us that...

>>Etymologically however, the word "religion" comes from Latin "Re-Ligare" = "to bind [with God]"<<

I genuinely fail to see how an atheist, who clearly states a lack of belief in God, can at the same time be religious, and bind with God.

Of all the challenges you have set for us in this thread, that has to be king - because I have absolutely no doubt you will have an answer to it. Whether it is one that makes any sense to us mere mortals is the only unknown.

>>(strange logic - does the fact that deists love X makes X incorrect?)<<

I think I see where you are confused on this one, though.

It is the concept (that only laws stop people killing each other) that is incorrect.

While it is true that deists often use this argument, the fact remains that it is wrong because it is wrong, not simply because deists employ it. Sorry for any confusion there.

>>I stand by my statement: people who are truly irreligious have nothing to stop them murdering apart from fear of the law<<

That was not the issue. But you cannot then employ the logic "because people don't kill each other, they must be religious".

That's the fallacy that goes "Irreligious people kill. Therefore people who don't kill must be religious".

Likewise:

>>Those who abstain from murder simply due to the goodness of their heart... are at least to some degree religious even if they never heard the words "God"<<

Which once again sits ill with:

>>Etymologically however, the word "religion" comes from Latin "Re-Ligare" = "to bind [with God]"<<

On that basis, good people are able to bind with an entity of which they are entirely unaware.

Which I find particularly expedient. As well as being highly dubious logic.

Furthermore, Yuyutsu...

>>If you find this theological dissection too technical and rather refer to religion as "goodness", then so be it. There is no goodness but God's (as mentioned by Jesus in Mark 10:18)<<

I'd still like to call goodness, goodness, instead of religion, if that's ok with you.

Basically because you have employed the ultimate in circular arguments. Quoting Jesus, as "reported" by someone who wrote the story some forty years after it was supposed to have happened is tough enough to swallow. But at the same time you require us to accept that there is actually a God for goodness to belong to. So absent the acceptance that there is a God, the equation simply reads "goodness belongs to itself".

>>Accordingly, substitute "basic religion" with "basic goodness", which indeed is a requisite for the ability to get on with each other in what we call civilised society.<<

But there is absolutely no need to do this, since "basic goodness" remains "basic goodness", with or without the existence of any God.

Does that make sense to you now?

Congrats Y your perceived view of your self is more than good.
Even if it is unbelievable too.

Sorry Yuyutsu… I've been closely following all lines of argument and whilst philosophically the question of the proof of reality is still an open one, your methodology still seems to me to be arse about.

You seem to imagine God reflected in the mirror of consciousness, the virtual image being us.

I percieve us reflecting on the mirror of consciousness and imagining God.

Being able to describe an ontological hierarchy doesn't prove it, except perhaps to your own satisfaction – despite avidya;. Good for you. I just find it unsatisfactory, unsatisfying and circular in that it assumes the existence of Brahman and then assembles an explanation.

Similar to the "no true Scotsman" argument when presented as "no one, truly religious, would…".

It's never clear whose being the more insulted – the true or untrue Scotsman – the truly or the untruly 'religious'.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
Of what you believe other people think God is like you are ignorant of because God does not meet the description or image you portray of an immaginary friend in the sky.

True believers recognise a spiritul link with all reality, that it has purpose and destiny. That it had beginning, change and end, there is a spiritual link with the purpose of creation that inspires awe and respect. You seem to immagine a being somwhere in the universe that people believe exists. WRONG! GOD is Spirit.