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.