The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Merry Christmyth from the Atheist Foundation of Australia

Merry Christmyth from the Atheist Foundation of Australia

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 72
  7. 73
  8. 74
  9. All
(Extract)
The Atheist Foundation of Australia wishes the non-religious and religious alike a very merry Christmyth season. Many people are unaware that the tradition is drawn from celebrations surrounding the pagan Saturnalia and was usurped by Christianity around the 4th Century CE.
(Full article here: http://atheistfoundation.org.au/media-release/merry-christmyth/)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 17 December 2012 11:01:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,

I thought I'd jump in and wish you a very Happy
Festive Season and all the Best for the New Year.
I think it was CJ Morgan who first introduced
the concept of Saturnalia on OLO. CJ passed away
some time ago - and your mentioning myths - brought
back quite a few memories. As CJ would say,
"A Merry Mistress, And A Happy All Year!"
Cheers.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 17 December 2012 1:38:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merry festive season David. Just a seasonal comment re Xmas and religions.

The term atheist is a logical nonsense, as is the term theist. How can you be a committed believer or non believer with absolutely no proof one way or the other?

Agnostic is the descriptive the thinking man goes with I believe.
Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 17 December 2012 2:45:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It isn't just proof that is lacking, sonofgloin.

>>The term atheist is a logical nonsense, as is the term theist. How can you be a committed believer or non believer with absolutely no proof one way or the other?<<

Evidence for the existence of a supreme being is in particularly short supply also, would you not agree?

In the absence of the slightest skerrick of evidence - even circumstantial evidence, the weakest form of all - the logical course is to accept that gods do not exist.

>>Agnostic is the descriptive the thinking man goes with I believe.<<

Nah.

Agnosticism is merely a lack of courage to believe anything at all. Far from being the choice of the "thinking man", it is a position that requires absolutely no thought whatsoever.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 December 2012 4:47:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

Thanks and I return the good wishes. Yes, it is important to acknowledge and celebrate existence the whole year round.

David

sonofgloin,

A Merry Christmyth to you also. But I do wonder what “thinking man” you were referring to. Could it be the ‘thinking man’ that doesn't understand the difference between philosophy and practicality or is it the ‘thinking man’ who is unable to make a choice with the idea of gods but has no trouble with fairies and past and present gods of other cultures and the myriad of other mythological beings and entities. Or is the ‘thinking man’ who assumes that there is some kind of equal situation with the existence or not of gods.

Maybe you can elaborate.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 17 December 2012 4:48:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes thanks to all and a merry xmas.
CJ Morgan had it right.
Long before it became Christmas it was a partying time.
Lets enjoy, non of us can know if it is our last.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 17 December 2012 4:56:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Definition of an Atheist."Belief in disbelief". The existance of some god is irrelevant to me.The god botherers and the atheists all miss the point.Atheists have set themslves up to destroy other notions of religion or spirituality.I don't presume to be that wise.

The religious nuts use their imaginary father in the sky to control and pervert our societies.

Life is a journey,enjoy the moment and do your best to help your fellow humans.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 17 December 2012 7:51:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

Your definition of atheism is quite strange to say the least. Atheists are merely waiting for the evidence; there is no wisdom involved. The purported existence of a god may be irrelevant to you but to those who do consider their version of a god exists, it is far from irrelevant.

“The religious nuts use their imaginary father in the sky to control and pervert our societies.”

Yes there is a basic truth in that but how does your attitude help to reign in religion from perverting society, “Life is a journey, enjoy the moment and do your best to help your fellow humans. “

Atheists recognise the problem with religion and have decided to react against it. They are standing up to be counted. In fact, a world Atheist Census went online about a week ago and a DoS (denial of service) attack took it down until today. I'm sure it wasn't atheists who were responsible. It can be viewed here. http://www.atheistcensus.com/

It will be well worth watching over the coming years.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 17 December 2012 8:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that it is the lot of some to story-tell and develop myths. Lexi and Belly are mythmaking to build their own 'departed' guru. Are they the few anointed faithful waiting for the return of their own Godot, who comes by the most unlikely name of Morgan?

Hey children, there is nothing preventing you from doing what you want to do as long as it is lawful. No need to wait for the non-return of your spiritual leader. Or is that the car of that name? It might make more sense if it was :)

I am wondering though if the 'Lets Burn Christians' game being played here extends to all religions. Or is it deemed 'progressive' for the ritual burning to be restricted to Christians?
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 17 December 2012 10:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

You have mentioned the name Christian twice and I have mentioned it once but only because it is the season of Christmyth.

To atheists, all religions fail the same lack of evidence test, some are more problematical to civilisation than other but we happen to live in Australia where Christianity is the main culprit.

Have you a point I to make I have missed.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 17 December 2012 10:50:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sonofgloin and Pericles,

May I refer you both to the Webster dictionary definition of atheist?
One who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or Gods.
My partner is agnostic, which is very different.
I stand by my statement that I am an atheist as defined in the dictionary.
This does not prevent me from respecting different opinions on the issue, and I especially respect the whole planet I live on, and everything above, on, and under this earth as far as it is possible to do.
BTW, I'm also an avid organic gardener. Our excess produce is taken to the Food Bank. So,can I have some brownie points back please?
Posted by worldwatcher, Monday, 17 December 2012 10:54:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

Where do you dream up these ideas? Give me one example of an atheist starting a war. Like you, we quietly live and enjoy our lives, and help others if and when we can. My "godbotherer" friends live by different beliefs, but I wouldn't class any of them as bad people. Oh yes, and we all appear to enjoy the 'moment' most of the time too.

And I'm certainly going to enjoy the holiday courtesy of religion.
Posted by worldwatcher, Monday, 17 December 2012 11:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

For someone who wants to talk science and evidence you seem evasive in your reply.

To make it simple, you only burn Christians. Is that correct?

You don't make up similar silly and offensive plays on the names of important days for other religions?

You haven't planned anything similarly offensive to burn Muslims on Prophet's Day, for instance? This is a list of the major religious days, many are missed, but it is a guide. What about you tell us which ones you would capitalise on to challenge 'religion' and which ones you would rule out and why?

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-multicultural-australia/calendar-australia/

The Australian Human Rights Commission has this to say about religion,

"Freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right protected by a number of international treaties and declarations, including article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This right encompasses freedom of thought on all matters and the freedom to manifest religion and belief individually or with others, in public or in private.

The right to freedom of religion is supported by the right to non-discrimination on the grounds of religion, contained in article 26 of the ICCPR.

International human rights law also protects people against the promotion of religious hatred which amounts to incitement of discrimination, hostility or violence (ICCPR, article 20)."

Speaking for myself, while I do not necessarily share the beliefs of others I am more than happy to be accepting and tolerant. Most seem to do no harm and there is a lot of good done especially for old and vulnerable people, especially during Christmas. As far as your group is concerned, I can't see how being rude and offensive to people for their beliefs could assist your credibility and standing in the community at all.

However that is your choice and I would defend your right to offend, although you do seem quite one-eyed and gutless in your choice of target.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 17 December 2012 11:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>You don't make up similar silly and offensive plays on the names of important days for other religions?<<

Banana-Ramadan? Best I can do.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 2:31:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, no need to thank me for setting the Xmas cat among the Xmas pigeons, or doves.

Once again how can you be definitive when there is no closure one way or the other? So theist or atheist, the term is a nonsense in practice and gives only a descriptive of a thought process. One relies on faith and one relies on rebuttal based around incredulity, neither thought process relies on facts.

Amazingly I have managed to insult both camps with one post....agnostic is the correct description given an atheist would change their thought process if actual events that defied physics as we know it materialized. So I stay on the fence at the agnostic end.

Dave, I am a thinking man, theists and atheists are emotionally driven. The “thinking man” tag was not intended as an insult to intelligence, but a descriptive of a thought process. If you can’t prove or disprove something you cannot be sure of your legitimacy in thought.

As Arjay mentioned, atheists are committed to ridiculing something that they can not disprove.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 6:13:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My, my, full of self-righteous indignation aren't we onthebeach?

While most atheists I know quite like Christmas as a social celebration (if not the actual religious bits), you can surely understand that in Australia and western countries they tend to take aim at Christianity more than others because:
1) Christianity is by far the most dominant religion in the countries they live in
2)It also tends to be the one they know most about and are familiar with, i.e. their own own cultural background

I know quite a few ex-Muslim and ex-Hindu atheists that wouldn't dream of making fun of Christianity, but will certainly go to town on their own cultural backgrounds. After all, I don't think they learnt much about our silly traditions in their Sunday schools, but we did.

I think that you should realise this before you get all up and offended that someones making fun of your religion and noone elses. After all it is Christmas.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 7:45:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
maybe the atheist should celebrate the earths sudden appearance on anyday and call it random chance day. Just don't advertise the odds as it will make you look very silly.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 7:46:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not all tinsel and glitter, onthebeach, and happy National Day of Qatar and Niger to you. Spare a thought on 26 December for all those observing Zarathurst No Disco mourning the death of Zoroaster. I don't know what happened to his horse Toranado.

(By the way, sonofgloin, I did my best to disprove belief on Immaculate Conception Feast Day on 8 December.)

Of course Hindus are lucky and get from 21 to 25 December for their Panza (Sancho) festival - ingored on the DOIC calendar.

Islam? Do you agree that Rama Lama Ding Dong isn't fulfilling?

Maybe you could just accept that Jesus would be miffed it took his followers four centuries to get his birthday wrong, as well as that anyone and anything worthwhile can survive satire and ridicule.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 7:46:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

You clearly don't understand the concept of the burden of proof. 

It is theists who still have it all to prove. Atheism, in its stronger form, is simply the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence; in its weaker form, it is merely a lack of belief (i.e. someone who doesn't know what they believe, doesn't care, or has never even heard of the concept of a God). Atheism has nothing to prove or disprove.

Contrary to what you think, too, agnosticism is not a fence-sitting position. Agnosticism and gnosticism go to what you know, while theism and atheism go to what you believe.

So it's unfortunate, given what I've said above, that you feel you can stand on high and claim to be a "thinking man". Thinking only works when you have the basics right, and thinking man would at least understand what the 'burden of  proof' was and to whom it applied. 
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 7:49:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

‘Evasive” in my reply, really? Is that the best you can do; that is, make up stuff?

And what a silly phrase, “burn Christians”. I assume you mean rubbish them but use the term burn for effect as you really don’t have a case. I ‘burn’ Christianity and all the other religions and not the adherents. That you take it personally is really your problem.

If I have to continue explaining and restating what I have written, I'm afraid we will part company. But, for your dull benefit. Christianity is the dominant religion in Australia as others have pointed out.

Why you quote the Human Rights Commission is a mystery to me. Do you feel persecuted because you cannot defend your ‘faith’ from the naughty atheists? Are you that insecure in the beliefs you hold? How sad.

I think you should take notice of the harm your ‘beliefs’ are doing in Australia let alone the harm ‘beliefs’ in general are doing to the planet and its people. Take off the blinkers would be a very good idea.

Don’t look now, but everyone has the right to be offended. You do not have a special right not to be. You only think you have.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 8:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

You need to do a bit more reading and I mean that in the best way possible. I have said this before but I’ll repeat it. One can be agnostic philosophically about all kinds of ideas. The normal examples are fairies, other gods, monsters and entities etc. But practically speaking, normal thinking people are not agnostic about those classes but consider they do not exist.

Without going into the arguments against the idea of a god as the supreme head of the universe, people who have studied the evidence arrive at the conclusion such a being does not exist most probably.

When I say most probably, that denotes a far bigger chance of a god not existing than a plane I'm in would crash. We all use the highest probability of outcome with nearly everything we do. We do this with our own experience or trust in the experience of others, say, the engineers who built the plane.

Therefore, to jump to the conclusion that a god cannot be known to exist or not is special pleading. (If you don’t know about this, look it up) Our culture primes us to think this way.

Atheists cannot conclusively disprove the existence of any of the gods but they can see the damage done by those who believe without evidence a particular one does exist. Adherents of gods are blind to the damage. Such is human nature.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 8:41:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

May I suggest that atheism is an alternate (my sixth) model of god – the null model?

These models are
1. Monarchical- A king and his Kingdom
2. Deistic- A clockmaker and a clock
3. Dialogic – one person and another person and
4. Agent – an agent and his actions (or a self and his body)
5. The social model of process philosophy/theology, in which God’s relation to the world is thought of as analogous to the relation between an individual and a community.
6. The null model of God - no God.

This argument could of course lead to your foundation having a basis for claiming tax deductibility (unless the foundation has already claimed such).

By the way; Thomas Huxley who invented/coined the word Agnostic in 1869 said
“Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
Posted by Dicko, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:04:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Atheists cannot conclusively disprove the existence of any of the gods but they can see the damage done by those who believe without evidence a particular one does exist. Adherents of gods are blind to the damage. Such is human nature. '

Unfortunately also totally blinded to the fruit of their own godless dogmas (ie suicide, immorality, perversion etc etc).
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:04:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the phrase 'burn Christians', as a perjorative for persecuting them is also a curious one, as I think it may be a reference to the Christian tradition of burning witches.

I think the traditional methods of persecuting Christians is by crucifixion, stoning or throwing them into stadiums to be ripped apart by lions or other starving wild animals for entertainment.

The thing is that Christianity is built on persecution, they need to feel persecuted one way or another, otherwise they tend to lose faith. Weird aint it?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

That's rather a provocative lisp you've developed...
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:13:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dicko,

You can suggest six models of god but I’m not sure how helpful that is to anything. One has to accept the idea of a god before being modelled by it.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has taxation concession on interest held in bank accounts much the same as some football clubs.

Huxley lived at a time when to state atheism publically would at the very least placed one in an uncomfortable social position. Darwin withheld writing ‘Origin of Species” for 20 years because of this constraint and those of a more personal nature but revolving around the same thing.

Although, I think dear old Thomas was a lot smarter than most people consider when they first look at that quote. He uses the proviso, “…without regard to any other consideration…” which of course is a nonsense as there are always or nearly always other considerations. Thomas Huxley was merely pointing out the philosophical truth that nothing can be known absolutely. He didn't live using that as a rule and neither does anyone else who has twigged to its impractical nature.

David

Poirot,

“That's rather a provocative lisp you've developed”

It isn’t a lisp; it’s only the reaction of the facts interfering with fantastical thinking. It’s a perception of a lisp, if you like. :)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:32:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi my dear,

Seems we've stirred up some very spirited debate, which I'm sure wasn't your intention, and certainly not mine.

Just want to assure you that I'm not affiliated with David or his group - just a loner, and find the the growing intensity of various comments regarding this subject rather amusing.
Certainly wan't my intention in my reply to your post to be provocative, but after reading the comments which followed it would seem this subject has touched a nerve with some members.

Regardless, as I also believe the world will not end on the 21st December,I am with you in wishing everyone a happy and peaceful holiday. As the carol says, Peace on earth, and goodwill to all men. Just loved going through the streets singing carols at Christmas as a child.
Posted by worldwatcher, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 11:24:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(My apologies, I put this on the 'Religion do we need it?' thread by mistake.)

"Just want to assure you that I'm not affiliated with David or his group - just a loner"

Of course you are not affiliated with the AFA, after all, you are a worldwatcher - not a worldhelper apparently. ;)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 11:53:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear worldwatcher,

I haven't posted on this thread recently. I've
posted at the very beginning to wish David (and everyone)
Seasons Greetings. And David graciously returned the
Greetings. However, I'm not surprised to read emotive
posts on what people believe. I guess like politics -
people can get a bit carried away. I've been raised on
certain rituals and traditions that I find comforting.

Christmas carols can still bring a tear to my eyes.
Especially recently, while attending a Christmas lunch
in a Nursing Home - where the elderly residents sang
with such feeling - the very moving, "Silent Night."

Anyway, I've known David for some time (since joining
this forum) and his posts have always been well reasoned.
From memory, I believe David was raised
as a Catholic.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 12:50:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Your post presumes you know me personally as only a watcher not a helper, and in reality you couldn't be further from the truth but I don't feel it necessary to explain to you why you are so wrong.

However, I'm sure we've never met, as I choose both aquaintances and friends carefully.

Your other preceding comments on this thread provide good reason not to be affiliated with your organisation in any way.

Base any further observations on known facts, not premise please, as vitriol is such an unbecoming attitude for adults to display, and certainly will not further any agenda you may harbour.
Posted by worldwatcher, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 1:07:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

"Just want to assure you that I'm not affiliated with David or his group - just a loner"

Yes, make sure you are not associated with me because........

Maybe you can fill in the because with some facts and not loose accusations. I'm sure that way we will be able to get along fine.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 1:29:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry David, I have no interest in 'going round and round the mulberry bush' with you. Pointless confrontation and point scoring is just not my style.
Posted by worldwatcher, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 2:06:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

It is telling that you have to make me one of your hated Christians to criticise and insult me. That is your political correctness coming to the fore isn't it?

Any query or criticism is automatically labelled as coming from the opposing and maligned side.

Political correctness, where all opinions are wrong except yours, the prevailing political correctness. Catch 22.

Then as an additional tactic to sidestep questions you feign impatience with the questioner's 'dullness' saying that you have answered everything on some previous occasion.

You have yet to answer the question why you sledge the Christians exclusively. It is easy to surmise that your offense has a cultural basis too. There are cultural traditions and religious beliefs you are obviously at pains not to offend. There must be some 'good' religions in your head space, right? That must be that 'Progressive' mind-set coming to the fore as part of your political correctness.

No, it is not convincing that you set out to offend Christians exclusively because they are more of them. But even of you do, what do you hope to gain except some personal jollies out of offending ordinary members of the public enjoying their beliefs or traditions?
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 2:30:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

You are correct. I was raised in a Catholic culture. It was certainly an experience but the very sad thing is that many of those I knew as youngsters are still trapped by its reward and punishment doctrine. It’s very effective if promoted in a ubiquitous manner and why shouldn't it be, it’s been honed to near perfection over the centuries. Nowadays the essential ubiquity part is missing and knowledge of the real world not so restricted. I guess that’s why the percentage of ex-Catholics is so strong on the Atheist Census website. http://www.atheistcensus.com/

“Christmas carols can still bring a tear to my eyes. Especially recently, while attending a Christmas lunch in a Nursing Home - where the elderly residents sang with such feeling - the very moving, "Silent Night."

I agree that the emotional side of religious music can be very enticing. A member of the AFA Committee who recently retired just loved Handel’s ‘Hallelujah Chorus’. He even bought me a copy which I play every now and then but not often. :)

David

worldwatcher,

I have no intention of going around the mulberry bush either, as that is not my style. I just asked of you to explain your comment. I'm not overly disappointed that you haven’t. Have a Merry Christmyth. Seriously.

David

onthebeach,

I don’t hate Christians. Your paranoia is showing. I dislike the effects of religion on people and planet. What inflexible opinions do I hold? Point out where I sledge Christians? Not sure how to say this (again and again) but Christianity is the dominant religion in Australia and the Atheist Foundation of Australia reacts accordingly.

Are you intimating the AFA doesn't pick up Islam when it needs it? Maybe read this thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14209&page=0#245943

I don’t consider any religion good but that doesn't imply a hatred of those who believe in them. I would love to help anyone who doesn't need religion to escape it.

Getting ones jollies has nothing whatsoever to do with this. You need to do more reading and work out why many atheists are not happy with religion.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 4:54:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonof>> >>Agnostic is the descriptive the thinking man goes with I believe.<<

Pericles>> Nah. <<

Love it, I can imagine the utterance coming from your cerebral cortex with incredulity.....lol P.

David >>. Could it be the ‘thinking man’ that doesn't understand the difference between philosophy and practicality or is it the ‘thinking man’ who is unable to make a choice with the idea of gods but has no trouble with fairies.

Dave, a fair point.
Consider the prime reason that we can contemplate a god…..our consciousness.
Fairly early in the piece, at about the time that our ancestors started to bury their dead, humans knew that they were different. As opposed to the animals we understood that there was a tomorrow and we understood that we might not get there. At some stage we gazed at the night sky and considered what big is and how small we are…that is when our consciousness sought a benefactor. One we could beseech in times of trial, fact or fiction.

We still have that consciousness but we have given up believing in fairies and goblins…..but we can’t let go of a creator for some reason as this discussion examples some 100,000 years after the first concept of a creator was sparked. The thinking man adopts the consideration that physics is not all there is.

WW>> I stand by my statement that I am an atheist as defined in the dictionary<<

Stand or lay WW you have formed an opinion and turned it into a belief, as has the theists.
But to my mind it is rational to look at what we don’t understand….which is everything…. and leave all options open. The Big Bang produced matter from nothing, we aint seen that trick again, that is something to contemplate.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 5:02:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a great pity that David Nicholls is so anti-Christmas, as he would make a highly convincing Santa Claus...

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/david-nicholls/

Happy Christmas everyone. It's a great time to surround yourself with people whose company delights you.

Oh, and because it is the season of goodwill, try to include some relatives as well...

Enjoy.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 5:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ONTB>> Speaking for myself, while I do not necessarily share the beliefs of others I am more than happy to be accepting and tolerant. Most seem to do no harm and there is a lot of good done especially for old and vulnerable people, especially during Christmas. As far as your group is concerned, I can't see how being rude and offensive to people for their beliefs could assist your credibility and standing in the community at all <<

That’s the way I see it too.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 5:04:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

From your personal abuse representing the grandiously titled "Foundation" I am left with the impression that it is a cowboy outfit probably only comprising yourself and a PC.

I notice that your web site gives precious little information on the "Foundation", but it does have the begging bowl prominently displayed.

For the record, exactly how many signed up current members does the "Foundation" have, who are the office holders, who are the sponsors, what is the annual operating budget and what reports are available on the disbursement of money collected by donation?

Yes I known, inconvenient questions and more insults will be incoming from you.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 5:22:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sonofgloin,

<<The term atheist is a logical nonsense, as is the term theist. How can you be a committed believer or non believer with absolutely no proof one way or the other?>>

Why so? There's this trivial primary-school proof (with numerous variations) that God does not exist:

{Can God create a stone that heavy that He could not lift?}

If God existed, then He could create that stone, which He could both lift and couldn't lift - a logical contradiction, therefore God does not exist (unless you consider God to be limited - we shall look at that case in a moment).

God's non-existence is essential for faith and spiritual development. Worshipping God on the grounds that He is believed to exist (or even likely to exist), is mundane. Performing certain activities such as prayers and sacrifices for the sake of receiving material benefits in return (either in this life or thereafter, it makes no difference), merely amounts to trade. Only pure worship that is performed for God's sake, for the love of God without expectation of rewards, counts as religion or spiritual progress.

As for the case of worshipping a limited god, one who is bound by the laws of physics or in the least by the laws of logic, I find no interest in such god.
Yes, one should probably be agnostic about it while leaning in the direction that such a being does not exist.

Perhaps, against all reasonable odds, there's such a being who, despite certain limitations, created a universe or two: so what?!
Would there be a reason to worship that being? perhaps, but then it would just be an ordinary material reason, not a spiritual one.

If a limited god existed, then despite him/her being, from a material point-of-view, much stronger, much faster, much more knowledgeable, much more intelligent than us, etc., despite even creating and maintaining this universe, still from a spiritual point-of-view, he/she would be equivalent and no different to any of us, thus not worthy of worship - one should worship God alone, rather than existence or any part thereof.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 5:59:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG writes: "The thinking man adopts the consideration that physics is not all there is."

Yes, and the thinking man also understands that this doesn't make the existence of gods any more likely.

The thinking man would understand that it is a fallacy to think that gods deserve more consideration than fairies and goblins just because a lot of people have believed in them for a long time.

The argumentum ad populum fallacy, to be precise.

The thinking man would also be able to spot important distinctions between mythical creatures and Gods, such as the fact that fairies and goblins tend not to make very good celestial dictators for authorities to exercise control over populations, or populations to exercise control over each other, or celestial father figures to comfort those who have not otherwise been provided with the adequate tools to cope with the hardships some of us may face in life.

Nor do they provide an explanation - however fallacious and unsubstantiated - for why we're here; relieving us from the discomfort of not knowing something.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 6:15:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merry Christmas to all and a safe and prosperous New Year.

To the odd naughty goblin intent on wreaking mischief.. well, have a few cold ones anyway and try to at least enjoy your own company.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 6:26:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I might add, SoG, that it's quite a stretch for you to claim the position of a "thinking man" when all your position on this matter does is relieve you of having to think.

It's a position of intellectual laziness - and dare i say, cowardice - that hides behind a pretense of open-mindedness and virtuousness, while lacking the ability to ever accomplish anything. 
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 6:40:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

I fully understand. I guess organised religions have
become, in many cases, as calcified as other
institutions that form the structure of our modern
world. Our religious institutions
have far too often become handmaidens
of the status quo.

I've come to see that true religion is
internal, not external. The spirit within us can't be
blamed for the blasphemies carried out in its name.
What some have done in the name of religion, projecting
their neuroses, even perpetrating evil on the world,
does not make religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid.

I don't want to impose my views on anyone else, I think
whatever one believes - it's a very personal choice.
For me, I can't turn away from religion for the simple
reason that I find that life without a conscious awareness
of God is difficult and religion is theoretically where to
find Him.

Anyway, once again - to everyone posting - may you enjoy
this Festive Season with friends, family, and loved ones,
and may the New Year be filled with Goodwill towards all!
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 7:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I absolutely loathe people who post threads like this. You do NOTHING of use to anyone and you only waste internet space. You are the lowest. Shame.
Posted by StG, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 7:24:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

“…but we can’t let go of a creator for some reason as this discussion examples some 100,000 years after the first concept of a creator was sparked.”

Luckily, education is a part of the AFA’s mandate. A reasonably recent survey of the Academy of Sciences, top people in their fields, had a belief in a god at about 7%. Naturally enough, this wasn’t the young earth type god. The less educated population of the USA has a belief in a god at about 80%. Are you still with me as this is very simple but important? What this means is that a healthy education about science inoculates humans against both evolutionary proclivities to accept woo and enculturation that does likewise.

Unless there is a huge global disaster the increase in people who do not accept the god hypothesis will grow at the extraordinary rate we are witnessing right now.

What are these people in the majority who are giving away religion? Are they atheists agnostics? Early days but, the answer to that question is here. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0

Why is that so, well, it is because many folk can recognise the difference between reality and the unreality of absolute-notions.

So, saying “we can’t let go of a creator” is a personal statement that covers people who are uneducated in the sciences and philosophy. The nightly TV news shows this as true. Science education is the solution.

The AFA doesn’t go out of its way to offend religious people but the problem is, if there is a hint of any statement against faith held concepts, religious people become quite stroppy. The more basic the religion, i.e. some parts of Islam, the more likely such statements will attract a minority to object violently to them. But Christianity also gets jumpy when its tenets are questioned. We see it on this Forum. Only a century or so, as with the case of Charles Darwin, religion didn't allow criticism. Times have changed and religion has no choice in the matter.

Everyone should have the chance to be free from childhood indoctrination of religion.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 8:48:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP>> It's a position of intellectual laziness - and dare i say, cowardice - that hides behind a pretense of open-mindedness and virtuousness, while lacking the ability to ever accomplish anything.<<

C'mon AJ, where can this thread go given the ethereal nature of the subject matter? As I mentioned religions are called faiths for obvious reasons and the atheists thoughts are opinions for exactly the same reason. There is no validation, nor even fact based hypothesis, there are only opinions, yet theists and atheists claim the high ground with personal observations.

My personal observations are that the subject is centre ball, not proven or disproven
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 9:03:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly let me offer my sincere thoughts of goodwill to all for the 365 days of the year after year. So what, you might ask? Well as we all know there are many forces at work on the planet which in terms of commonly accepted humane values are counterproductive. I would wish that all people on the planet could be valued simply for their human potential and qualities. That they be free of oppression, slavery, exploitation, poverty, hopelessness, pain, murder and militarism, the list goes on.

One might ask where does the concept of human value come from, I cant answer for everybody but for me it came partly from family influence but more so from a learned understanding of the life of Christ as portrayed in the New Testament. I do not feel it necessary to practice religion but have no issue with those who do.

It is not the detail in itself that I subscribe to but the philosophical principles which I drew from the story. Put simply "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It is the political manipulation of religion by evil practioners that is the problem.

In terms of believing in any concept of an overarching Godhead the question hinges heavily for me in whether this incredidly complex universe of which we are a part has occurred and is sustained to this point, by accident or alternatively by some design and purpose, I would like to believe the latter.

At this time of artificial good cheer spare a thought for the poor sods whose lives will be destroyed by the bullets and bombs of warring factions, a carnage largely supported by our so called allies. Children and women and men who will not make it to Dec. 25 whether they believe in God or not.
Den71
Posted by DEN71, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 9:04:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave, it is no surprise that intellectuals flee from a creator.

It is no surprise that the humble, feeble, and lower economic strata flocks to a promise.

May I add that an IQ of over 130 is not solely the domain of the intellectual? There are a load of professors out there that never had the opportunity to be formally educated.

David>> Why is that so, well, it is because many folk can recognise the difference between reality and the unreality of absolute-notions.<<

Absolute notions? What does that mean tiger?

How can you bring the term “absolute” into a concept based on gossamer?

You have an absolute opinion, and that is about that.

Let me remind you of just one absolute from recent the past:

For two generations it has been a standard belief that the neutron, an electrically neutral elementary particle and a primary component of an atom, actually carries a positive charge at its center and an offsetting negative charge at its outer edge.
That changed in 2007 when it was discovered that the neutron has a negative charge both in its inner core and its outer edge, with a positive charge sandwiched in between to make the particle electrically neutral.

Big change from an accepted scientific fact that physicists held for 50 years.

David>> So, saying “we can’t let go of a creator” is a personal statement that covers people who are uneducated in the sciences and philosophy. The nightly TV news shows this as true. Science education is the solution.<<

Nightly news Dave…really.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 9:29:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTB,
Atheism is critical of mainstream Christianity because it is itself nothing but a sect of Christianity, the "arguments" are internal doctrinal disputes.
Atheists don't believe in God and Jesus but they believe everything in all the other Christian mumbo jumbo about liberty, equality and the family of man. Atheism is probably closer to a pure version of Christianity, in it's current form it's certainly the most stripped back version of Christianity, no God, no Jesus, just pure faith.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:06:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

“…it is a cowboy outfit probably only comprising yourself and a PC.”

And you say you have looked at the AFA website. Engage mind and look again. http://atheistfoundation.org.au/contact/

AFA Committee Members, to be on the AFA Committee, sign a long standing Privacy Charter which disallows anything about members, including numbers, from leaving the Committee room.

The AFA has been in existence for over 30 years and is the undisputed largest atheist organisation in Australia. A small amount of checking will confirm this without a doubt.

The Committee of Management take minutes and all financial and other details are available to members.

What is the “begging bowl prominently displayed”. Unlike most organisations we don’t even ask for donations.

I’m only stating the above, not for you, but for others who read these posts. You are only after something to nail the AFA with. Tough luck, you haven’t.

Your time would be better spent educating yourself about religion firstly and then, atheism.

David
PS. I gave the wrong URL in my last post. It should have been http://www.atheistcensus.com/

Lexi,

It would be wonderful if religion could be kept internal. I would then be out of a job. But, alas, it is not so.

David

StG.

“I absolutely loathe people who post threads like this. You do NOTHING of use to anyone and you only waste internet space. You are the lowest. Shame.”

Your personal opinion is noted. My advice would be not to read or post on threads on which you find the contents uncomfortable.

David

DEN71,

“It is not the detail in itself that I subscribe to but the philosophical principles which I drew from the story. Put simply "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".”

That is the cornerstone of civility instead of anarchy. It is an idea that preceded the Bible by thousands of years. The problem is not with that simple but relevant statement but with the religious baggage accompanying it.

David

onthebeach,

As I say, you need to educate yourself. Science is forever refining itself. That is what science is about.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 11:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay Of Melbourne

Hi Jay, I have no problems with atheism. Equally I have no problems with religion. As long as there is no change to our secular state and the authoritarians from either side leave us alone I am reasonably happy. Live and let live. I am willing to celebrate all festive occasions.

However it is worth observing that as a regular community volunteer I am forever meeting parishioners from the Christian churches at the sharp end. We never hear any sermons or attempts at conversion from them.

While some must get a buzz out of annoying Christians as in this thread, they do a lot of the heavy lifting in community work helping people who are down, particularly the aged and vulnerable who live alone, forgotten by relatives and probably isolated by illness and disability.

Maybe if the Grinch responsible for this thread could divert some of his own time and the donations his "Foundation" receives to helping people. It is Christmas.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 11:33:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

You could save us both a lot of time here if you'd only stop tap dancing around the issue of the 'burden of proof' (why a genuine fence-sitter would feel the need to be intellectually dishonest in such a way is beyond me).

<<...where can this thread go given the ethereal nature of the subject matter>>

Many places.

We could help demonstrate the improbability of a god existing or being found in the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge (myself and others have done this countless times on OLO). Some may learn a bit of history regarding the pre-christian roots of Christmas. We might even help a genuine fence-sitter decide where they stand; making that one less person willing to sit back and let religion ride roughshod over everything with its baseless assertions unearned respect. 

Just because we may never be able to reach absolute certainty regarding the existence of Gods, that doesn't mean we can't attain a high degree of it one way or the other.

That you are unable to see the shades of grey, and incapable of arguing without presuming absolutes at every turn, just goes to show how utterly vacuous your position is on this topic. 

<<...religions are called faiths for obvious reasons and the atheists thoughts are opinions for exactly the same reason.>>

Wrong. 

Religious beliefs are referred to as "faiths" because they are beliefs without - and sometimes in spite of - the available evidence. If a faith-based belief turned out to be true, then it would only be by pure dumb luck that this was so; it would be right, but for the wrong reasons and because of this, could still not be considered knowledge.

Opinions, on the other hand, can be right for the right reasons. Rejecting a claim as unsupported by the evidence, when there simply is no evidence, is but one example.

And no, the mysteries of the big bang are not evidence for a creator; to mistake them as such is to commit a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 12:29:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can't you people stop smearing your foul stench for one day?

And don't forget Coca-Cola invented the Santa suit of red-and-white.

I pity the children of atheists.
"No, Billy, you can't sit on Santa's lap.
That's just a commercial fabrication, based on a dedundant superstition.
And no candles on your birthday cake, either. Make a wish? Stupid nonsense! Bah!"

Maybe that's the reason for those Christmas suicide statistics we keep hearing about.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 2:17:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

No, I looked at the link you provided below your sig line. As well you know from what I said, "I notice that your web site gives precious little information on the 'Foundation', but it does have the begging bowl prominently displayed".

Once again, abuse from you. You admonish me to read what is on the AFA national site which was apparently a different site.

Then later you quietly note that you gave the wrong link previously. To your own site?

No apology from you for misleading through your own error though.

That suggests I was right all along, you are simply out to get attention through offending a soft target with your childish "Christmyth".
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 2:40:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

I’ll attempt to wade through the inanity. (Sigh)

“Maybe if the Grinch responsible for this thread could divert some of his own time and the donations his "Foundation" receives to helping people. It is Christmas.”

Grinch indicates one is opposed to celebrating Christmyth. I have shown no such opposition to celebrations, in fact, I promote the festivities. Setting the record straight on what is being celebrated is the point of this thread. You seem to have missed that.

As a matter of fact, even though the AFA is an educational/philosophical organisation and not a philanthropic one, it does have a very proud history of donating to many worthy causes when it has available funds.

To clear your confused mind: This web page is that of the AFA and shows the names of people who run it.

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/contact/ As you will see (or probably have already but are keeping quiet about it), it is not just me and a liddle ol’ PC.

This web site is a product of Atheist Alliance International and it depicts the Atheist Census that has been running now for about three days. (It was taken off line by a DoS attack and I wonder who would do that to an atheist site! – certainly not atheists) I showed this one to demonstrate that atheist is the predominant category.

http://www.atheistcensus.com/

Your sensitivity to being shown you are incorrect, something that is becoming quite monotonous, is not abuse especially when you fail to answer questions. The “begging bowl” reference you made that is supposedly highlighted on the AFA website has not been substantiated by you yet.

When you are shown to be wrong you make no comment about that. This is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Prattling on about attention-seeking by the AFA or me is you defence for having no firm arguments and it wears thin. The ‘reds-under-the-bed’ mentality you continually display is very noticeable and is the result of induced religious attitudes. Blame them, not me.

Your obvious prejudice, is like a drunken person leaning on a lamppost, not for illumination, just for support.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 8:41:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

What an odd bit of criticism to come from someone who grew up in a Jehovah's Witness household! I don't see you picking on them.

Unlike the atheists in your fictional scenario, they actually DO deprive their children of the magic of Santa Claus - as you would know all too well.

Furthermore, letting small children believe in Santa is seen by many atheists as an important part of their development, as they can later apply those acquired reasoning skills to gods.

By the way, what does the belief or disbelief in the power of wishes have to do with atheism?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 8:53:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

If I may just interrupt your swagger for a moment....sit down and have a cuppa.

I thought the folks might like to read your article on the atheist convention. It's not often we see someone imitating so precisely the people he so often disparages.

Here's David channelling an old-style revivalist meeting, replete with "powerful exquisite joy", "feelings varying from elation to euphoria" and "an afterglow which burns brightly."!

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13634
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 9:00:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all know what religion means for many young children, and it goes to the very top order.
Would have to be the worlds greatest con, for those that fall for it.
Merry christmyth to all, and that includes every-one
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 9:08:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Thank you for reintroducing an article of mine. That is very thoughtful.

How nice to be stalked by you and maybe another. Waiting for a chance must be so frustrating for you. If you haven’t anything intelligent to say, and it appears you haven’t, why bother?

If you can’t appreciate that atheists can also be emotional, the same as can the religious, albeit for the appreciation of rationality and not imagination, then you must live a very glum life.

And goodness, “swagger”. How childish.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 9:40:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFAInc: ”…is drawn from celebrations surrounding the pagan Saturnalia and was usurped by Christianity around the 4th Century CE.”

I thought it was about St Nick who was real and was known to give secret gifts?

Merry Xmas David btw.

I watched The Grey not long ago. Loved this scene from Laim Neeson…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMMdYWCV6Ng

(warning – loud swearing in it)
Posted by The Pied Piper, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:18:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Au contraire, David,

I'm an atheist/agnostic-whatever, myself.

It's just that I noted your provocative tone.

"...stalked..."

Ho, ho, ho.

You started the thread. You're up for the debate. Pointing out a few of your own foibles is obviously off the agenda.

(I agree - "swagger" is a little childish - perhaps you should desist?)
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:47:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Pied Piper,

Merry Christmyth to you and to those you love and who love you.

With old Nick at least one can see the gifts…hey! Nicholas was third century bishop in Turkey who made wheat magically appear and is attributed with giving gifts and I believe that is where the idea of Santa originated. But being from the third century has a lot of myth surrounding him. No news there.

Liam was certainly frustrated by the one-sided conversation. Lot of people become atheist that way. :))

David

Poirot,

People do notice, I suppose you know. Stalking is one of the lowest forms of non-wit.

Try to keep it in check as difficult as that might be for you. It ain't pretty to watch.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 11:17:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

If I was going to stalk someone, it wouldn't be you.

I take it your "stop stalking me" defence is your fall-back mode, when you find someone criticises your style and you don't like it.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 11:56:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

“If I was going to stalk someone, it wouldn't be you.”

Good to hear….but we shall see.

“I take it your "stop stalking me" defence is your fall-back mode, when you find someone criticises your style and you don't like it.”

No, wrong, I have never used the term before.

You are stalking me.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 12:10:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I don't appreciate being accused of stalking - because you don't care for my earlier post.

maybe we should see what Graham thinks?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 12:36:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Don’t get me wrong, I have been stalked before on many occasions. It goes with the job of being president of the AFA. Such a position attracts stalkers of all kinds. However, you can claim a first in being the only one I have outed on a Forum about it.

“I don't appreciate being accused of stalking - because you don't care for my earlier post.”

Then don’t do it. Maybe you should look at the content of all your posts in regard to me. You accuse me of using the term ‘stalking’ as some kind of often-used defence, as a put down comment, as are most of or all of your other remarks about me (ad hominem – have you heard of that?) and instead of backing it up, you retort with the above. Pathetic.

Do you really believe I'm not going to defend myself from the likes of your consistent negative comments, the purpose of which is pandering to the lowest common denominator? If so, think again.

“maybe we should see what Graham thinks?”

Sure, why not, if the deep end of the pool is too tricky for you. I can’t see what that will do but fine by me.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 1:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu>> God's non-existence is essential for faith and spiritual development. Worshipping God on the grounds that He is believed to exist (or even likely to exist), is mundane. Performing certain activities such as prayers and sacrifices for the sake of receiving material benefits in return (either in this life or thereafter, it makes no difference), merely amounts to trade.<<

My mum who is 88 and in good physical condition for her age asked me a few months ago, “do you think there is a god”, followed closely by “I fear death”.
What could I say Y?

Mum had always been a religious woman, without being a zealot. So I told her what I knew she wanted to hear, but also my honest opinion on the subject. I asked her to think back to her childhood and the drays and horses that carried folks and goods around, I reminded her that that means of transport had been with us for thousands of years. I then told her to think about the space shuttle and all the technology that we have invented in her lifetime.

I suggested that we really could not get any smarter, but the natural progress that every new discovery brought, led us onto another and we are quickly and continually moving forward. I then told her about the big bang theory, the best our intellectuals could come up with as to where we came from.

Mum’s reply (that I used earlier in this thread) was simply this:
“So the scientists say that there was nothing and a split second later there was everything”
“Yes mum” I replied dutifully, “that’s the current popular theory”.

I won’t recount the rest, but in that void before the bang my mum found a space that could be what she believes in…..that was enough for me, I changed the subject.

Y, people worship for brownie points, redemption, social acceptance, or simply that they sincerely believe that this is not all there is…..and they could be right….or wrong. But it is their business.
Posted by sonofgloin, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 1:47:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips>> We could help demonstrate the improbability of a god existing<<

AJ, I know not why you blue.

You stand neutered by your own verbiage....."IMPROBABILITY"..…”could demonstrate the improbability”, you say.

You may as well say “my guess is”.
Posted by sonofgloin, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 2:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sonofgloin,

<<My mum who is 88 and in good physical condition for her age asked me a few months ago, “do you think there is a god”, followed closely by “I fear death”. What could I say Y?>>

Tell her that she cannot die.

Tell her that she is likely to be back at the state she was in before she was born.

Tell her that only the body dies, and that without this body she will lose contact with this physical world - she will no longer receive any information about it and no longer be able to influence it, that she will no longer have memories or thoughts because these belong to this world, but otherwise nothing will change.

Tell her that now is therefore the time to do her best to bring her worldly affairs to a close the way she wants, that fear of death is in fact the fear of leaving this world with pending, incomplete issues behind.

Tell her to try and have what she misses and realistically still can have out of this world, but to completely let go of those other things that she cannot realistically have.

Tell her to fix everything now in her life and relationships in a way that she will not have any urge to come back to this world, to human existence or to any other existence, in order to fix the things she left behind.

Tell her that you are OK and will still love her after her body dies.

Tell her that it doesn't matter whether there is a God, but rather that God's love for her is always assured, regardless whether she has a body, whether in this or in any other world, or whether she rests without one.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 3:18:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A colleague has just brought my attention to the
following website. I thought it may be of some
interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/12/18/are-atheists-really-wrecking-christmas
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 3:33:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips “I don't see you picking on [Jehovah's Witnesses]

Keeping notes about my life history? Stop stalking me!

I have every reason to badmouth “The Truth”, as they call it.
However, unlike some people I don't feel the need to make my personal grievances a public crusade.

I fervently believe in the liberty of our citizens.
With liberty comes less-than-desirable consequences.
We just have to live with that.

And there's a bit of a difference between “religion” or a non-religious belief in “God/gods” and mind-control cults.
Strange how we hardly hear a peep from atheist spokespersons about them.
Warning people about cult techniques would be far more helpful than just badmouthing religion in general.

“what does the belief or disbelief in the power of wishes have to do with atheism?”

Aren't atheists the ones always going on about facts, evidence, reason?
Surely that applies to much more than the concept of God?
Aren't you going to be consistent in your child-rearing?

“the improbability of a god existing”

50% probability. They either do or don't exist.
What is the probability of being born a twin? 50%.
You either are or aren't a twin.

It doesn't matter what the statistical *frequency* of twin births is.
That's not “probability”, that's just collecting data about those *already* actually born twins.
Probability of twins 50%. Probability of gods 50%.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 4:23:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>50% probability. They either do or don't exist.
What is the probability of being born a twin? 50%.
You either are or aren't a twin.

It doesn't matter what the statistical *frequency* of twin births is.
That's not “probability”, that's just collecting data about those *already* actually born twins.
Probability of twins 50%. Probability of gods 50%.<<

ROFLMAO

Probability of Shockadelic ever having a successful career as a professional gambler, bookmaker or mathematician: 0.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 4:57:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe it would be a good idea to discontinue this thread.

It would now appear to be promoting ill-will among Forum members, although it has at times raised interesting points and vigorous discussion. However, it is now going beyond this and becoming rather distasteful.

Surely enough points of view have been made [ and scored ] already to satisfy one and all!
Posted by worldwatcher, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 7:28:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
True, the Christmas spirit is somehow sadly lacking.

Perhaps this can help,
I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow(1807-1882), 1867

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.
I thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.
And in despair I bowed my head:
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men."
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men."
Till, ringing singing, on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime,
Of peace on earth, good will to men!

Go with the sentiments. There is no call for offending anyone who is going about their peaceful business and enjoying the Christmas tradition and spirit. If some have faith that sustains them, good for them. Anyhow, science now says that prayer can have beneficial effects. Others might choose meditation, or music. Whatever rocks your boat. We all make our choices and are responsible for them. Freedom.

Now to make those Christmas puddings as rich as last year. Where is that unbleached linen?
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 7:54:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I posted two comments on this thread before you labelled me a "stalker".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0#151274

and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0#151353

It's obviously a hilarious tactic to shut down criticism of your style by labelling fellow posters as stalkers. You're the one who can't handle the deep end, if that's your only strategy.

Btw, you really do have tickets on yourself. As if I could be bothered stalking a blowhard like you. That's the funniest thing anyone's posted to me in yonks.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 8:25:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

So long as you remain completely incapable of thinking outside a paradigm of absolutes, I suspect my attempts to explain to you where your thinking is confused will be as futile as trying to explain a 3-dimentional world to a 2-dimentional character.

Is your inability to think outside a paradigm of absolutes restricted to this topic alone? If so, then ask yourself why. I'd imagine the answer would be quite revealing. Sadly though, I suspect this is yet just another symptom of the undue privilege that religious beliefs enjoy; relieving them from ever having to abide by, or adhere to, the same standards and expectations that every other claim in the world has to.

This is why I find “fence-sitters” so irritating. They think their position is reasonable and righteous, yet in reality, it is counterproductive at best.

<<You may as well say “my guess is”.>>

There are varying degrees of guesses, ranging from wild stabs in the dark to near certainties. 

There is also the implication from you here that if we can't achieve absolute certainty, then there's no point in even trying to think.

Which is wrong, of course.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 9:32:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

Sorry, I didn't mean to cut so deep with the whole Joho bit. But you have to admit, it was a pretty glaring inconsistency in your bizarre attack on atheism. 

<<Aren't atheists the ones always going on about facts, evidence, reason?>>

Not necessarily. You're thinking of rationalists and sceptics. Atheism only addresses whether or not one holds a belief in god(s); either they do or they don't (and no, that doesn't mean that 50% of people are atheists).

Personally, I consider myself to be a sceptic first and an atheist second. 

<<Aren't you going to be consistently in your child-rearing>>

Like the many other atheists I know of, I let my children believe in Santa because of the magic it provides them with while they're still innocent enough to enjoy it, and because the reasoning skills they may acquire in discovering that he doesn't really exist could prove useful when confronted with religious claims later in life. 

As for your understanding of percentages and probabilities... 

Wow! Just... Wow!
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 9:37:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

“I posted two comments on this thread before you labelled me a "stalker".”

This is pure you. Use basic evidence and try to make a case from it for the audience. You know I also mean earlier posts. Stop playing to the crowd.

Those two comments were inane and off topic may I remind you and maybe you should check back a bit further on other threads.

“It's obviously a hilarious tactic to shut down criticism of your style by labelling fellow posters as stalkers. You're the one who can't handle the deep end, if that's your only strategy.”

Oh, so I don’t use the ‘tactic’ as a given then. But you throw insults around as though you have every right to do so without knowing what you are talking about. And now you attempt to disguise that fact.

Being upset by my style as an excuse to act out your mental aggression towards me is so incredibly unbelievable as to be ridiculous. It's nothing more than dick-waving.

“Btw, you really do have tickets on yourself. As if I could be bothered stalking a blowhard like you. That's the funniest thing anyone's posted to me in yonks.”

Easy solution, if you are incapable of making relevant comment but can only come up with ad hominem phrasing, (still) then maybe you should stay away from my posts. I can’t imagine why you don’t.

Don’t think I'm going into discussion with you about this matter. That is only a ploy to try and extricating yourself from the very large hole you have dug. That is your sneaky style. I’d have a close look at myself if I were you. Being guilty of stalking is akin to internet bullying but with me that doesn't work. I don’t get intimidated that easily, rather, I fight back.

Trust me when I say this but I am quite disgusted with your methods.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:30:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

It wasn't my intention to upset you quite to the extent as you appear to be.

You have to admit that you are pretty "in your face" with your anti religious rhetoric. I thought it was fairly provocative to begin this thread - although you are right that people don't have to participate if they don't wish to. I assumed that as you appear to relish "debate" in this sphere that you could take a bit of ribbing regarding the organised flavour of the AFA and its affiliates.

I was obviously mistaken, and criticism of that kind is definitely not on your agenda.

To label someone a stalker who has merely commented on a few of your threads and criticised certain aspects of organised atheism, in my opinion, is an hysterical overreaction.

Again you are correct that it is easy for me to keep away from your threads - something I fully intend to do.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

We are at one then.

To show my goodwill for the season, I won't respond to your comments.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:55:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, please hold to that.

You must have realised by now he likes to have the last word.

Please indulge him, and then he'll happily stop - hopefully.

Hey, nearly there, so Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Posted by worldwatcher, Thursday, 20 December 2012 12:21:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips “it was a pretty glaring inconsistency in your bizarre attack on atheism.”

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, a specific cult, and “religion/divinity in general” are not the same issue.
There's no inconsistency.
The witnesses hurt me very much, but I don't generalise that experience into a vengeance against *all* belief.

You, on the other hand let your kids believe in Santa.
Then why can't you let them (or anyone else) believe in Jesus, Thor, Shiva, Osiris?

<<Aren't atheists the ones always going on about facts, evidence, reason?>>

“Not necessarily. You're thinking of rationalists and sceptics.”

Exsqueeze me?
That's just pathetic.
Atheism is supposedly “rational” and “sceptical”, yes?
Why are you compartmentalising as if these are unrelated?

“Atheism only addresses whether or not one holds a belief in god(s)”

And it does so by arguing there's no “evidence” or “facts” to justify faith, so therefore “reasoning skills” (your words) would dictate one be atheist.
Sheesh!

“that doesn't mean that 50% of people are atheists”

No, that would be empirical *frequency* not probability. Which you seem to confuse.
Each person has a “probability of being atheist” of 50%.

<Aren't you going to be consistent in your child-rearing>>

“I let my children believe in Santa.. because the reasoning skills they may acquire in discovering that he doesn't really exist could prove useful when confronted with religious claims later in life.”

They may also conclude their parents were big fat lying hypocrites who couldn't decide how to parent!

“As for your understanding of percentages and probabilities...”

Probabilities are expressed as a percentage, yes? Because probability is a mathematical concept.
In areas where the outcome is *unknowable* (Will an embryo form twins? Does any God exist?) the best you can say is 50%. It either is or isn't.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 20 December 2012 2:34:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

What a kind gesture and wishes to Poirot.

Here for you and everyone is a music video which would ring true for many,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uey6VktC5ms
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 20 December 2012 3:28:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Each person has a “probability of being atheist” of 50%.<<

If I take a standard six-sided dice and paint over every number except the 1 with a smiley face I will have a dice that only produces two possible outcomes when rolled: it either is a smiley face or it isn't.

What is the probability of rolling a smiley face on this dice? What is the probability of rolling a 1 on this dice? What is the probability of rolling a 1 on a normal dice?

>>Probabilities are expressed as a percentage, yes? Because probability is a mathematical concept.<<

No. Not to the last bit: probability is a branch of maths albeit one that you don't seem to have understood very well. But probabilities are usually expressed as a number between 0 and 1. There's nothing wrong with expressing them as a percentage - 0.42 is the same as 42% - but it's generally not the done thing.

>>In areas where the outcome is *unknowable*<<

When is the outcome ever 'knowable' before an event has taken place? If you have some method of predicting with complete accuracy whether the dice will come up 1 or smiley face then I know a lot of people who would like to talk to you. And I would like to borrow your time machine.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 20 December 2012 6:51:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips>> There is also the implication from you here that if we can't achieve absolute certainty, then there's no point in even trying to think.<<


AJ, your outrage at the fence sitter speaks volumes in regard to your rationale. You want to argue a point with your primary premise being underpinned with the term “probability” or “improbability”.

I counter with a premise based on probability as well, but my probability is fence sitting while yours for some reason carries more weight….more probable. I take it that scientific facts would form the basis of your synopsis as to no creator. As I said to Dave the atheist, for past fifty years we knew what a neutron consisted off, but a few years ago we found that that model was wrong.

AJ all I am saying is that without the knowledge of what “was” before the big bang how can you hang your hat on the no creator peg. You know about as much as I and all the scientists of the globe regarding this subject, and that is nothing.
Posted by sonofgloin, Thursday, 20 December 2012 7:12:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

"You must have realised by now he likes to have the last word. "

Mmmmmmmmm..... That is quite an interesting observation/guess and it's from someone who has only been on this Forum since 13/12/2012?

Maybe you have been observing my interactions for years without signing up. Again, most interesting.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 20 December 2012 9:02:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The atheist foundation is correct in that the Christmas tradition has pagan origins. However, I don't really see why that matters. The new tradition of Christmas is that we are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, regardless of what day He might have been born, or where the tradition came from. It comes down to what your intentions are, what the motivation is in your heart. If it is to glorify the risen Savior, I don't think Heaven is going to frown upon it.
Posted by washed, Thursday, 20 December 2012 9:52:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Washed,

In the Wikipedia article on the 'Historicity of Jesus', it provides these endnotes to affirm the truth of the existence of Jesus according to many ancient historians:

Notes

^ a b c In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

^ Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61

^ a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

^ a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

^ a b c d Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 20 December 2012 11:50:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor of philosophy, Dr William Lane Craig, has provided 'Evidence for Jesus' at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 20 December 2012 12:23:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Onthebeach,

Thank you - I enjoyed listening to Chris Rea on the youtube clip. Have to admit I hadn't heard of him prior to your mention, but like his laid back style on this. A refreshing change to hear a melodic song - get rather tired of hearing the caterwauling screaming which passes for music these days.
My preferences in music are eclectic, but rarely can find any of the latest offerings are to my taste.

Since I was a child, at this time of year Bing Crosby's croony rendering of I'm dreaming of a White Christmas has been my alltime favorite, and would you believe second comes The Chipmunks carol album, and third is Calgary Youth Choir's.

Brag time. Having won an eisteddfod singing Ave Maria in Latin, I get boosbumps every time I hear it sung.

This is so completely off the original thread, but the great Ella Fitzgerald sang Summertime, and until Fantasia sang it on American Idol, I didn't think anyone could ever topple Ella's version.
Posted by worldwatcher, Thursday, 20 December 2012 12:32:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

I’m sorry to hear that the Witnesses hurt you. However, I’ve never suggested that anyone take their bad experiences and turn them into a lust for vengeance.

<<You … let your kids believe in Santa.
Then why can't you let them (or anyone else) believe in Jesus, Thor, Shiva, Osiris?>>

I wouldn’t dream of stopping them, or anyone else. I’d prefer people came to their senses in their own time and by their own accord. But that’s unlikely to happen if we all just shrug our shoulders and say, “Meh, whatever floats their boats.”

No matter how moderate or harmless most religious beliefs appear, they still affect us all because our beliefs inform our actions and our actions affect others. Not to mention to legitimacy they provide extremists, who find solace in the billions of their fellow travelers.

An individual’s belief (regarding anything) may not be detrimental to their wellbeing, but if they believe it for bad reasons then they run the risk of believing other things, that may be detrimental to their wellbeing, for bad reasons too.

And in case you missed it, I gave a few good reasons earlier as to why belief in mythical creatures is different to belief in gods (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151315). That goes for Santa too. People don’t try to influence our laws or start conflicts based on a belief in Santa.

<<Atheism is supposedly “rational” and “sceptical”, yes?>>

Atheism isn’t an inoculation against irrationality or gullibility. It’s just a label for those who don’t hold a belief in god(s).

<<Why are you compartmentalising as if these are unrelated?>>

I never said the three were mutually exclusive.

<<[Atheism] does so by arguing there's no “evidence” or “facts” to justify faith…>>

Atheism doesn’t argue anything (and if faith was justified, then it wouldn’t be called “faith”). It’s not a doctrine or a philosophy. It’s a label. That’s all.

Regarding mathematics, it seems you’re unable to differentiate between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’.

Taking Tony’s dice analogy, the smiley face may make up 50% of the possibilities (since there are only two) but the actual probability is only 0.16666666.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 20 December 2012 2:48:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

There’s no outrage here. I’m simply pointing out the flaws and fallacies in your way of thinking in a matter-of-factly way.

<<I counter with a premise based on probability as well, but my probability is fence sitting while yours for some reason carries more weight….more probable.>>

Fence-sitting isn’t a probability, but if you meant a probability of precisely 0.5, then great. How did you reach that conclusion?

<<I take it that scientific facts would form the basis of your synopsis as to no creator.>>

Not entirely.

I reached my conclusion based on the fact that believers in gods never seem have good reasons to believe in them, their apologetics is riddled with fallacy after fallacy after fallacy (check out OzSpen’s link for examples) and the historicity of their Holy books is woefully inaccurate.

My posting history on OLO is filled with reasons why the Abrahamic doesn’t exist, here’s a recent one http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398#248464.

But if you want talk about some deistic god, then I would still say that it’s improbable given that every mystery, that had ever been explained by a god, was found to have had a perfectly natural explanation. So the chances that we’ll eventually find something with a supernatural explanation appears to shrink with each new discovery.

<<As I said to Dave the atheist, for past fifty years we knew what a neutron consisted off, but a few years ago we found that that model was wrong.>>

Yes, and if they ever find good evidence for a god’s existence, then I’ll reconsider my position.

But regardless of what neurons consist of, they’re still a natural phenomenon. So to take the, “Who knows what we’ll discover”, factor from that example and then try to apply it to a scenario with a supernatural component (phenomenon we’ve never had ANY evidence for) is a bit of a stretch, to say the very least.

<<You know about as much as I and all the scientists of the globe regarding this subject, and that is nothing.>>

Just because we don’t know some things, that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 20 December 2012 2:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry SoG, I misread this…

<<You know about as much as I and all the scientists of the globe regarding this subject, and that is nothing.>>

A more appropriate response would be to remind (again) you that this does not make a creator any more likely. It simply means that we don’t know.

This is why your fence-sitting is fallacious.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 20 December 2012 3:24:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't understand what all this fuss is about.
Who cares what someone believes or practices
(as long as they don't try to impose their
beliefs on others, or hurt anyone). People practice
religion for several reasons. Many follow a religion
simply because it is part of the heritage of their
culture, tribe, or family. Religion gives many people
a feeling of security because they believe that a
divine power watches over them. These people often
ask the power for help or protection. Numerous people
follow a religion because it promises them salvation and
either happiness or the chance to improve themselves
in a life after death. For many people, religion brings
a sense of individual fulfillment and gives meaning to life.

In addition, religion for some, provides answers to such
questions as "What is the purpose of life?" "What is the
final destiny of a person?" "What are one's obligations to
other people?" And finally, many people follow a religion to
enjoy a sense of kinship with their fellow believers.

Whether one follows a religion or not is a matter of personal
choice. Making judgements about what people do or don't
believe reminds me of the character in Henry Fielding's novel,
"Tom Jones," - Mr Twackum. "When I mention religion, I mean
the Christian religion and not only the Christian religion, but
the Protestant religion, and not only the Protestant religion,
but the Church of England."

I guess some people are like Mr Twackum. They believe that
what they believe is true and all others are misguided,
superstitious, even wicked... I guess that's life.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 20 December 2012 3:39:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

I’ve explained all this many times. Once even to yourself (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13053#225549). So I’m not sure why you still don’t understand what the “fuss” is about. A response to much of what you’ve just said can even be found in my post to Shockadelic.

Our beliefs, no matter how benign, affect others in some shape or form - no matter how indirectly. So it’s important that we have good reasons to believe them.

<<Many follow a religion simply because it is part of the heritage of their culture, tribe, or family.>>

Yes, motives, no matter how pure, still do not negate the harm they can cause. Here’s a good example…

<<These people often ask the power for help or protection.>>

When energy and time is wasted doing this, rather than devoting full time and energy to actually preventing or fixing a problem, then it is potentially causing harm.

Like the problem with homeopathy. The remedies are harmless (since they are just water), but providing them and trying them wastes the time of people who could be finding real help elsewhere.

<<Numerous people follow a religion because it promises them salvation and either happiness … For many people, religion brings a sense of individual fulfillment and gives meaning to life.>>

If people can't find happiness without false promises and imaginary father figures, then that indicates a sickness in our societies, and masking it with make-believe doesn’t help anyone in the long run.

<<In addition, religion for some, provides answers to such questions as "What is the purpose of life?" "What is the final destiny of a person?" "What are one's obligations to other people?">>

And you don’t think searching for a reality-based answer would always be better?

<<I guess some people are like Mr Twackum. They believe that what they believe is true and all others are misguided, superstitious, even wicked... I guess that's life.>>

No, it’s about caring about the truth of one’s beliefs and having as few false ones as possible. I think if everyone did that, we’d be living in a much better world.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 20 December 2012 4:25:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

Thank you, you reply brought music to my ears. I could not resist playing the tracks you mentioned and I am grateful for the reminder.

"May peace and plenty be the first to lift the latch on your door, and happiness be guided to your home by the candle of Christmas" -with thanks to the Irish
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 20 December 2012 7:26:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

Who's to say what beliefs are "True?"
Can Truth be owned? What's true for
some is not the case for others, as I
tried to point out. We have our individual
differences and we make our individual choices.
The point that I was trying to make was -
"Live and let live."

I think it would be a better world if we
removed the walls that separate us. Wouldn't
it be great if we turned our focus more on
what unites us than on what divides us?
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 20 December 2012 8:04:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

“Whether one follows a religion or not is a matter of personal choice.”

If only this were true but it is not. Most cultures indoctrinate their children into a geographically popular religion. Children do not get a choice. And make no mistake, religious indoctrination works. To deny this is to call white, black.

Many people born into a religion in this way do make a choice and that choice is to become non-religious because of the lack of evidence and for other reasons such as not being able to dismiss with non-convincing platitudes the massive planetary suffering etc.

A rapidly growing number in this demographic are declaring they are atheists. Others call themselves humanist, agnostics etc. There are a variety of reasons why this is so but the twine that binds them and this is the only definitive commonality, is they see no evidence for any supernatural phenomena, past or present, and therefore dismiss the idea as just a human notion.

Some religious persons claim the knowledge of the supernatural comes from within. That is fine except as AJ Philips points out, they still belong to the club that is causing strife at various levels in civilisation.

I'm more inclined to think that society needs total separation of church and state. This means no religion is supported financially to the extent that exists now and the state does not interfere with religion and religion does not interfere with the state. This would halt religious indoctrination of students by the state. The state should teach students about all religions as a subject in the humanities with no preferential treatment given to any of them.

This would include that religions have no empirical evidence in support and the foibles produced by religion not hidden. When the child then reaches a mature age it can choose to follow a particular religion or none.

If this happened there would be no need for the Atheist Foundation of Australia and then society would support people who choose a religion. Now, what could be fairer?

In general, religion says no to this.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 20 December 2012 8:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ.,

I forgot to add that I'm not deliberately trying
to be contentious or that I feel I'm on the
"high road." I'm simply trying to say - we should
respect the rights of those who want to believe,
and equally the rights of those who don't.
You are entitled to your opinion. I feel that so
am I to mine.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 20 December 2012 8:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

You raise some very valid points.

I'm a Catholic, but not a very good one.
I can see the errors the Church has
made in the past and continues to make.
To me the Church does not hold some francise
on my spiritual life. They are consultants and
frameworks, but they are not God himself. I
don't confuse the path with the destination.

I feel that organised religion will have to change.
It will have to step up to bat, religiously or it
will wither away. I am not a spiritually half-interested,
complacent congregant that many of our parents were
when we were growing up. Many people today are insisting
on changes being made. As Paul Collins points out in his
book, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have A
Future?" :

"Personally, I am optimistic that Catholicism in Australia
will survive, certainly with lesser numbers, but with
more commitment and ministerial energy. But to achieve
that Catholics will require genuine local leadership
and a willingness to confront both the difficulties and
opportunities that the church faces..."

Whether this happens only time will tell.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 20 December 2012 8:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

You must try and not skirt around religious indoctrination. It is the key factor and the Catholics have it worked out superbly not that other religions don’t also ply the same methods. They are having more difficulty nowadays implementing it, not because of aberrant behaviour by some clergy but because education levels have increased markedly as has general information about physical reality.

If you were raised a Catholic then you must ask yourself if you are one of its victims. It is no good stating about personal relationships with a god or any of that stuff as all religions say the same thing. Think Twin Towers.

Without in anyway meaning to be rude, to be able to appreciate both sides of the argument, you have to first understand fully what you are arguing against. You have to know the other sides arguments as atheists know the religious arguments. If you don’t do this then that is being dismissive of opposing views without even knowing what they are. This makes it impossible to make informed choices.

You are doing this with the topic of childhood indoctrination. This doesn't just need momentary thought; it needs critical thinking that allows a proper investigation with conclusions drawn on the evidence.

The Catholics are responsible for taking critical thinking abilities away from their flock.

This is child abuse especially when the terror of hell is instilled into children if straying is even contemplated let alone achieved.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 20 December 2012 8:58:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, “they see no evidence for any supernatural phenomena, past or present, and therefore dismiss the idea as just a human notion.”

No, you dismiss the evidence.
There are a myriad of reported supernatural experiences, by people all over the world, in every era and culture.
You just ignore it.

Children are “indoctrinated” with all kinds of ideas they have no “choice” about.
That's life. Deal with it.

AJ Philips, you just like to play childish sleazy word trickery games. I won't bother responding to you any more.

Tony Lavis “There's nothing wrong with expressing them as a percentage”

So why are you bitching about it?

Not a mathematical concept? Are you kidding?
Probability is nothing BUT a mathematical concept.
It can ONLY be calculated and expressed mathematically.

In the case of “gods/the divine/supernatural” it isn't even possible to calculate a “proper” probability.

You mention dice.
Here is “mathematical probability”.
The possible outcomes ARE “knowable”.
There are a *known number* of possible outcomes. NUMBER. Known.

You can therefore calculate the probability of any outcome and express it mathematically (including as a percentage, if you so choose).

Obviously, there is no “known number” of possible outcomes when it comes to God.
Unless you do as I did, and accept two outcomes. Exist or not exist. 50%
No other calculation is possible!

The other type of probability is “empirical”.
This is based on observation of the frequency of an outcome in a sample.
Again, this is impossible for the issue of “God”.
You cannot empirically “observe” something in another dimension.

The only thing you could observe is belief among the human population.
In this case, the probability of atheism is extremely low.

Since atheism is extremely improbable, one could reasonably conclude that the claims of atheism, rejected by the vast majority of people, are also “improbable”.
If their stance was highly probable, surely more people would agree with them.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 21 December 2012 7:04:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This looks as good a place as any.

To all those on the forum who I have disagreed with, agreed with, insulted, lampooned, ridiculed, made fun off, offended, thought were as crazy as me in 2012 I wish YOU ALL a happy holiday season and a great new year. Looking forward to more of the same in 2013.

All the best Paul.

p/s I should also thank our great political leaders including The Bimbo, The Mad Monk, Bob Browneye, Swany, Slippery Pete etc for without them this forum truly would be boring.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 21 December 2012 7:17:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

“No, you dismiss the evidence. There are a myriad of reported supernatural experiences, by people all over the world, in every era and culture.

You just ignore it.”

That is not evidence of supernatural reality. That is evidence that a myriad of people report supernatural experience.

How about we alter the sentence slightly and see if you agree to your original statement still.

“No, you dismiss the evidence. There are a myriad of reported alien abduction experiences by people all over the world, in every era and culture.
You just ignore it.”

Does that make alien abduction real? Does that mean we should indoctrinate children with the idea that alien abduction is real and if they don’t believe it reinforce the idea that the aliens will torture them forever in a galaxy far, far away? Does that mean governments should lavish huge amounts of money on alien abduction devotees? Does that mean that alien abduction devotees should be controlling those of us who do not accept aliens abduct people by way of parliaments?

Change supernatural or alien abduction to other popular supposed beings like Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monster, ghosts etc. To exclude these as somehow different is to use the fallacious argument known as special pleading.

Your sentence is not the result of any critical thinking at all. This is common and no one should be admonished for doing that. But once pointed out and it still continues, then that is another matter.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 21 December 2012 7:43:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David>> A rapidly growing number in this demographic are declaring they are atheists. Others call themselves humanist, agnostics etc.<<

Dave, religions have always been the tool of the powerful. During the Russian communist revolution they shipped most of the Russian Orthodox priests to sunny Siberia. Only the old still worshipped in secrecy. Twenty years later Hitler pops up and Stalin opens the churches and brings back what was left of the priests from Siberia to give the people hope. After Russia’s victory he toes the communist line again and religion is tolerated but not allowed to flourish.
Religions do not start wars, the powerful do and it has always been about gain.

David>>Some religious persons claim the knowledge of the supernatural comes from within. That is fine except as AJ Philips points out, they still belong to the club that is causing strife at various levels in civilisation.<<

Again Dave your willingness to blame religions for the arrogance and greed of the powerful is simplistic. If your corrupted logic holds true then without religions we would have had no wars throughout our history. Are you aware of Jane Elliott’s brown eyes/ blue eyes experiment? Alternately have you heard of the Milgram experiments with electric shocks?

Both these exercises abundantly exhibit the inherent human anti social condition that lives in most of us. I can’t take anything you say seriously as you are reading from someone else’s song book. You have found your little cause and you hang onto it like a terrier. You are a carbon copy of the religious zealots that you degrade……not an original thought in your head.

David>> This is child abuse especially when the terror of hell is instilled into children if straying is even contemplated let alone achieved.<<

Yes David and you employ intellectual abuse….it certainly abuses my intellect when you babble on about the surety of no creator. Nobody knows....except you ofcourse.
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 21 December 2012 7:46:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

My name is David.

“Religions do not start wars, the powerful do and it has always been about gain.”

Who said religions start wars directly as a result of religion although that has happened in history. The indisputable fact is that many wars are demarked by religion with each side praying to their particular god to kill the enemy. If I need to point out examples, I will be disappointed in your powers of perception.

The blue eye brown eye experiment is very relevant to religion. Religions scapegoat a particular trait in the human race, whether that is gender, sexuality, other religions etc. and then using their authority, (like the white coats situation in the said experiment) they create a prejudice against those categories.

Confusing zealotry with rationality and critical thinking is not something I personally would be proud of. This is called lashing out because you have run out of arguments. That is what you should be concentrating on. I'm not intolerant of opposing views but I will argue against them if they are shown to be faulty. Don’t look now, but the mirror might show who really is acting in a zealous manner.

I really wish you would read these posts. Where have I ever said that there is “the surety of no creator”? Until you point that out, please do not come back with other nonsense.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 21 December 2012 8:12:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonogloin,

"...You are a carbon copy of the religious zealots that you degrade..."

...which was the point that I was making earlier - before the tactic was employed to call me a "stalker".

It's the tenor of "crusade" that sounds loud and clear.

Any movement born of opposition to something will attract that sort of criticism, especially if it fashions itself along similar lines and employs similar rhetoric.

David,

I admit that my earlier post lacked respect and apologies are probably in order there, however, you should be mindful that any enthusiastic "movement" can't help but convey sentiments that are similar in their basic expression to the movements they oppose - we all seek satisfaction from our causes.

Talking about aliens:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-21/french-mayor-says-stay-away-from-apocalypse-shelter/4439320
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 21 December 2012 8:33:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

Those are great sources, and they show that the idea of a mythological Jesus is not taken seriously, even among the predominantly atheistic bible scholar community. Even Richard Dawkins admits the existence of a historical Jesus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRg0AIiGAyQ

There is actually more evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus than Socrates or Plato! If we use the methodology that historians use to determine the historical reliability of ancient documents, then we are forced to conclude that the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming.

We also have the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. Isaiah 53 predicts the coming of the suffering Messiah, describing the life and ministry of Jesus to a T, and it was written 700 years before His time. It is so clear that people immediately recognize it is about Jesus when it is read to them.

There is also the prophetic fulfillment of the destruction of Jerusalem which was predicted by Jesus, and also the reformation of Israel which happened in 1948. We see the fulfillment of signs in Matthew 24 in these times like no other generation in history. There is really no shortage of reliable evidence which points to Jesus being the Savior of the world and the bible as the word of God.
Posted by washed, Friday, 21 December 2012 8:49:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

So, I gather, you didn't take your own advice and stay away. You refer to a “movement”. Can you elaborate thanks?

You may be referring to the growing number of people leaving religion in droves but because someone leaves something can hardly be called a movement. You may be suggesting that the growing disparate group consisting of Atheists, Humanist, Agnostics, Rationalists etc. is a movement when in actual fact this is just a change in society. It could be classed as a rapid phenomenon but, a movement, that’s a poor descriptive word. Yes, I know, some dictionary definition will support the idea of a ‘movement’ but if it does and you are an atheist/agnostic, then you are a part of it. Welcome to the “movement”.

Oh, I see, atheist hold conventions and attract large crowds so that is the movement. But when religions hold conventions and attract large crowds (The Parliament of the World’s Religions as but one example) that is not a movement or when basket weavers hold large conventions that is not a movement.

Maybe you could explain what your mean.

Sniping at zealotry is a problem of yours, not mine. I am an atheist and I feel very lucky that happened to me. I therefore offer the reason why that is so which gives other people an idea to think about. Some atheists consider they are self-made, rubbish of course as circumstance and availability of knowledge are the main factors, and even knowing the advantages of holding that position, they are not prepared to share the luck.

When I was formulating a world view as a child I would have just loved there to have been a me and the Atheist Foundation of Australia. Many atheists make the same comment; somehow, you think supporting a very good idea, atheism, not necessary. Somehow, those suffering under the heal of religion are just not worth your effort. Good stuff.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 21 December 2012 9:06:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No I decided not to stay away.....it occurred to me that although you initiated this thread, that it was open to any member to comment.

anyhooo, I considered my lack of respect in my second post here was a tad provocative, so I thought I'd try another tack.

I don't have a problem with your rational thought at all. I'm interested in the "phenomenon" as you put it. Your role appears to be a facilitator and representative of this "phenomenon". Conventions and foundations have to be orgainised, so there becomes an organised flavour to the phenomenon - which some of us would liken to a movement. You appear to be taking it up to those of religious bent - this thread title is a case in point. If you choose that path, it's not surprising that occasionally you will encounter comparisons with that which you oppose.

Btw, I wasn't singling out the AFA as a movement...I believe all religions are movements, as are any congregations espousing a world view...(do basket weavers espouse a world view?)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 21 December 2012 9:25:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David.,

You talk about the "indoctrination" of children into
religious beliefs. That's a rather sweeping statement
that doesn't allow for individual differences - such
as my own experience. I'm no Pollyanna about my Church.
I know all too well where it falls short. I know all too
well where it is unique in terms of reach into
individual lives and the impact it has on the needy parts
of the community.

It's been an interesting discussion.

All The Best.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 21 December 2012 10:17:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

“Your role appears to be a facilitator and representative of this "phenomenon".”

You haven’t heard of the numerous other ‘facilitators’ I presume. I do this because I can; the same as others. We are not representative of anything. Atheists don’t need telling what to do. Atheists, like all humans don’t gain benefit from being isolated by their societies. Therefore the AFA helps atheists know that others exist and they are not alone.

“it's not surprising that occasionally you will encounter comparisons with that which you oppose.”

Yes, of course it is not surprising. And it is even not surprising that some atheists resent their conscience being pricked also, just like religious folk don’t like it. It does come across as bitterness though.

“Btw, I wasn't singling out the AFA as a movement...I believe all religions are movements, as are any congregations espousing a world view...(do basket weavers espouse a world view?)”

That’s interesting about the AFA…. now. ‘Congregation’ generally means a group of people of faith. Do you mean atheists have a faith? Do you have a faith? ‘Congregation’ does have a more general meaning but the word is ambiguous. Why use. Shall I tell you? Let’s I shall.

You use the word ‘movement’ in a pejorative manner without answering whether you are a part of this movement. The way you get around this is to use the intentionally chosen word ‘congregation’ because you didn't go to the GAC and therefore were not a part of the ‘congregation’ and not in the movement. The GAC has happened twice in a lifetime by the way.

You haven’t thought about anything I have said and you are still trying to manipulate the language supported by your own linguistic gymnastics.

Why not ask yourself as to why you do this. Who do you think you are benefiting? Why are you giving support to woo because that is exactly what you are achieving?

'Worldview’ means a comprehensive view of life. Explain the athiests worldview? Why use the word at all in this context? Atheism is only a part of a worldview.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 21 December 2012 10:37:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

Let us simplify the muddle in this topic, starting with a few basic facts.

All historians of any worth consider Julius Caesar actually existed.

Not all historians of note consider the New Testament Jesus existed.

A consensus of historian has concluded that the Jesus of the New Testament existed. Most of those have a religious bent and there are many arguments for and against this proposition. But let’s accept it on face value for the exercise.

The reason for the controversy on this part of history is that the evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus is very scant. If the NT Jesus existed, the highest probability is that he was ineffectual as being an ‘anybody’ when alive. If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them. They did not. There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine.

He was not known in his time because he was just one of the run of the mill 'messiahs'. Dime a dozen would be an adequate expression. There would be no way that he would have escaped the attention of the Roman authorities let alone the Jewish population. This is the biggest argument against the New Testament being a valid account of wonders and miracles.

Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted.

Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 21 December 2012 10:47:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

You seem to be overly sensitive.

I employed the word "congregation" as representative of people who "congregate".

We all use linguistic gymnastics (you included)- it's part of the attraction of debate.

I'd equate an atheist worldview as one that embraces a rejection of a deity and related metaphysical explanations in favour of a rational approach based on empirical evidence.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 21 December 2012 10:50:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

I refute completely that I use any kind of linguistic subterfuge in my writings but as you have admitted you do, the case rests.

And you have done it again with the worldview of atheists. Let me tell you what atheists think in common. Here it is and here it is alone with nothing else about the world. Are you ready? ‘There is probably no god’. That’s it…period.

To babble on about atheism being a woldview is nonsense.

The opposite, that there is a god is also not a world view, but following the alleged divinely inspired words of the alleged god or believing one knows what the alleged gods wants, is a worldview.

You are wasting my post numbers and I’d rather you stuck to your advice of going away if you are not going to discuss topics in which I am involved in a sensible, adult and comprehensive manner.

If brownie points are your life’s ambition at any cost, then maybe think why.

Atheism is of tremendous interest to the public as it shows a changing demographic in a world ruled by religion. This is historically very significant. In fact, it is of such interest that it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today that Dick Gross’ Opinion Piece on the 2012 Global Atheist Convention had more comments than any other topic. Nearly 2,000. http://www.smh.com.au/national/most-commented-stories-of-2012-20121219-2bm0y.html

There is a problem with religion in all societies and you are not a part of the solution, if fact, you are aiding and abetting the problem by you sneaky underhanded methods of communicating on this forum. It really is objectionable.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 21 December 2012 11:40:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yep....

Okay, David, I give up.

I tend to veer away from discussion with personalities prone overreaction and volatitlity, but I thought I'd have one more go at communicating with you.

For a start, I did not accuse you of "linguistic subterfuge".

You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in having it all your way and taking offense.

"...sneaky underhand methods of communicating..."

(That says it all. I'm communicating with you in exactly the same way I do all the time on this forum - everyone else seems to think it's okay)

I showed your "stalker" accusation to a few friends who, after they stopped bouncing across the floor laughing, commented that I seemed to have hit a nerve.


You're the one who's objectionable - even when I come back and apologise for my second post and maintain a measured stance, you react in a bellicose manner.

Good luck to you mate - you'll need it with your attitude.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 21 December 2012 12:16:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi,

We arrive at the truth by basing reasoned arguments on logical absolutes. That is the only reliable pathway to truth, given what we currently know. We’re not always going to reach absolute certainty, but absolute certainty is useless anyway.

<<What's true for some is not the case for others>>

The truth is not subjective. We can believe what we want, but we don’t get to pick and choose for ourselves what is true; truth in this sense is merely belief. We can determine how closely our beliefs align with the truth using the method I mentioned above.

<<The point that I was trying to make was - "Live and let live.">>

Of course! But there are some who are riding roughshod over our rights, security and wellbeing, and all with the passive support of the billions of their fellow travelers.

Where do we draw the line?

<<I think it would be a better world if we removed the walls that separate us. Wouldn't it be great if we turned our focus more on what unites us than on what divides us?>>

I agree, and I think if we all cared about the truth of our beliefs, we’d kill both birds with one stone here.

With religion being perhaps the biggest wall, I think helping others to see reason is one of the best ways of going about the former. If some get upset and feel attacked, then that’s unfortunate, but divisiveness is too engrained in the doctrines, and entrenched in the attitudes, of most of today’s major religions to sit back and wait for ALL theists to find some way of practicing their faith in a civilised way.

We need to be realistic and while we may not change the minds of everyone, we can at least spread enough reasoned thought around to make it too embarrassing for those with absurd beliefs to want to legislate or control others with them.

While we need to respect the rights of others to believe what they want, we shouldn’t have to do this at the expense of our own wellbeing.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 21 December 2012 1:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

Running out of arguments does not give you the right to start throwing around offensive accusations. It's telling that you are unable to point to any examples.

Or is it simply that you lack the sophistication and English skills to understand basic concepts and definitions?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and assume it's the latter…

Atheism has no doctrine and nor is it a mode of thought. It is (in the broader sense) simply a label applied to those who don't hold a belief in any god(s). The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of any god belief. Atheism says nothing about whether or not one is a Rationalist or a Sceptic (in the philosophical sense) and nor does it say anything about one's ability to think rationally or sceptically.

You with me still here?

Rationalism and Scepticism are philosophical schools of thought. While all Rationalists and Sceptics are atheists, not all atheists are Rationalists or Sceptics. Some are into all sorts of New Age mumbo jumbo.

So as I said earlier, the three are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they one and the same, and I never implied that they were.

Capice?

I was going to provide you with a ton of links as references, but in doing so, I could have been accused of the Gish Gallop and hey, you can Google this stuff yourself.

<<Obviously, there is no “known number” of possible outcomes when it comes to God.>>

We may not be able to produce precise figures, but that doesn’t mean we can’t come to a reasonable presumption by basing reasoned arguments on both logical absolutes and what we currently DO know (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151490).

<<Unless you do as I did, and accept two outcomes. Exist or not exist. 50%>>

Like I said to SoG, that would simply mean that we don’t know. The probability does not default to 50/50. What we CAN default to, however, is a position of disbelieve until those making the positive claim have fulfilled their burden of proof.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 21 December 2012 1:34:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFoAI>>A consensus of historian has concluded that the Jesus of the New Testament existed. Most of those have a religious bent and there are many arguments for and against this proposition. But let’s accept it on face value for the exercise.<<

Sport, it is a transparently simplistic tactic to recognize that in the consensus of scholars Jesus existed, then put in a caveat that it is not universally held and it is a majority of Christian’s scholars that acknowledge it, regally proclaiming “but we will accept it on face value for this exercise”. I honestly expected that you would be better at rebuttal given you’ve made it your life’s work. But you are not tiger.

You bear bait with the obvious childlike jibe of “CHRISMYTH” and when negatively responded to you cry stalker, to two separate posters. You are not good at this atheist caper are you digger?

Have you ever heard of Flavius Josephus, he was a roman historian born in Roman Judea in the same century Jesus lived? A local lad who made mention of Jesus and the infant Christianity in “Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews”, written around 93–94 AD, it includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18. Modern scholarship has universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

Josephus was not recording from a distant time and place; he was there, as were the first readers of his diary. AFoAI, why play ducks and drakes with acknowledged history. Why don’t you just say that Jesus existed, but he was mortal, human, and not the son of god? It is that type of fixated interpretation of information coupled with your phobia regarding stalking that degrades your perceptions to others.

AFoAL, let’s move away from this banter, given you are a leading atheist give me ten reasons as to why there is no creator and I will seriously contemplate what you say.
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 21 December 2012 2:07:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marry Christmas to all my friends.
Posted by Jessica Larkin, Friday, 21 December 2012 5:11:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

You speak about "indoctrination," of children.
You sound like Richard Dawkins.

I don't agree with that concept. Children grow
up into adults with minds of their own and
make their own decisions as adults.
Each of us goes through transitions and
transformations in life. I'm no pundit. I have only
my own life experiences to go on. We all have obstacles
to overcome in life, but I doubt very much that unless
we are feeble-minded - that we accept wholeheartedly
in its entirety everything that our
parents, teachers, or religious leaders tell us. I don't
know any complacent congregants. The people I know -
question everything. Many turned away from organised
religion (my husband is one - he was raised by the
Christian Brothers). However, many have also come back -
because like me they found that life without a conscious
awareness of God was difficult.

I feel that organised religious institutions are in for a
huge transformation, for the simple reason that people
have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Dear AJ Philips,

Thank You for sharing your thougts. As I've written in
the past I don't have the answers to the big questions
in life. I'm still on my own road to discovery.
But everything is relative; everything has its story; and
everyone has obstacles to overcome. They are our greatest
teachers.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 21 December 2012 5:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just wanting to be on page 21 on the 21/12/2012

Phew it didn't happen, or I'm early...

And another M Xmyth to the atheiths. :)
Posted by The Pied Piper, Friday, 21 December 2012 5:49:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<The reason for the controversy on this part of history is that the evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus is very scant. If the NT Jesus existed, the highest probability is that he was ineffectual as being an ‘anybody’ when alive. If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them. They did not. There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine.>>

These are your assertions that seem to be based on your presuppositions. You provided not one example to support your claim.

<<He was not known in his time because he was just one of the run of the mill 'messiahs'. Dime a dozen would be an adequate expression.>>

This is no more than David's assertion. Do you think that I'm going to be persuaded by that lack of evidence by you?

<<Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted>>.

So says David.

<<Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians.>>

Again, so says David.

You have as much chance of persuading me of your arguments as a Toyota salesman telling me of the benefits of a Ford car.
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 21 December 2012 6:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

I am not a practising member of any faith, atheism included (Poirot's criticisms are relevant). However I was quite taken by Caroline Jones' description of her spirituality and the support and solace her faith has been to her. Maybe it is of interest to you too, see here,

http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s809804.htm

Live and let live is a good motto. As a community volunteer I am continually bumping into volunteers from local church congregations. Many do much more than I do. I have never heard of any trying to convert anyone and none expect thanks. What people believe in doesn't matter where they care for others and show it through their attitude and behaviour. I frequently witness the worth of faith and prayer to the faithful among the people we help.

I repeat that I see no call for crass insults directed at the beliefs of fellow Australians. Focusing on one of their significant days of of observance to provoke them is childish and grubby.

The Christians have come out of it well, as have the members of other religions who could have responded but didn't. They have all turned the other cheek. They did not respond in kind. Good for them!

Merry Christmas.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 December 2012 7:36:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sononfgloin,

I do have a name, please use it if you wish to converse with me.

You may but I have no wish to authenticate or not the existence of the New Testament Jesus. It is unimportant. The total absence of evidence for divinity is the main game here as I explained in my last post and which I will not repeat. If he existed as a ‘nobody’ with no ex-biblical miracles reported, it goes against the divinity claim. Obviously!

You should really do you own history reading because noticeably you haven’t a clue about Josephus and the ‘Antiquities of the Jews’. I have two quite-old copies.

Josephus was not alive at the time of Jesus and wrote ‘Antiquities’ half a dozen decades later. He worked on hearsay.

The passage to which you refer is known as, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum and the consensus of history by credible scholars is that parts or all of it are an interpolation by fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea with him being the first person to actually report the passage. Eusebius lived at the time of Constantine and has a reputation amongst scholars as being a forger. This is backed up by an early church father,Origen, who was trying to win over converts to Christianity in the second or third century CE. Origen could have had a very convincing story to tell if he merely showed the to-be converts the passage as is. He never did even though it is reported he may have known of it. If he did know of it, therefore it must have been in a form then that was not convincing enough.

But as I say, I am not going to argue about it. Leave it to the scholars.

Let me help you with the burden of proof that has been done to death on this forum and everywhere else. If you are stating there is a creator-god, prove it. I'm waiting. And let me save you some trouble. If that could be proved, there would be one god and one religion and everyone would be convinced.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 21 December 2012 8:24:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<Josephus was not alive at the time of Jesus and wrote ‘Antiquities’ half a dozen decades later. He worked on hearsay.

The passage to which you refer is known as, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum and the consensus of history by credible scholars is that parts or all of it are an interpolation by fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea with him being the first person to actually report the passage. Eusebius lived at the time of Constantine and has a reputation amongst scholars as being a forger. This is backed up by an early church father,Origen, who was trying to win over converts to Christianity in the second or third century CE. Origen could have had a very convincing story to tell if he merely showed the to-be converts the passage as is. He never did even though it is reported he may have known of it. If he did know of it, therefore it must have been in a form then that was not convincing enough.>>

You have a bad habit of telling us information about various figures from church history and then do not give your sources. You have done that in this citation regarding Josephus, Eusebius and Origen. But you provide not one piece of documentation. What you say could be true, but when you don't document it, I'm left to believe that it is out of the mind of your presuppositions.

By the way, most historians that I read, live AFTER the events which they document. This is so with Josephus. I have his 'Complete Works' (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregal Publications 1960)

However, there are historians who were alive at the time of Jesus who have recorded some of the historical events in the life of Jesus, but you won't believe them. They are called the Gospels of the New Testament. Craig Blomberg has written, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press 1987), but you don't seem to be open to listen to the historical criteria used by Blomberg to support the historical reliability of any document, including the four New Testament Gospels.
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 21 December 2012 8:55:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

David: <<I have no wish to authenticate or not the existence of the New Testament Jesus. It is unimportant.>>

That's the language of dogmatism - don't convince me with evidence about Jesus and the New Testament because I've already made up my mind. And I'm anti!
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 21 December 2012 9:20:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

The subject matter is derived from memory of books I have read. It is unimportant to me as I have constantly repeated.

Anyone who can use Google can find information by searching the main names. Or find references to books that can be purchased. One I found most helpful was, 'Constantine and the conversion of Europe'by A.H. M. Jones.

All this material should be known by anyone wishing to argue a particular point of view. If it is not known, then it is a one sided discussion which I have mentioned earlier.

It would be a good learning exercise for folk to do their own investigation.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 21 December 2012 10:25:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religious charity is often brought up as a means of defending religion, trying to negate the bad that comes from it, or sometimes - more cynically - attempting to suggest that theists are kinder and more generous than atheists. But I think we really need to get some perspective here regarding the charity of religions and their followers.

Firstly, the absence of belief in something doesn't usually motivate people to band together and start a charity organisation. Especially when that's all they have in common (although some are slowly starting to pop-up since there are non-believers out there who want to be able to help the less-fortunate without providing religions with any more of a reason to exist than they have to), we may as well pick on people with blonde hair for not starting charities.

Secondly, those who are genuinely volunteering their time, purely out of the goodness of their own hearts, would be doing it whether it not they believed in a god.

Sadly, however, some of the charity that comes from Christian's is born of the guilty conscience that the religion instilled in them in the first place. Some is done for much more selfish reasons such as a desire to rack-up a heavenly credit rating. Other times it's done because the believer simply believes that that is what their god wants them to do; which brings me to my third point...

If someone performs a good deed because they believe that that is what a god wants them to do, then that's not morality, it's obedience. So based on that, one could possibly argue that atheists are more moral. 

Now while one could point to the sense of community in religion that helps bring these charities about, one could also reasonably ponder if it has still all been worth it. Or even if we would have such a need for so many charities had religion not had it's tentacles weaved though out our societies, influencing our politicians, inciting bigotry and warping the morality of people who are otherwise perfectly sane. 

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 22 December 2012 1:31:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

Not to mention the past horrors of the dark ages, witch burnings, the inquisition and just superstition in general that had possibly been prolonged by a supposed messiah who apparently chose to perpetuate myths about demon possession instead of providing us with valuable information about... oh, I don't know... the benefits of basic hygiene maybe?

Let's not forget the centuries-upon-centuries of suffering and persecution the Jews have had to endure at the hands of Christians, and possibly all because of a mistranslation that saw a "young" Mary become a "virgin" Mary. Even the suffering of Jews under the Nazi regime - seen by many as being a form of secular anti-semitism - had distinctly Christian roots.

It seems that it doesn't matter what an organisation is guilty of, if it can explain the origins of the universe - no matter how fallacious; or if it can make grand promises - no matter how unsubstantiated; then it's not only forgiven, but revered as something virtuous.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 22 December 2012 1:31:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFA - "If you are stating there is a creator-god, prove it. I'm waiting. And let me save you some trouble. If that could be proved, there would be one god and one religion and everyone would be convinced."

A very good question!

I remember asking a Nun a question like that at my Catholic Girls College final year in high school. The Nun looked aghast, and then said that all one had to have was faith to believe in God and His Son.
It was the first time I really started to question what I had been taught.

I can't say I'm an atheist yet though, because no one has proved to me there is no God either.
I really don't know...and neither does anyone else.

Hi David, I enjoyed your chat on the radio today. :)
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 22 December 2012 1:46:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<All this material should be known by anyone wishing to argue a particular point of view. If it is not known, then it is a one sided discussion which I have mentioned earlier.

It would be a good learning exercise for folk to do their own investigation.>>

I have done my own historical investigations of Jesus and the New Testament and my conclusions are radically different from yours.
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 22 December 2012 6:18:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<The reason for the controversy on this part of history is that the evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus is very scant. If the NT Jesus existed, the highest probability is that he was ineffectual as being an ‘anybody’ when alive. If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them. They did not. There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine....

Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted.

Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians.>>

This is an example of your use of the genetic logical fallacy, which is defined as, "A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing"(available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html).

A genetic fallacy uses fallacious reasoning. We cannot have a logical, rational discussion when you engage in the use of logical fallacies. Here your genetic fallacy is represented by the statements:

1. "There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine";
2. "Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted";
3. "Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians".
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 22 December 2012 6:39:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

You were much more astute and questioning as a child than I. I assumed nuns, brothers and priests had a direct line to God, that Bishops must be near divine and the Pope, well, I would have put on money on he could levitate if he so chose.

It is most unlikely that anyone will ever prove there is no god any more than the existence of fairies will be disproven. Humans will be able to live in their minds without fear of being ever exposed by such proof. But, what is happening is that many people are working out the inconsistencies with the god concept and its many religions and that the idea is adding to the suffering of humanity.

I know that many just disregard the god thing but don’t call themselves atheists. Ostensibly though, they are atheists. It’s from the Greek, ‘without a deity’. I have the feeling that calling oneself an agnostic, and I'm not saying you do that, and this wouldn't be in all cases, but the niggling fear of a revengeful god lingers in the back ground so why take the risk.

One thing that leads folk to eventually call themselves atheist is that they tend to consider the rational universe as proof positive that a god who engineered it would not be so petty as to torture people forever because it didn't supply enough rational evidence to prove its existence. Atheists do not consider ‘faith’ to be a virtue. Faith is a not knowing position and that can and is manipulated by the many religions to the detriment of billions of people.

You are oh so right that no one knows if there is a god or not. Popes or Imams have no more idea on this than anyone else. Many make out they do though. :)

Anyhow, enough of that. Glad you enjoyed my radio interview. The AFA fields numerous media interviews on atheism throughout the year. We have a team of spokespersons to cover it. I have a couple lined up for Christmyth day. No rest for the wicked…hey!

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 22 December 2012 8:18:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

David,

You wrote: <<It is most unlikely that anyone will ever prove there is no god any more than the existence of fairies will be disproven. Humans will be able to live in their minds without fear of being ever exposed by such proof. But, what is happening is that many people are working out the inconsistencies with the god concept and its many religions and that the idea is adding to the suffering of humanity.

I know that many just disregard the god thing but don’t call themselves atheists. Ostensibly though, they are atheists. It’s from the Greek, ‘without a deity’. I have the feeling that calling oneself an agnostic, and I'm not saying you do that, and this wouldn't be in all cases, but the niggling fear of a revengeful god lingers in the back ground so why take the risk.

One thing that leads folk to eventually call themselves atheist is that they tend to consider the rational universe as proof positive that a god who engineered it would not be so petty as to torture people forever because it didn't supply enough rational evidence to prove its existence. Atheists do not consider ‘faith’ to be a virtue. Faith is a not knowing position and that can and is manipulated by the many religions to the detriment of billions of people.>>

This creates false dichotomies like god vs fairies; humans living in their minds vs fear of being exposed by proof; and rational universe vs proof positive of torturing people forever.

There are strong pointers (not mathematical certainty) to the existence of God and philosopher/theologian Dr Bill Craig has demonstrated these in this interview and then a university presentation:

1. Can God's Existence be Demonstrated? (William Lane Craig), an interview between Craig and Robert Lawrence Kuhn (host of PBS' "Closer to Truth"), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFn0hopqSFw

2. Evidence for the Existence of God - William Lane Craig (Imperial College, London): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hW3ceQYxic
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 22 December 2012 8:51:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

The information you have supplied so far demonstrates you have only looked at a one-sided investigation on Jesus and the New Testament. I strongly advise you to look at information not emanating from religious sources. Some religious material is good and accurate but much of it is false and misleading intentionally or unintentionally but mainly because of bias. The problem is working that out.

Accepting information that ties up with existing ideas can be the result.

Maybe you shouldn't try to be too clever when you really don’t understand what a genetic fallacy is. Confusing logical progression with genetic fallacy is very revealing about your command of the subject matter.

BTW, when I say I'm not fussed as to whether a Jesus the man exists or not, I mean it. It wouldn't dent my way of thinking if I went back to the period in a time-machine and spoke with Jesus the man. The idea of Jesus the man and Jesus the divine are two completely different concepts. I’d rather you didn't call that a dogmatic stance as obviously it is not.

You rely on the New Testament Gospels (Selected out of many in the time of Constantine to make a good story) without knowing who the authors are or anything about them. You are relying on anonymous persons from 2,000 years ago with uncritical acceptance of their words. Non-partisan historical scholars don’t.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia, as with most atheists, has looked at the evidence for gods and found it wanting. Atheists are more interested in helping the world question long held believes that are causing strife. That strife has been listed in many places including the Online Opinion forums ad infinitum.

If you wish to argue about the nitty-gritty of your particular religion, please question yourself as to why you do. I find these quasi-theological discussions not worthwhile but engage in them for the sake of those who don’t. That is not heroism on my part, it just goes with the job.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 22 December 2012 8:53:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<I strongly advise you to look at information not emanating from religious sources. Some religious material is good and accurate but much of it is false and misleading intentionally or unintentionally but mainly because of bias. The problem is working that out.>>

Here you go with another genetic fallacy. It is a fallacious argument and we cannot have a rational conversation when you do this.

I have looked at evidence from non-Christian (atheistic) and Christian sources over a period of 50 years. I have concluded that you, as an example of an atheist, will not look objectively at ALL of the evidence, including the New Testament. When you write off the historical reliability of the NT Gospels, you are demonstrating your bias.

I know what a fallacious Genetic Fallacy Argument is and you use it.
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 22 December 2012 9:08:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> AFoAL, let’s move away from this banter, given you are a leading atheist give me ten reasons as to why there is no creator and I will seriously contemplate what you say.<<

This is the only request I have made of you.
Once again can you give me your ten or five or two top reasons for your atheist views?

A simple question, I am not looking for a thesis, just the reasons for your thoughts. I could list the reasons that put me in the “agnostic” camp and I don’t run a web site to proffer my views.

Please do not respond as you have with others here, by directing them to Google it. You are the AFoAI….act like it….educate me tiger.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 22 December 2012 9:25:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear onthebeach,

Thank You for the link of Caroline Jones.
I've always admired her and it was interesting
to read her comments especially about Jesus.
As the Jewish literary critic George Steiner
says in his autobiography, "Errata" the most
scandalous thing about Christianity is that it
believes in forgiveness, even of an enemy.
"Christ's ordinance of total love, of self-offering
to the assailant, is, in an strict sense, an
enormity. The victim is to love his butcher.
A monstrous proposition. But one shedding fathomless
light..."

You mentioned volunteers and communities. The works
of the Saint Vincent de Paul Society. "Vinnies"
is a Catholic lay organisation with which I am
familiar. It was introduced into Australia in 1854,
The growth here has been remarkable. In 2007 there
were 19516 members and volunteers in New South Wales
and the ACT, 7973 in Queensland, 7682 in Victoria,
and 7300 in other states and the Northern Territory.
Nationwide there are over 42,500 members and
volunteers, easily making it Australia's largest charity.
Their work is closely linked for those most in need.
"Need" is the only test applied.

No one is asked about their religion, race, social status,
gender preference or belief. What is extra-ordinary is the
range of services offered. The total number of people
annually assisted by Vinnies is an extraordinary 1.8 million.

Vinnies are unobtrusive, publicity-shy, de-centralised.
They represent Catholicism at its best.

Seasons Greetings everyone and All The Best for 2013 - for
me this discussion has now run its course.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 22 December 2012 9:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 22 December 2012 9:30:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist, Antony Flew, moved from atheism to theism (not Christianity), based on his examination of the evidence. Here is Antony Flew's interview with Gary Habermas: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

Flew has since died.
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 22 December 2012 9:31:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

As Paul Collins points out in his book, "Believers..."

"The most radical aspect of Jesus teaching goes
beyond even the commandment of love is his insistence
on forgiveness, even of enemies. In contrast to
Christianity, the other monotheistic religions, Judaism
and Islam, believe in 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth.' There are many non-violent Jews and Muslims
who are committed to peace, but Jesus is the first person
in history to say that the vendetta and the desire for
revenge are totally inappropriate responses for his
followers..."

Here is the real core of Jesus' moral teaching. Everything
else is secondary. Perhaps that might help answer your
question.

See you on another thread.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 22 December 2012 9:46:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

You still don't understand the burden of proof, despite having had it explained to you numerous times (had you understood it, then you'd realise that the atheist's position is justified by default so long as believers have not produced any evidence), and you still don't understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, despite that having been pointed out a few times here too. 

You have shown no interest or ability to be educated thus far, so what reason would David have to think you're willing to start now?
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 22 December 2012 10:11:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips>> You have shown no interest or ability to be educated thus far, so what reason would David have to think you're willing to start now?<<

AJ, don't give ALoFI an out re his burden of proof. I have simply requested his reasons for his views, so what moderators chair do you arbitrate from when you deem ALoFI has no reason to answer?

AJ Philips>> Rationalism and Scepticism are philosophical schools of thought. While all Rationalists and Sceptics are atheists, not all atheists are Rationalists or Sceptics. Some are into all sorts of New Age mumbo jumbo<<

AJ, after this statement you have the mordacity to say I don’t understand the semantics of atheist and agnostic.

Rationalism is the belief that thought and action be governed by reason. So you have arbitrated that all rationalists are atheists. Military Generals, Captains of Industry and Academics are rationalists by vocation and many have and do believed in a creator. Your blanket statement is wet irrational self-serving propaganda.

Further I know Christians who are absolutely committed to taking all things generated from humanity with a grain of salt…skeptical. Yet you again pronounce their atheism. Then you capture the rest of the demographic with the claim that the simple soul, not a skeptic or rationalist, is also atheist.

AJ, the implication is that anyone with half a brain is not a theist……..absolute rubbish sport.

I have not challenged the atheist’s views, they can believe whatever they like, and it is not my business. I have challenged their intellectual credibility on choosing the term atheist. How one can have 100% surety of no creator when there is no knowledge of what process or event created matter, and we know the universe had a start point in time. What created the matter and the time we now measure?

As long as that question is not resolved we can have no premise for arbitrarily discounting the possibility of a creator, and I leave that term open for interpretation.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 22 December 2012 11:10:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

Thanks for the support but you can see by sonofgloin’s latest post he is impervious to logic.

David

OzSpen,

Firstly, most atheists had never heard of Anthony Flew until it was touted he had changed his mind. Anthony Flew did not believe in a personal god or even the Christian god but came down on the side of a kind of deism. But there is more to this story than meets the eye.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/2481/the_death_of_another_deathbed_conversion/

No matter what Flew thought about the existence of a force in nature, he had no more information than you or I. In fact, he had less as articles about him demonstrate unless you read from some Christian websites. Seek out Richard Carrier who had correspondence with Flew. Here’s an example:

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article369.html

But besides all this pointless bickering I have posed you a question which I expect you to answer.

I’ll elaborate on it and ask all religious people who have been following this conversation to answer it as well.

So here we go.
_______________________________________________

I am very happy with my life and live it similarly to most reasonable people in the community.

Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 22 December 2012 11:22:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sonofgloin, No one will ever be able to say who or what started our universe.

Most Christians today base their beliefs on the bible, but how do they know that this is a truthful book and not just a good set of stories?

Muslims believe their Koran has the true story, and many Chinese think Confucious has all the answers.

Don't you agree that there is just too many unanswered questions to really have any truth that a God really exists at all?
Faith is really the only reason people believe...not truth.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 22 December 2012 11:37:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc “How about we alter the sentence slightly”

Will you be setting up the Life Only Exists On Earth Foundation tomorrow? No?
Then don't introduce stupid straw men.

The fact many people can “experience” contact with aliens doesn't “prove” they exist, but neither can you claim “no aliens exist” because of the personal nature of the reports, just as you can't claim “no gods exist” for the same reason.

You can choose to ignore the reports of supernatural or alien experiences, but that doesn't mean they are baseless, or that you can claim to know with certainty that there are no such things.

“If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them.”

Why are only “historians” relevant? How many “historians” even existed 2000 years ago?

Maybe many people didn't report these “miracles” because in those days, such events weren't considered so odd.
Magicians, seers, prophets were all over the place.

The only people Jesus would be notable to were the certain crowd of people he addressed, claiming to be *their* Messiah. Why would anyone else care to notice this?
Other peoples had their own mystics, magicians, prophets and priests. Who's this Jeshua dude to them?

“Josephus was not alive at the time of Jesus and wrote ‘Antiquities’ half a dozen decades later. He worked on hearsay.”

Yeah, most historians do write about history *after* it's already happened. Weird, eh?
Do you only consider *contemporary* references to Adolf Hitler reputable? No books written after that fact are relevant?

“Anyone who can use Google can find information”

Oh, so *you* don't need to cite references. But everyone else does.

“Are you ready? ‘There is probably no god’. That’s it…period.”

Ah, no. That's the view of *agnostics*.

“Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.
Why should I follow anything he says?”

Um, because you're “assuming he's God”. How did you get chosen as spokesperson?
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 22 December 2012 1:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
If you are the authorized spokesperson for this organisation then you are an insult to intelligence and history to call it a myth. You are in the same league as holocaust deniers of events 70 years ago of which we do have contempoary records.

It is evident you lack knowledge of historical facts that Christianity has tradition linked to persons of the first century. I suppose you do not believe the stories and exploits of Julius Caesar because no contemporary records of him exist today. No you are selective in your acceptance of fact; beside Julius has no devoted followers who consider him a god today, as the first century Roman’s believed.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 22 December 2012 2:13:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

There is life on earth so there is the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. There is no supernatural sphere anywhere known. What is your point if you have one?

People can claim they have had alien or supernatural experience. There is no reason anyone else should accept the claim without evidence.

This site gives an idea about first century historians: http://ed5015.tripod.com/BHistoriansAndJesus129.html

“The other historians of that time, Arrian, Lucius Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Pater Calus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Phlegon, Persius, Pompon Mela, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Lucian, Apollonius, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Quintilian, Forus Lucius, Lucanus, Phaedrus, Epictetus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Alulus Geuius, Statius, Ptolemy, Columella, Diochry Sostom, Hermogones, Lysias, Valerius Maxiimus, Cornelius, Titus Livius, Cluvius Rufus, Publius Petronius (the Roman consul) who lived in Jerusalem. All these heard nothing, not a word was written about J.C.”

Enough fish and bread to feed a multitude, water into wine, raising the dead, helping fisherpersons to catch heaps, curing the blind and lame, getting demons to leave pigs (really?) and finally coming back to life. The spoken word was the ancient internet and these things would have spread like wildfire if they happened.

Other magicians could not do those things. Unless you’re suggesting they did.

Actually, Hitler was written about as it was happening or very shortly after. Imagine the stories if we waited 50 or a hundred years before writing anything but relied on word of mouth.

I expect people to know the arguments if they wish to discuss them. Then, that material can be evaluated by both sides. Pushing a one sided story without proper investigation is no way to draw conclusions. The information is available to all.

If you can’t follow the agnostic argument which has been explained umpteen times, I’m not going to do it again.

“Um, because you're “assuming he's God”. How did you get chosen as spokesperson?”

This sentence doesn’t make sense. Can you rephrase it so it does thanks?

And, and it’s a big ‘and’, you did not answer the question.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 22 December 2012 2:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

“If you are the authorized spokesperson for this organisation then you are an insult to intelligence and history to call it a myth. You are in the same league as holocaust deniers of events 70 years ago of which we do have contempoary records.”

It would be a better idea if you didn't use stupid phrases like "an insult to intelligence and history" without knowing what you are talking about. The divinity of Jesus is a myth (extraordinary story without evidence) which is believed by Christians. The existence of a character called Jesus has acceptance, but not universal acceptance, by historical scholars. Is there some word or phrase you do not understand here. If so, I will explain again if you ask politely.

“It is evident you lack knowledge of historical facts that Christianity has tradition linked to persons of the first century. I suppose you do not believe the stories and exploits of Julius Caesar because no contemporary records of him exist today. No you are selective in your acceptance of fact; beside Julius has no devoted followers who consider him a god today, as the first century Roman’s believed.”

Tradition is not proof otherwise you would believe that Mohammed rode a horse to heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel and spoke with Allah. Do you believe that?

Historians are unanimous in accepting Julius Caesar existed.

If one follower accepted Jesus was God, that person would be locked up. Because lots of people believe it they are not. People believe many things. That does not make them true.

Would you do me a favour and humour me and answer the question thanks.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 22 December 2012 2:46:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline>> Don't you agree that there is just too many unanswered questions to really have any truth that a God really exists at all?
Faith is really the only reason people believe...not truth.<<

Suse, I can’t dispute that…its faith.

But the “truth” of the matter is not yet resolved, and all I am saying is that until that is resolved we can only factually be agnostics, not atheists, a term that describes an absolute. Anyone who has convinced themselves that there is no creator is guessing, as are the theists.

While we are on the subject, I notice AFoAI has not come up with one reason as to why he is an atheist. Quite happy to take advantage of the Christians during their holy period to exhibit his view, but not so well at expounding that view, will not tell them why they are wasting their time…..look it up on Google.
Sport, just give us ten reasons why it is a dead end to believe in more than the fruits of physics…….
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 22 December 2012 3:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>But the “truth” of the matter is not yet resolved, and all I am saying is that until that is resolved we can only factually be agnostics, not atheists, a term that describes an absolute.<<

Depends who you ask. I am an agnostic theist:

http://reason-being.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/chart.png

Merry Christmas,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 22 December 2012 3:16:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are right Sonofgloin , we are all mere humans on a tiny planet in a huge universe trying to guess who, if anyone, is a God who made us.

I think that is the reason I have never called myself an atheist, but more a sceptic...

It's all just part of a huge guessing game, which is why I consider religion as more of a gathering together of like-minded people who believe in one theory or another.

I prefer to work with scientific facts rather than 2000 year old books...
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 22 December 2012 6:14:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?>>

First, since you 'assume', that is a presupposition and I would propose a hypothesis and test it for validation or falsification from the available historical evidence regarding Jesus.

However, the worldwide evidence indicates that your first statement does not define the nature and personhood of who Jesus is. 'Jesus is God' cannot be a complete statement about his true nature as the New Testament reveals. Your 'Jesus is God' scenario is erecting a straw man logical fallacy as Jesus' nature is more comprehensive than that.

As to why you should follow Jesus, you will have to make that decision yourself, based on the truth of the New Testament Scriptures - which you state that you don't believe as an atheist. But you are a long way from accepting that so I will not deal with that matter as I would be 'casting pearls' and I'm not about to do that.

As for Antony Flew, you stated: <<Firstly, most atheists had never heard of Anthony Flew until it was touted he had changed his mind. Anthony Flew did not believe in a personal god or even the Christian god but came down on the side of a kind of deism. But there is more to this story than meets the eye>>. That is a statement about the ignorance of the atheistic establishment, if what you state is true, because Antony Flew was a leading atheistic British philosopher who taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, Reading and York University, Toronto, Canada. The atheists' ignorance of Antony Flew and his beliefs does not alter the fact of his prominence in the atheistic establishment before his conversion to deism.

David: <<The divinity of Jesus is a myth (extraordinary story without evidence) which is believed by Christians.>>

Not according to the historically reliable New Testament Gospels (see: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4225535/k.1274/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm).
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 22 December 2012 6:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To everyone on this thread - thank you. The thrust and parry has been very entertaining.

Especially to onthebeach, thank you for your kind wishes, and peace and joy 'back atcha' always. Would like to offer these sentiments to all - even poor David, as I think he really needs some TLC from us - or someone.
Posted by worldwatcher, Saturday, 22 December 2012 6:53:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

Science cannot prove the absence of a God, a supreme being or whatever. All science can do is make the observation that the evidence provided does not constitute adequate proof. That is of course compared against present scientific knowledge.

Providing they comply with laws I don't really mind what my fellow Aussies choose to believe, what interests they choose, or the way they conduct their lives. Same too regarding the people of other nations. To all I'd say "First do no harm" and subject to that go for it, whatever rocks your boat.

I don't believe that many Aussie Christians slavishly follow the edicts of clergy. They don't. Or that they see the Bible as the rigid pronouncements of a deity. More likely as a body of stories to moralise over. But whether they do or not should not be of concern to others. We should not presume to tell them they are wrong. We should not be looking over the fence bothering our neighbours either. We should find better uses of our time.

Many people find benefit in being a member of a congregation for social contact, to share local happenings and to support their own ethics and outlook on life. Many get something out of prayer. A good sing is uplifting too. Where some get more than that, jolly good for them I say.

But I would never go out of my way to offend, dump on them, or persuade them to my religion-neutral, secular ways. Aussie belief in freedom and human rights implies that there also be freedom of worship and religious belief. The sniping, sledging and bad taste niggling we wouldn't aim at (say) Aboriginals and women we shouldn't be directing at people for their beliefs either. As long as Australia remains a secular State I am happy. Although that too constantly needs defending.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 December 2012 8:41:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

If you really are a fence-sitter, then I don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand the burden of proof. I'll try explaining it to you.

There are two types of 'burden of proof': the legal burden of proof, and the philosophic burden of proof.

The legal burden of proof requires that the prosecution present a case beyond all reasonable doubt. Until they do, the default position of the jury is that the defence is 'not guilty'. Unlike in your world, the judge or jury do not expect both sides to present a convincing case right from the get go. The prosecution has to have produced something of substance first.

To give an example of the philosophic burden of proof, if we take all possible nouns and all possible adjectives, and apply them to the statement "A is B", most of the statements we could construct at random would be false (e.g. The sky is red). Only a very small minority of statements in that form are true, whereas most of the statements in the form of "A is not B" are true. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the positive assertion - "A is B".

Do you get it now?

<<Rationalism is the belief that thought and action be governed by reason.>>

Correct, and religious faith is the antithesis of reason. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something... http://tinyurl.com/c4f8yz9

<<Further I know Christians who are absolutely committed to taking all things generated from humanity with a grain of salt…skeptical.>>

Um, I DID mentioned that I was referring to Scepticism in the philosophical sense... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

<<I have challenged their intellectual credibility on choosing the term atheist.>>

Then learn what it means first... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

<<How one can have 100% surety of no creator...>>

Here you go again with the absolutes. Nothing about atheism says or necessitates 100% certainty. This is something you have invented yourself.

<<...and we know the universe had a start point in time.>>

In its current form, yes. Ever heard of string theory?
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 22 December 2012 11:08:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I might add though, SoG, that I'm quite happy to include some theists into the Rationalist and Skeptic categories. In fact, I'll take what I said back there if it makes you happy. It would only strengthen the point I was making to Shockadelic at the time anyway.

More importantly, however, it has no bearing on the points I have been trying to make on this thread, and that you have been struggling with immensely for some mysterious reason.

Although I suspect you simply found what you thought to be a glass jaw and went for it as some diversionary tactic to mask the fact that none of your points have withstood the scrutiny they have endured.

Which really dosen't make you look like much of a fence-sitter. 
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 22 December 2012 11:40:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree onthebeach. I would never presume to tell someone what to believe or what not to believe.
However, I would reserve the right to point out why I don't believe in Gods.

That's one of the reasons I enjoy living in a secular Australia. At least we have the right to disagree with religions or other ways of life.
Many countries don't have that religious belief freedom, and it is the cause of much angst and fighting...
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 23 December 2012 2:21:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Many countries don't have that religious belief freedom, and it is the cause of much angst and fighting..."

True enough :(

Sometimes the young can light the way for us:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1452086/Muslim-teen-defends-Christmas-tradition

All of the religious and cultural special days are there for us all to respect and share our common humanity. Particular beliefs for instance Muslims might get special significance from theirs, but we can share at some level and so on. One of the events we went to for the first time (for us) was the Buddha Birthday festival in Brisbane. It was most enjoyable. Here is the 2013 program for information,

http://bbdf2012.buddhabirthdayfestival.com.au/

Might as well enjoy our allotted three score and ten years above ground. We only ever regret the times we didn't share with family friends and other people :)
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 23 December 2012 5:35:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation “There is life on earth so there is the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.”

But to claim “no aliens exists” because you don't see any evidence would be preposterous!

“What is your point if you have one?”

What is YOUR point? That if you disregard people's reported experiences, therefore those people are liars?

“There is no reason anyone else should accept the claim without evidence.”

You don't have to. But you can't then claim it's all false/non-existent!

“Actually, Hitler was written about as it was happening”

Duh! But would you only consider *those* sources reliable?
Time magazine made him Man Of The Year!

“Pushing a one sided story without proper investigation is no way to draw conclusions.”

I'm not pushing any story.

“If you can’t follow the agnostic argument...”

You are the confused one, saying the core atheist view is that God “probably” doesn't exist.
Sorry, there's no “probably” in atheism. There can be in agnosticism.

“This sentence doesn’t make sense.”

Why *wouldn't* you listen to what Jesus said if you are ASSUMING HE'S GOD!?

Of course, you could choose not to listen, but that wouldn't change a thing about him being God, would it?

He would *still* be God, you just wouldn't care.
That still wouldn't justify an “atheist” identity, would it?

You can rebel against or reject God all right.
In the Christian account, Adam and Eve did, and before them Satan.

You could claim to be a “sinner” or “dissenter”, but not an “atheist”.
Not if you are “assuming Jesus is God”.

“If one follower accepted Jesus was God, that person would be locked up.”

Why? Is he dangerous? Should deviant thought be automatically punished or “treated”?

“Because lots of people believe it they are not. People believe many things. That does not make them true.”

It also doesn't make them false.

The only way you could *prove* one belief is false would be to prove a *contradictory* belief is true.

Since none of these beliefs can be proved true, NONE can be definitely said to be false either.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 23 December 2012 6:59:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear onthebeach,

Your words of reason have touched my heart
and I Thank You for them!
Big hug!
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 23 December 2012 9:28:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

“First, since you 'assume', that is a presupposition and I would propose a hypothesis and test it for validation or falsification from the available historical evidence regarding Jesus.”

The word ‘assume’ is used in the sense of hypothetical.

“However, the worldwide evidence indicates that your first statement does not define the nature and personhood of who Jesus is…”

Again, this is a hypothetical and it means any god of any believer. Each can answer in their own manner. Strange but expected but none have. Your skirting around it is noticeable. Answer it about the god in which you believe.

I would not follow the words of Jesus if they did not tie up with the highest ethical standards unless he pointed out he would torture me for eternity if I didn’t. I would accept he is god and would no longer be an atheist, of course!.

Repeat mode on: Even if Anthony Flew was very well known by all atheists, and he wasn’t, his words would not be accepted just because he is an atheist. You obviously have not looked at anything but religious nonsense about him.

This is funny. I say the divine Jesus is a myth only believed by Christians and you offer proof that he is not, from a Christian view.

David

worldwatcher,

“....even poor David, as I think he really needs some TLC from us - or someone.”

Sorry to disappoint you, but I get lots of TLC and you know what, it’s not from imaginary friends.

David

Shockadelic,

“But to claim “no aliens exists” because you don't see any evidence would be preposterous!.”

Who is making that claim? There is a good chance that simple alien life exists and a possibility that intelligent aliens might also. There are both kinds of that life on earth, although the latter category is overstated going by some of the posts on this thread and the earth is in the universe which has trillions of planets.

The huge distances probably preclude alien visits and therefore evidence is needed to verify claims of abduction and visitations.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 23 December 2012 9:35:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips>> Here you go again with the absolutes. Nothing about atheism says or necessitates 100% certainty. This is something you have invented yourself.<<

Dunno AJ, all the reference books I have use the term nonbeliever when describing the word atheist. But interestingly the thesaurus has the terms “doubter” and “nonbeliever” as alternatives. Nonbeliever is pretty absolute to me whereas doubter is not an absolute. Agnostic also has the same alternatives in the thesaurus but broad alternatives are given a run given it is a thesaurus.

But at the end of the day there are two words, atheist and agnostic, and each have a specific application. Agnostic is best served by the word doubt, meaning no judgment has been made. Atheist engenders nonbeliever, an absolute position. In the context of this thread, atheists have declared there is no god, they are wrong footed intellectually given they want to argue their point intellectually.

A self proclaimed atheist such as ALoFI cannot disprove the creator scenario, but chooses to take a PERSONAL stance on the subject. Perhaps he had a Catholic upbringing, or he got molested by the priest…….but for whatever reason ALoFI hates religions and does not consider the possibility of a god, it is not an intellectually intelligent position to take. It is a personal observation driven psychologically.

By the way, ALoFI, I am still waiting for your top ten “there is indisputably no god” reasoning’s
Posted by sonofgloin, Sunday, 23 December 2012 9:50:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

“That if you disregard people's reported experiences, therefore those people are liars?”

They could be mistaken, deluded and yes, or liars. What would you class the people as who wrote other holy books?

“You don't have to. But you can't then claim it's all false/non-existent!”

Who does?

Please read what I have said about your Hitler analogy.

Please read what others and I have said about agnosticism.

“Why *wouldn't* you listen to what Jesus said if you are ASSUMING HE'S GOD!?”

That is answering a question with a question.

“He would *still* be God, you just wouldn't care. That still wouldn't justify an “atheist” identity, would it?”

I wouldst be an atheist under that circumstance. That would be stupid.

“Why? Is he dangerous? Should deviant thought be automatically punished or “treated”?”

Yes, you are correct; I left out possibly, ‘would possibly be locked up. It was a joke with a serious message. I’ll be less subtle in future.

“It also doesn't make them false.”

You are correct. Of course, billions of people follow what you think are false claims which you wouldn't and they wouldn't follow what they consider are false claims by you. They are called every other religion except Christianity.

“Since none of these beliefs can be proved true, NONE can be definitely said to be false either.”

Then, why did you ‘choose’ the one you are now defending?

Now we have been through this stuff, can you answer the question thanks.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 23 December 2012 10:08:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

“A self proclaimed atheist such as ALoFI cannot disprove the creator scenario, but chooses to take a PERSONAL stance on the subject. Perhaps he had a Catholic upbringing, or he got molested by the priest…….but for whatever reason ALoFI hates religions and does not consider the possibility of a god, it is not an intellectually intelligent position to take. It is a personal observation driven psychologically.”

So many wrong assumptions and so little time!

The burden of proof is on those proposing there is a creator. I have no reason whatsoever to take a ‘personal’ stance about being an atheist. Yes, I had a Catholic upbringing and as stated it was interesting. No, I was not molested by a priest although a Brother did take interest in me but that never led to any misconduct. The Atheist Foundation of Australia does not hate religion. It is opposed to those parts of religion that harm many in the human race. One of the harms is to the many of its adherents who become very bitter and stroppy when questioned about their ‘faith’. They become angry and irrational. Depending on the historical position of any religion, it can even lead to killing others who don’t believe the same as they do.

Atheists consider the god idea is a possibility albeit a very small possibility. Atheists also consider that fairies are a possibility but a very small possibility. Possibilities are a philosophical stance everyone takes. In reality, some people choose the highest probability. Others, such as religious believers, choose the lowest possibility.

Are you saying that atheists are driven to be atheists by bad experience? That is total bollocks and only demonstrates you are cocooned in a fantasyland of religious making.

Your final question is one of desperation. You have to prove your creator god exists. That is why I am an atheist because no one ever has.

Say this again and I will consider you are incapable of rational thought. I could have used other than ‘rational thought’ but it is the Christmyth season of goodwill.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 23 December 2012 10:37:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, thanks for your reply. Your position is not as steadfast with the inclusion of the word “possibilities”….and that is all I have been bleating on about. My first post was simply a comment on semantics….in fact semantics is almost exclusively all I have written about.

I started with this:
>> Merry festive season David. Just a seasonal comment re Xmas and religions.

The term atheist is a logical nonsense, as is the term theist. How can you be a committed believer or non believer with absolutely no proof one way or the other?

Agnostic is the descriptive the thinking man goes with I believe.<<

And the rest was a debate about semantics, with AJ primarily, but I did think that given your willful provocation you would have some secret weapon of rebuttal for the Christians other than “The burden of proof is on those proposing there is a creator”.

Re your comments that religions pits human against human…..sure it does, as do red hair, skin colour, gene pool, greed, jealousy, financial status etc etc.. Religion being the great divider of humanity can be rebutted deed for deed action for action by positive outcomes due to the moral foundation that religions bring to cultures.

Anyway……Merry Chrismyth to you my heathen brother…..lol.
Posted by sonofgloin, Sunday, 23 December 2012 12:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

David: <<Again, this is a hypothetical and it means any god of any believer. Each can answer in their own manner. Strange but expected but none have. Your skirting around it is noticeable. Answer it about the god in which you believe.>>

I’m not interested in pursuing your hypothetical concept of God as it is nothing more than trying to get conversation going with me. I’m skirting around NOTHING. The Trinitarian Lord God Almighty in whom I believe has stated this of your atheism: ‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good’ (Psalm 14:1 NIV).

The biblical worldview as described in the Christian Scriptures fits like a hand in glove with the world around me – I see it’s beauty and its ugliness. I have recently retired after 34 years in family counselling, the last 17 years full-time. I see the beauty and ugliness in human beings (including myself) and God has told us that that is exactly the way it is in the Scriptures:

‘For you [the Lord] created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you [the Lord] because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well’ (Psalm 139:13-14 NIV).

‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. 3 They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. 4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun. 5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth’ (Psalm 19:1-6 NIV).

(Part 1 continued in Part 2)
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 23 December 2012 12:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for the ugliness in our world, we find the cause coming from the first two human beings who lived and had the choice to obey or disobey God. They chose to disobey and we reap the dire, sinful consequence. Read about it in Genesis 3.

But a new heaven and a new earth are coming (See Revelation 21).

Until then, all human beings have the opportunity of new life through Christ: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’ (John 3:16).

David: <<I would not follow the words of Jesus if they did not tie up with the highest ethical standards unless he pointed out he would torture me for eternity if I didn’t. I would accept he is god and would no longer be an atheist, of course!.>>

Humanistic answers like you have given here are a dud. I know. I tried them. Only a relationship with the God-man, Jesus Christ, changed my life. I would not trade that for all the $$$ in the world.

David: <<Repeat mode on: Even if Anthony Flew was very well known by all atheists, and he wasn’t, his words would not be accepted just because he is an atheist. You obviously have not looked at anything but religious nonsense about him.>>

Your bigotry is showing up again. You want me to believe that your atheism has the sense for me to follows and that anybody’s relationship with Jesus Christ is ‘religious nonsense’. When will you quit using this ad hominem logical fallacy?

(Part 2 continued in Part 3)
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 23 December 2012 12:48:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Part 3, continued from Part 2)

David: <<This is funny. I say the divine Jesus is a myth only believed by Christians and you offer proof that he is not, from a Christian view.>>

That is NOT what I stated. This is what I said: <<However, the worldwide evidence indicates that your first statement does not define the nature and personhood of who Jesus is. 'Jesus is God' cannot be a complete statement about his true nature as the New Testament reveals. Your 'Jesus is God' scenario is erecting a straw man logical fallacy as Jesus' nature is more comprehensive than that.>>

He is the God-man Jesus Christ. That’s the biblical evidence. He is not just God. He is God who became flesh and that makes Jesus the God-Man.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 23 December 2012 12:49:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

Knowing the distinction between probability and possibility is very important for forming an accurate representative view of reality. Don’t leave home without it.

Maybe you could answer the question as others are apparently fearful of it.

And a Merry Christmas to you if that gets you through the night. :))

David

OzSpen,

Anthony Flew lost the plot and was manipulated by others to admit to there being a designer when he did not have up to date scientific information. He was suffering from senility at the time. Get your head out of religious websites and smell the roses.

You have failed to properly check this story out and you have failed to understand the unimportance of it. This is a dumb religious strawman. No one cares what Anthony Flew thought. Okay, I’m wrong there. Apparently some Christians think it is important. Let me rephrase that, most atheists are not interested in what Anthony Flew thought.

I really don’t even care if he was of sound mind and chose to believe in a designer force, a deity or a god or even the Christian God, the Islamic Allah or Bugs Bunny.

Calling my comments on this matter, bigotry is inaccurate. (to say the least)

I certainly don’t want discussion with you to go any further. What made you think I would?

A fluster of posts with Biblical quotes, religious stories and anecdotes do not answer the question I posed.

Can you answer it thanks. It will not harm you.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 23 December 2012 1:31:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

<<...all the reference books I have use the term nonbeliever when describing the word atheist.>>

Okay...

I'm not sure what your point is, sorry.

Do you mean to say that you have reference books contradicting what myself, Wikipedia and most (if not all) dictionaries say about atheism? If so, could you please list some for me so that I can check them out?

I don't think you can, because I suspect these references don't exist.

<<But at the end of the day there are two words, atheist and agnostic, and each have a specific application.>>

No, essentially theism and atheism go to what you believe, while gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you know. The two are in no way mutually exclusive, even if you only apply your understanding of agnosticism. 

<<Agnostic is best served by the word doubt, meaning no judgment has been made.>>

Not entirely... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

<<Atheist engenders nonbeliever, an absolute position.>>

Erm... no. You've got your absolutes mixed-up in a splendid display of the equivocation fallacy.

'Believer' and 'non-believer' are *logical absolutes*, meaning that one is either a believer, or they are not. Similarly, an object is either a rock, or it is not. There are no in betweens with logical absolutes. 

So in this context, 'believers' believe in a god, everyone else comes under the non-believer category - whether they are doubters, strong atheists, confused, don't know or don't care. 

The "non" in non-believer is simply a negation of the word "believer". It says nothing about how strongly one believes or doesn't and neither does the fact that they are LOGICAL absolutes. 

<<In the context of this thread, atheists have declared there is no god...>>

How so?
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 23 December 2012 3:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

You are into logical fallacies again as you have demonstrated here: Genetic fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy.

No, I will not answer any further as there cannot be a logical discussion when you continue to use logical fallacies like this towards my posts.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 23 December 2012 4:10:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG writes: "Your [David's] position is not as steadfast with the inclusion of the word “possibilities”….and that is all I have been bleating on about."

Wow. 

So the magic word was "possibilities". That's like a cruel joke. It reminds me of those Indian gurus who claim to know the meaning of life, but have never told anyone what it is because they apparently haven't asked the right way.

Incidentally, I did actually cover the difference between 'possibilities' and 'probabilities' with Shockadelic (or maybe you just needed to hear the word from David).

SoG,

While that's all fine and well, you committed three fallacies in the wake of your attempts to hear that one word (and avoid understanding what others had been telling you).

The argumentum ad populum;
The strawman;
The equivocation fallacy;

And you came dangerously close to the argument from ignorance.

Not exactly what one would expect from a thinking man or a fence-sitter.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 23 December 2012 4:30:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<A fluster of posts with Biblical quotes, religious stories and anecdotes do not answer the question I posed.>>

Yes, they do, but you don't want to listen to all of the reliable historical evidence that is available from Scripture. Yes, reliable historical evidence. This has been proved many times over, but you don't want to hear about it.

Dr. Paul Barnett, a former history teacher at Macquarie University, Sydney, has written a number of publications that confirm the historical reliability of the Bible. He wrote as a historian and a Christian. His publications include:

1. Is the New Testament History?
2. Jesus and the Logic of History;
3. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity;
4. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years
5. Paul: Missionary of Jesus

He was so competent as a historian that Macquarie University hired him to teach history. He confirms the historical reliability of the New Testament.

But, ah! You, as an atheist, don't want to hear that evidence. You write off 'Biblical quotes', but Dr Paul Barnett, the historian, can demonstrate the historical reliability of the New Testament. As an atheist, you have decided to exclude reliable historical records from your repertoire of historical evidence? Why? Your presuppositional bias against the Bible!
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 23 December 2012 4:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

Looking back at some of your posts over time shows a preponderance mention of various fallacies, which you love to throw around like confetti for effect. Mostly they are not related to that which you are criticising and it is only done to show you are innocent of written wrongdoing yourself and the master describing the literary faults of others. If I had to guess, I would say that religious-method-lessons, (some religious websites promote this dishonesty and a start to investigate can be found here http://www.atheismsfallacies.com/ ) panic, desperation, run out of ideas and insecurity causes this.

And about the question, well, looks like your fear of the wrath of Yahweh is showing even though you didn't state it just in case he found out.

Do you mean Paul William Barnett, the ex-Anglican Bishop of North Sydney? Yes, he would be unbiased as it gets. Not.

BTW, the Garden of Eden was not real, it is a bad metaphor at best and anyone using it in discussion as though it was real, should be careful of calling other people names concerning credibility. And I am not going into the creationist mumbo jumbo arguments…trust me.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 23 December 2012 5:07:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

Thank you and hugs are returned to you. The good thing is that love and hugs are not limited. They are in boundless supply.

As a very analytical person my inclination is to challenge for what we like to call facts and evidence.

But I have experienced enough of life to realise how limited and impoverished we are when we always do that.

"To give life meaning, one must have a purpose larger than one’s self" - Will Durant
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 23 December 2012 5:46:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips>> Not exactly what one would expect from a thinking man or a fence-sitter <<

Sadly that is life AJ, expectations shatter.
Posted by sonofgloin, Sunday, 23 December 2012 5:55:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<Do you mean Paul William Barnett, the ex-Anglican Bishop of North Sydney? Yes, he would be unbiased as it gets. Not>>.
He is such a competent historian that Macquarie University hired him. And you, an atheist, would be as unbiased as it gets. Right??

<<BTW, the Garden of Eden was not real, it is a bad metaphor at best and anyone using it in discussion as though it was real, should be careful of calling other people names concerning credibility. And I am not going into the creationist mumbo jumbo arguments…trust me.>>

This is David, the atheistic president of the Australian Atheist Foundation speaking. Please tell me your qualifications in biblical hermeneutics.

Here you are with your ad hominem logical fallacy again: "the creationist mumbo jumbo arguments"

We cannot have a logical discussion when you resort to these kinds of tactics in your misotheism.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 24 December 2012 7:38:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<Looking back at some of your posts over time shows a preponderance mention of various fallacies, which you love to throw around like confetti for effect. Mostly they are not related to that which you are criticising and it is only done to show you are innocent of written wrongdoing yourself and the master describing the literary faults of others. If I had to guess, I would say that religious-method-lessons, (some religious websites promote this dishonesty and a start to investigate can be found here http://www.atheismsfallacies.com/ ) panic, desperation, run out of ideas and insecurity causes this.>>

This is a false accusation. This is also another example of your use of a fallacy of relevance: An error that does not address the issues.

When I have accused you of using this and other logical fallacies I have been accurate in my accusations. I happen to know what opponents of Christianity do and you are no exception with your use of logical fallacies.

<<If I had to guess>>

That's exactly what you have done here.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:11:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

“He is such a competent historian that Macquarie University hired him. And you, an atheist, would be as unbiased as it gets. Right??”

Let’s get some facts straight as you are being quite disingenuous on a number of fronts. Paul William Barnett is a fellow in ancient history at the Macquarie University. He has written about the history of the New Testament and not the divinity of Jesus. As far as I know he does not aspire to creationism.

The existence of Jesus of the New Testament is not under dispute in this thread as it is unimportant. What is of paramount significance is whether this character was divine. There is no credible ex-Biblical evidence for that As a Christian, he may hold the view that Jesus was divine on faith but that is all.

“Please tell me your qualifications in biblical hermeneutics”.

No, I’m not an expert on interpretation of the bible. Neither are you. And if there was one interpretation then there would be one religion. This method of escaping the question of your creationist leanings is another example of manipulating the language.

I don’t have to be an expert as the human race is very lucky, it has the best truth finder there is, it is called science. It’s not perfect but nothing comes close to it. Science would be very pleased indeed if creationists could demonstrate another force in the universe but creationism/intelligent design has failed to produce any studies refuting evolution in accredited scientific journals where they may be investigated by peer review.

And please don’t come back with excuses that scientist have a conspiracy theory against God, are influenced by the Devil or are deluded and therefore won’t allow any studies to be published. That is nonsense.

A GAC speaker and evolutionist, Eugenie C. Scott, is the Executive Director of the National Centre for Science Education. Have a look at what she says here. Watch at 33:50 if not wanting to view the whole video. But, it is glaringly obvious that you definitely need to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8&list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&index=14

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:40:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

David: <<Let’s get some facts straight as you are being quite disingenuous on a number of fronts. Paul William Barnett is a fellow in ancient history at the Macquarie University. He has written about the history of the New Testament and not the divinity of Jesus. As far as I know he does not aspire to creationism>>.

Here again you are using a fallacy of relevance. I was not addressing an aspect of creationism. You wanted to discredit Paul Barnett in a previous post because he was the former Anglican bishop, so what do you do now? You switch horses with a red herring fallacy. I gave you books on the demonstrated reliable history of the New Testament written by a competent historian, Dr. Paul Barnett. But you are not interested in pursuing what Dr. Barnett states about the New Testament as history. It is in the historically reliable New Testament that we have the biblical evidence for the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. He is the God-man and not just God or just man.

David: <<The existence of Jesus of the New Testament is not under dispute in this thread as it is unimportant. What is of paramount significance is whether this character was divine. There is no credible ex-Biblical evidence for that As a Christian, he may hold the view that Jesus was divine on faith but that is all>>.

The existence of Jesus, the God-man, is under discussion in this thread, which is authenticated by the NT, and you have denigrated the historical veracity of the NT.

David: <<No, I’m not an expert on interpretation of the bible. Neither are you. And if there was one interpretation then there would be one religion. This method of escaping the question of your creationist leanings is another example of manipulating the language>>.

You are demonstrating your ignorance. I happen to have a BA in biblical literature and NT Greek, which means that I have completed courses in hermeneutics. I'm currently working on a PhD in New Testament with a university. You have misrepresented me.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 24 December 2012 10:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

The New Testament Jesus may be under discussion by you but it is irrelevant to me. I am not going to say this again. It is the divinity of Jesus that is pertinent as Jesus the man is only a man. Bugs Bunny is a rabbit and only a rabbit. He is not an actual creature.

It is a red herring that you play continually on the historical Jesus. Don’t do it.

If you have qualifications, (where did you achieved them) or if you are a young or old earth creationist and you wish to have proper discussion, those facts should be divulged. Please lay this information on the table now.

You can consider that Jesus was a God-man but there is no evidence for that. Stop manipulating the topic to make out there is. What is the ex-biblical evidence for Jesus being a God-Man? I mean universal evidence that would be accepted by all.

Oh, and by the way, the terribly hard question I posed does have a very simple answer.

Here is the question again.

>>>”I am very happy with my life and live it similarly to most reasonable people in the community.

Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?”<<<

Answer: Because you will go to hell if you don’t.

The implications should be obvious.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 24 December 2012 10:45:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>He was not known in his time because he was just one of the run of the mill 'messiahs'

David,

Have you ever heard of the expression "where there is smoke, there is fire"? Does someone get to become the most famous and influential person to ever live, changing the world many times over, by being a run of the mill dime a dozen religious personality? That seems like an unreasonable hypothesis to me. There is no exaggerating the impact that Jesus has had on the Earth. Consider the words of Napleon:

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/04/napoleons-proof-for-divinity-of-jesus.html

His words in the NT are what proves they are His genuine testimony. The power of those words to change the world, and shape nations do not exist in any other book. The power of those words to change lives, to transform a person from the inside out, could not be written by just anyone. There is no one like Jesus; His writings and wisdom are unique in all the worlds history. That isn't something anyone could just dream up. Look at what Einstein said:

George Viereck: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

Einstein: “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

George Viereck: “Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”

Einstein: “No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.”

The worlds most intelligent human in recent times agrees with my line of thought, which is that the words of Jesus could not be manufactured. They are the genuine article and their transformative power over the world and mens hearts is the proof.
Posted by washed, Monday, 24 December 2012 11:28:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence >>>suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine.

David,

Jesus Himself offered to prove His existence to anyone who would open the door to Him:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

There are two kinds of skeptics. An honest skeptic and a dishonest skeptic. An honest skeptic is someone who doesn't know but is willing to find out. A dishonest skeptic is someone who doesn't know and doesn't want to know. Which are you? Would you be willing to sign your name to this statement?:

God, I don't know if you exist or not. I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I don't know if Jesus Christ is your Son or not, but I want to know, and because I want to know I will make an honest investigation, and because it is an honest investigation I will follow the results of that investigation where ever they lead me, regardless of the cost.

If you are willing to sign off on it, then your assignment is to read the gospel of John. The purpose of the gospel of John is stated thusly:

John 20:31

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

It was written specifically so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you would have life in His name. Although you don't now believe, you can say to God..God I don't know if this is your word of not, but if this is your word, show me. I'll make up my mind before the fact that I will obey you only if you show me this is your word and speak to my heart.

Would you be willing to do that?
Posted by washed, Monday, 24 December 2012 11:29:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

I think OzSpen would pull you up about arguments from authority. That is on his cute little fallacy list. Be interesting to see if he does or doesn't. And by the way you left out a bit of Einstein’s conversation. Why did you do that? Here it continues.

“I seriously doubt that Jesus himself said that he was God, for he was too much a Jew to violate that great commandment: ‘Hear O Israel, the Eternal is our God and He is one!' and not two or three. Sometimes I think it would have been better if Jesus had never lived. No name was so abused for the sake of power!”

Einstein doesn't mention that Jesus was a God-man and Einstein did not convert to Christianity he remained a cultural Jew and discounted the trinity magic. Have you a point to make?

Over a billion people follow the words of Muhammad and they influenced civilisations also. By your logic, they must be right. Can you explain that discrepancy thanks?

I'm not going to investigate every quote you bring up unless it proves the existence of a god. Then I will check it out.

Mass-quoting from the bible is only a sign that you have been indoctrinated as a child and you were susceptible to that indoctrination the same as people who quote from the Koran and other holy books. That is why the Atheist Foundation of Australia is opposed to children being mentally interfered with by religion. We are trying to give children a chance not to turn out like you. I hope others on the Online Opinion Forums see the importance of the AFA position on this.

I’ll ask you also but I know it is pointless, supply proof of your god that everyone will accept the same as everyone accepts the law of gravity or that the earth revolves around the sun etc.

And, what is your answer to my question?

Surely you are not so fearful of your god as to be frightened to answer it. I thought it was the god of love.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 24 December 2012 12:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can any Forum member explain how this was possible please.
After posting on this thread, I immediately received an e-mail from the Atheist Foundation in my personal mailbox? Does this mean that posting on this site makes my e-mail address available for everyone?
Posted by worldwatcher, Monday, 24 December 2012 1:40:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

There are some false statements in what you have written here.

1. David wrote: ‘The New Testament Jesus may be under discussion by you but it is irrelevant to me. I am not going to say this again. It is the divinity of Jesus that is pertinent as Jesus the man is only a man’. You might try to get away with diverting the divinity/deity of Jesus from the New Testament, but it is in that historically reliable NT that I find the teaching on the deity of Christ. Nice try, but it doesn’t work.

2. David: ‘If you have qualifications, (where did you achieved them) or if you are a young or old earth creationist and you wish to have proper discussion, those facts should be divulged. Please lay this information on the table now’. You don’t have the humility to acknowledge what you don’t know about me. Another red herring.

3. Above, you wrote of New Testament historian, Dr. Paul Barnett: ‘Paul William Barnett is a fellow in ancient history at the Macquarie University. He has written about the history of the New Testament and not the divinity of Jesus’. That is another of your false statements. See Barnett's book, Messiah: Jesus, the evidence of history, in which he deals with the deity of Christ.

Paul Barnett affirms the deity of Christ in his online article, ‘The Great Creeds', http://paulbarnett.info/2011/06/

You are digging yourself further into the hole of ignorance with what you stated of Paul Barnett and his view on the divinity/deity of Christ.

4. You also stated of me, ‘I think OzSpen would pull you up about arguments from authority. That is on his cute little fallacy list. Be interesting to see if he does or doesn't’. Here you are engaging in another ad hominem logical fallacy against me. Sure sounds like you don’t like being called for your use of logical fallacies when you say things like this about me.

I will not continue my discussions with you because of your use of logical fallacies, making it impossible to have a logical discussion.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 24 December 2012 1:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

<<Can any Forum member explain how this was possible please.
After posting on this thread, I immediately received an e-mail from the Atheist Foundation in my personal mailbox? Does this mean that posting on this site makes my e-mail address available for everyone?>>

I find that to be a serious breach of privacy on a public forum. I think you should be addressing this to the management of On Line Opinion.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 24 December 2012 1:45:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

1. There is no ‘nice try’ about it. You ‘believe’ Jesus to be divine. Great.

2. No information as it might embarrass you. I understand. We’ll take your words on ‘faith’ then, shall we?

3. Yes, I was partly incorrect about Bennett. Apparently, he is somewhat infected by the religious gene. Therefore everything I say is wrong.

4. No condemnation of washer’s fallacies. It was an ad hominem to a sensitive you but a mere truthful statement from me. Proven, by the way, as you still have not picked washer up about it. Very selective of you.

Allow me to add a few more numbered statements:

5. No proof of the divinity of Jesus enough to convince everyone.

6. No answering the question I posed. This is a biggie and you know it. It would destroy your hanging-by-a-thread credibility if you did so. The fear of retribution is behind it all and that is a terrible burden to place on children who cannot combat it. It is child abuse.

7. No understanding of the Anthony Flew situation. This was quite a blunder by you. Not just a blunder but a monumental misreading of the matter. This was either a result of only taking information from dubious Christian websites or intentionally meant to misrepresent the case by you. Either way, it demonstrates a totally one-eyed view of (un)reality.

8. A continual overusing of the currency concerning fallacies. Don’t look now but that is not working. Or is this the not-working fallacy?

Goodbye and enjoy the only life you are ever going to have.

Merry Christmyth.

David

worldwatcher,

Apart from the fact you received an email that might be tied up with this Forum but I doubt that very much, the Atheist Foundation of Australia does not send out random emails to anyone.

What was the subject and content of the email?

Please forward a copy of the said email to info@atheistfoundation. org.au

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 24 December 2012 2:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

<<Can any Forum member explain how this was possible please.
After posting on this thread, I immediately received an e-mail from the Atheist Foundation in my personal mailbox? Does this mean that posting on this site makes my e-mail address available for everyone?>>

What did the email from the Atheist Foundation state? Have you supplied these details to the editor of On Line Opinion?
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 24 December 2012 7:32:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

No, I didn't even bother to open it. Just immediately deleted it.
Didn't inform the editor either. Treated it the same as any other unwanted e-mail - straight to the trash bin.

However, it does bother me that this could happen, as I believed that my e-mail address was not available to anyone unless I handed it out.
I stay away from Facebook and Twitter for that very reason.
Posted by worldwatcher, Monday, 24 December 2012 8:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have my doubts any e mail was received.
Yes it has been done, e mails passed on by request.
But just as so many get it wrong in comments.
A FEW GET IT WRONG IN MATTERS OF TRUTH.
However happy Christmas to all.
Including that mod from Lakemba, and the black Darlek like pedestrians on Sydneys streets.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 24 December 2012 8:17:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

You mean, of course, the alleged letter from the Atheist Foundation of Australia. We sent no such letter.

This is a disquieting accusation by worldwatcher and it is in need of clarifying. If worldwatcher does not wish to forward the alleged email to the AFA so our technical people can look at it, and no such email has arrived, I agree with you a first priority should be to contact the Online Opinion editor.

The AFA treats all emails as confidential and is very strict with that rule.

It would be the correct thing for worldwatcher to do to let Forums members know what the stage of proceeding are. Has the Online Opinion editor been contacted and what is in the email.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 24 December 2012 8:18:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

"No, I didn't even bother to open it. Just immediately deleted it."

Then go to deleted items and retrieve it.

Accusing Online Opinion of letting out emails and accusing the AFA of sending unwanted emails is a serious issue and the AFA treat such accusations seriously.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 24 December 2012 8:22:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If OLO had had anything to do with it, it would have been a request from David to forward his email to worldwatcher (which obviously wasn't the case). It wouldn't have been an email directly from the AFA. It would have been from Online Opinion forwarding an email address, as Graham will sometimes pass on email addresses if requested (although I've never asked him to do it for me). Usually, this arrangement is agreed to by posters before the request is made.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 24 December 2012 8:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to say sincerely, a very Merry Christmas to those who follow the Christian tradition and a very Merry Christmyth to those who do not.

Take care all and enjoy the festivities.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:16:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

By inference you call me a liar. You can criticise any comments I make, but I really do object to being called a liar. I can live without ugly comments like that. I expected better from Forum members.
You touched a very, very large nerve there. I have always lived by the dictum that one should always tell the truth, even if sometimes the truth hurts. This is what I taught my children too. They were punished for misdeeds, and punished twice as hard for lying to me about them.
Maybe in your world it is unimportant to throw out statements like you have. In my world trashing a person's character is taken very seriously. I joined this Forum solely for discussion and to broaden my sphere of knowledge through the wisdom of others, not for insults.

David, Unfortunately as it turns out it's been completely deleted from my computer. Can't send you something which is now unavailble on my system, and I don't know the contents because I didn't open it. Regardless, my question was whether my e-mail address is publicly available by participating in this Forum, and yes, I have taken Ozpen's suggestion and have asked Graham this.

You have to admit your post, and my comment about my own beliefs has certainly opened vigorous debate on the Forum.

And for me, the comments have been both provocative and enlightening, and at times even insulting, but always interesting, although it is an argument with no possible clear winners or losers.
Posted by worldwatcher, Monday, 24 December 2012 10:19:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot's probably right. Either that or it was an OLO email alert saying that David had posted a comment.

As an IT expert, though, who works in the IT industry (and an atheist who understands what the motivations of an organisation such as the AFA would be, and someone who understands how OLO's Graham works regarding the handing out of emails, etc.), I'd have to say that this recent development is both amusing and disheartening.

Amusing because it would take quite a computer-illiterate dope to actually think that something like this could happen without one's browser and/or security software ringing alarm bells every time you visited either OLO or the AFA's website. Which makes me suspect that this is just a desperate and deliberate smear.

And disheartening because it shows how conspiratorial and just downright irrational some can be. David Nichols receives quite a beating from even those who are fellow atheists (and fence-sitters who don't realise they're atheists too) on OLO, and while I may not agree with him, or his way of going about things, 100% of the time, to think that he, or the organisation for which he is president, would actually hack OLO to get emails to spam (as OzSpen had implied) just goes to show what a fantasy some live in.

On the contrary, it is actually theistic organisations who are guilty of this sort of devious behaviour. The false DMCA claims and the creationist votebots that atheistic YouTubers have been the constant victims of over the past few years are classic examples.

As the Internet has helped to demonstrate, it is theists who are the only one's desperate enough to resort to dodgy/criminal activity on the web because they have nothing to support their claims, forcing them to resort to cowardly and desperate censorship tactics.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 24 December 2012 10:31:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

I freely confess to being a completely computer -illiterate dope. My 4 year old grandchild understands them better than myself. I also recently bought my first simplest available mobile phone,which the salesman kindly set up for me. Not sure how to make that work properly either. Electronic communication may be easy for someone like yourself, but we're not all whizz kids. I don't even know what hacking is [but by tomorrow I will], so why would I suggest that happened.

Also why do you imagine I would post a "desperate and deliberate smear" against David? What could I or anyone else hope to gain from that? I don't know the guy, and even if I did I would respect that he's entitled to his opinions - some of which funnily enough,I happen to share. It is also obvious that David can give as good as he gets, and he would have to agree this thread has certainly empowered him to put across his point of view too.
Posted by worldwatcher, Monday, 24 December 2012 11:48:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While we are looking for a physical being as God we have missed the point. God cannot be identified by the physical sciences. God is the Spirit behind being. God is Spirit [unseen], expressed in attitude, character, motive, behaviour. Jesus declared the character of God - made God known. God is not a visual being; God is Spirit who gives loving passion and pure motive to living. Such values are seen in the life of Jesus which identifies him as expressing the very nature of God.

It is true many can only worship the physical person for their looks or achievements and not recognise the spirit of the person.
Christmas is looking for the enlightenment of spirit - the recognition of the worthy character of God.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 6:04:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>Have you a point to make?

Yes, the point was that even hardened skeptics who do no accept that Jesus is God admit quite readily admit that He existed, and that the NT is a reliable attestation of that fact. While Einstein did not convert, the light that he did have told him that Jesus was the genuine article and His testimony in the NT is reliable. Read what he said:

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

No myth is filled with such life, he said. The entire premise of your argument is refuted by people who never believed that Jesus is God. Your assertion that Jesus is a myth and the NT is unreliable is exposed as completely unreasonable by people with no dog in this fight.

>>>Over a billion people follow the words of Muhammad and they >>>influenced civilizations also. By your logic, they must be right. >>>Can you explain that discrepancy thanks?

There is no comparison. The influence that Jesus has had outstrips by orders of magnitude the influence of Islam. Islam may have numbers, but the point remains; no dime a dozen religion personality could have had the influence Jesus has. Your mischaracterization of Jesus as such is truly inexcusable.
Posted by washed, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 6:47:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>And, what is your answer to my question?

David, I gave you the answer to this question; could you please respond to it?:

Jesus Himself offered to prove His existence to anyone who would open the door to Him:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

There are two kinds of skeptics. An honest skeptic and a dishonest skeptic. An honest skeptic is someone who doesn't know but is willing to find out. A dishonest skeptic is someone who doesn't know and doesn't want to know. Which are you? Would you be willing to sign your name to this statement?:

God, I don't know if you exist or not. I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I don't know if Jesus Christ is your Son or not, but I want to know, and because I want to know I will make an honest investigation, and because it is an honest investigation I will follow the results of that investigation where ever they lead me, regardless of the cost.

If you are willing to sign off on it, then your assignment is to read the gospel of John. The purpose of the gospel of John is stated thusly:

John 20:31

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

It was written specifically so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you would have life in His name. Although you don't now believe, you can say to God..God I don't know if this is your word of not, but if this is your word, show me. I'll make up my mind before the fact that I will obey you only if you show me this is your word and speak to my heart.

Would you be willing to do that?
Posted by washed, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 6:48:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Aside from our conversation, I want to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season. God bless.
Posted by washed, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 6:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
World watcher it is unlikely I will trouble you much here in OLO.
By inference you said GY our sites owner broke your privacy by passing on your details.
I prefer not to believe that.
And Sport, note your opinions on this sites rules, like your one eyed comments are avoided most times.
GY care to comment about the e mail said to have been sent?
World watcher I say good by to you enjoy your stay and this festive season.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 9:20:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

I don't believe any email was sent....and if it had, it would have been from OLO - not AFA (the same goes for an email alert on the subject of this thread)

I mentioned that merely to highlight that that is the only exchange of info which sometimes takes place on OLO...as there is no other mechanism to privately exchange contact information.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 9:51:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

Discussion with me requires you read what I have said. The premise of this thread has nothing to do with the existence of the historical Jesus. It is about the alleged divinity of Jesus.

Einstein made no comment supporting the idea that Jesus was divine. Of course, it matters not what Einstein thought about the subject as he is a human being and human beings are mistake prone. Here are some of Einstein’s mistakes. http://io9.com/5884863/albert-einsteins-10-biggest-scientific-mistakes

Various religions have had huge impacts on civilisation. Because one religion is better subjectively than another at a particular time in history doesn't mean anything. In fact, that they all make similar mistakes is a more important point.

That none of them can bring any kind of harmony to humanity but instead cause immense strife, when they have had centuries to get it right, shows they are only a faulty human construct. Yes, I know, ‘man’ is a sinner da da da. And lucky for you, you are better than them. A very arrogant conclusion, no!

Any answer you say you have given to my question has been lost in the biblical quotes. I use my own language to address this topic. I do not refer to Superman comics and I would suggest you speak for yourself. I’ll rephrase the question and expect you to answer it in your own words.

If your particular god is shown to exist to everyone and I do not follow its words, what will happen to me?

And a sub-question:

Atheists consider that there is no proof for any of the gods including the Christian one. (They consider this because there is none – we are still waiting) What will happen to atheists, including me, if we die as atheists?

I have read all the quaint religious sayings and words you supplied and many have supplied them before and no god appeared or made itself known to me. Does a god only make itself know to those who are indoctrinated as children and don’t think for themselves? A god relying on indoctrination is not an ethical god.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 9:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

FYI, I've had a reply from Graham.

I've noticed that you read what you like into anything posted by anyone on the threads, and then put in your own interpretation peppered with many deragatory remarks.

The forum is for discussion, not childish vituperation.

Let us leave that to the politicians.
Posted by worldwatcher, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 10:03:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

Typo error - derogatory is the correct spelling.
Posted by worldwatcher, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 10:06:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
Can I suggest how God is revealed. Reread my earlier post.

While we may be looking for a physical being as God we have missed the point. God cannot be identified by the physical sciences. God is outside of physics, God is Spirit behind all being. God is Spirit [unseen], expressed in attitude, character, motive, creativity, behaviour. Jesus declared the character of God - "made God known in the flesh". God is not a visual being; God is Spirit who gives loving passion and pure motive to living. Such values are seen in the life of Jesus which identifies him as expressing the very nature - God.

It is true many can only worship the physical person for their looks or achievements and not recognise the spirit of the person.
Christmas is looking for the enlightenment of spirit - the recognition of the worthy character of God.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 10:25:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

I have no need to reread your earlier posts. Subjective material does not alter by reading it twice.

Atheists do not accept the ‘spirit’ god as existing in any form.

Words from a time when people were ignorant about the laws of nature, most were illiterate and they believed in demons etc. are not reliable evidence for a god who likes playing hidey.

What is known and it is solid evidence, is that cultural/religious indoctrination that is not ubiquitously challenged, produces the delusion of the god idea in adults.

People nowadays with access to information unavailable to the ancients are dropping this god idea in droves and it doesn't look like it is going to stop.

What will happen to them when they die?

Broaden you knowledge base is my suggestion.

The very positive result of this is that countries that have less religion (any religion) have less social dysfunctional than those with more religion. Australia is a good example. Why would anyone in their right mind promote a society to go back to a time when religion had much greater or even full control?

Just for your interest, the more the very simplistic religious arguments are put forward by the faithful, the more I have the opportunity to show others how they don’t hold water. Thanks for the opportunity.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 11:09:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

<<No, I didn't even bother to open it. Just immediately deleted it.
Didn't inform the editor either. Treated it the same as any other unwanted e-mail - straight to the trash bin.

However, it does bother me that this could happen, as I believed that my e-mail address was not available to anyone unless I handed it out.
I stay away from Facebook and Twitter for that very reason.>>

That's disappointing that you have deleted it as it discards the evidence of content and the origin of the email. This means no further investigation can be made of the email.

Don't you realise that no email address is secure. That's why I don't send confidential details by email. There are email harvesters who supply our email addresses to marketing organisations, etc.
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 7:09:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
QZSPEN gday and welcome.
Rest easy, world watcher at best has made a mistake no such action is likely to have taken place.
I have posted here from 2005, our Host WOULD NEVER intrude on our privacy.
I think, having pointed out this, and coped a bit from world watcher, he/she should with draw the claim.
IF WE mark the box, saying send me an E MAIL if some one replies, then automatically every new post in a thread gets an e mail.
It clearly says a new post has been posted in the thread, you name.
I value truth too, and balenced COMMENT FOR OR AGAINST MY THOUGHTS EQUALLY.
And know without doubt this site is not using our e mails or address.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 7:21:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
world watcher come down from your ivory tower.
Tell us the truth!
You made a mistake and do not have the INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO ADMIT IT!
I am much more than reluctant to enter conversation with you, and just a few others.
But unless you man up! UNDERSTAND JUST HOW SEROUS YOUR CLAIM, WRONGLY MADE IS be forever lessor for it.
I will avoid you forever but if you hunt me around the site be prepared to be served back the JUNK you serve me.
YOUR CLAIM IS UNSUSTAINABLE!
As a mistake totally forgivable, you must say if it was that or a false statement.
What ever the out come do me the favor of not trying further conversation.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 7:37:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<I am very happy with my life and live it similarly to most reasonable people in the community.
Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.
Why should I follow anything he says?>>

You are not yet ready to follow Jesus or anything he says for these reasons:

You don’t want to know God, your condition before God, and why God needs to change you. You will never want to move from ‘happy with my life’ to new life through Jesus Christ unless you acknowledge and experience some fundamentals:

1. Who is God? He is the absolutely holy (Leviticus 19:2) and righteous/just (Deuteronomy 32:4) God. This last verse confirms that He is without sin/iniquity.

2. This God declares the nature of all human beings including you and me: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God’ (Romans 3:10-11). This unrighteous nature of all human beings brings consequences, ‘For the wages of sin is death [God’s understanding of death], but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Romans 6:23). Unless you understand your sinful state before God, you will go on living your ‘very happy’ life according to your current worldview.

(continued in Part 2)
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 9:45:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

(Part 2, continued from Part 1)

3. For those prepared to acknowledge who God is and their true condition before him, God offers a new beginning through confession of sin and trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life’ (John 3:16).

4. How can it happen for you, me and anyone else? Repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for salvation! Repentance means that we have an inner sorrow for sin; we renounce it, and have a commitment to forsake sin and live in obedience to Christ. ‘For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death’ (2 Corinthians 7:10).

5. This leads to new life in Jesus Christ and the amazing experience of knowing that a person’s sins are forgiven or blotted out. ‘Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out’ (Acts 3:19).

My background sounds as though it was very different from yours. I was raised in a home where I went to Sunday School and church, but I was just as much a sinful rebel against God as anyone I could meet on the street. I don’t think, in your present understanding, that you will understand the amazing release that comes when I experienced my sins forgiven by God and receiving new life in Christ.

Even if you had a genuine understanding of Jesus as God, which you do not currently have, that will not enable you to experience the joy of sins forgiven and new life in Jesus (based on what I've written in these 2 posts).
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 25 December 2012 9:47:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozspen,

Think I deleted my answer to you just now. So will try again.

This is my first computer, and my brother set everything up for me.

Thank you - I asked a simple question about whether my e-mails could be made public, and you have answered my original query for me.

No, being new to this, I assumed that anything written or sent by e-mail was secure. So far this is the first time I've heard about 'harvesting'.

Was so pleased with my new toy I sent an e-mail to my brother, along with some family chit-chat. He rang me straight away to tell me that my e-mail to just him had gone out to all the contacts he'd put on the computer for me. Think I must have pressed a cc which he says is the same as sending out carbon copies of a letter. Apparently I had also broadcast his e-mail address too. Then I got a load of mail from the recipients saying maybe I'd been hacked. Brother assured me this was not so, but told me to stay away from cc in future.

I've asked him how to retrieve a deleted item, but he says I can't do it because I deleted the contents of my trash bin twice, which makes it a permanent deletion. First one sends it to the recycle bin, then from there you permanently delete it. I do this every time I receive unwanted mail.

Obviously, in this particular instance I now wish I hadn't done this, as I have no proof to offer David, or those members who think it is a fabrication on my part. Though why anyone should think there was any ulterior motive in my question is still beyond me, especially as I concur with some of his views.
C'est la vie!
Posted by worldwatcher, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 4:03:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
World watcher it is easy for me to believe you made a mistake.
I have made every one of them, some twice.
Of an age that will never have the understanding or control an 11 year old already has.
You made a mistake,and if reporting right, your brother did too.
In telling you cc sends out to every one.
It must have been sent to ALL that is ALL in your address book.
Harvesting is a fact but avoidable, just get the right email server and spam is not going to get to you.
I want however to say this, it hurts me to come back here.
Several posters irk me, I truly am trying to regain a foothold here.
By not having contact with them.
Here is a truth, my actions have been in defense of this site and its owner.
Ever now and again, both have been targeted wrongly.
Yet this is and will remain, long after you and I are gone, the best in this country.
It worldwatcher needed no PC skills, just one humanity, most of us has, the ability to say sorry I got it wrong.
I will while here avoid hurting your one sided fragile feelings by avoiding YOU.
See from the start you have had no trouble finding fault with me.
But have been blind to your charge being wrong.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 5:51:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
So yo deny that attitude, character, motive, behaviour have any reality. These values are the reality of the person, not the flash and bones that are merely borrowed from other consumed life forms and substances to give us physical presence.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 6:16:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

<<QZSPEN gday and welcome.
Rest easy, world watcher at best has made a mistake no such action is likely to have taken place.>>

worldwatcher has told us that it DID happen and he/she has deleted it from Inbox and Trash (I use Thunderbird). Let's accept that as the truth from someone who is not experienced with email communication.

<<Harvesting is a fact but avoidable, just get the right email server and spam is not going to get to you.>>

I have a top flight email server with a national reputation, but I still get the occasional spam, some in the form of sending an email virus link. I got caught once - only once - but I'm with a very secure provider and with sound virus protection on my PC.

<<It worldwatcher needed no PC skills, just one humanity, most of us has, the ability to say sorry I got it wrong.>>

This is an assumption you are making that worldwatcher "got it wrong". That may not be the case at all. He/she could have received an email from an atheistic source. Some of the spam, virus links I receive are fabricated to come from my son or daughter to me. Harvesters and spammers pick up on who sends email to me and target my email accordingly.
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 6:34:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

I am blessed that you, in spite of your novice abilities with the computer, including email, are prepared to come here and interact with us.

I hope that the criticism you have received from some will not deter you from coming here to provide your input.

<<I've asked him how to retrieve a deleted item, but he says I can't do it because I deleted the contents of my trash bin twice, which makes it a permanent deletion. First one sends it to the recycle bin, then from there you permanently delete it. I do this every time I receive unwanted mail.>>

My son is an IT professional. I'll ask him if there is any way you can retrieve an item that has been deleted from the Inbox and Trash. I have never had to do that over many years of working with email, but he should be able to provide me with the answer.
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 6:41:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

You wrote: <<No myth is filled with such life, he said. The entire premise of your argument is refuted by people who never believed that Jesus is God. Your assertion that Jesus is a myth and the NT is unreliable is exposed as completely unreasonable by people with no dog in this fight.>>

In support of your claim, why don't you take a read of this new article that appeared on 24 December 2012 and was published on Australia's ABC radio network's, 'Religion and Ethics', programme by John Dickson, 'A fight they can't win: The irreligious assault on the historicity of Jesus', at: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/12/24/3660194.htm. John Dickson is a Sydney evangelical Anglican, Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and an Honorary Fellow of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

His challenge is: 'if anyone can find a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived, I will eat a page of my Bible, probably Matthew chapter 1. It's been a year since I first tweeted the challenge and religious critic John Safran retweeted it to his 60,000 followers. My Bible remains safe'.
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 7:12:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

I explained your email situation to my son with regard to what you have deleted and his response was: 'If they've deleted it like that, it's gone'.
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 8:38:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

Discussion with you is next to useless and you have mentioned Leviticus and the nature of your god. Here are some other parts of this god’s nature from Leviticus (KJV version). As you know, there are Christians promoting ‘dominionism’ as a way of governing countries. (Are you one of them?) This means following the Bible as is written. Scary stuff.

20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

And check out Leviticus 24:10-16 which is about killing blasphemers.

All this is shades of Islam don’tcha think. As I said, all religions make the same mistakes.

Do you agree with your Lord’s adjudications as above or do you only ‘choose’ the nicey bits from the Bible? Seems Yahweh doesn't mind a bit of hissy-spit killing to keep the attention of his people focused. Other Bible writers have their own version of this god's mayhem and absurdity.

I really don’t need or warrant your condescending remarks about me not being ready for your particular god. No, I’m not ready for any of the thousands of gods, but only because I have not surrendered my mental integrity to indoctrinated nonsense.

David

Josephus,

“So yo deny that attitude, character, motive, behaviour have any reality.”

They are a reflection of the mind’s experience through the senses and genetic proclivities. Dogs have those attributes. What is your point?

I note you have failed to answer the question again.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 8:52:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<Discussion with you is next to useless and you have mentioned Leviticus and the nature of your god. Here are some other parts of this god’s nature from Leviticus (KJV version). As you know, there are Christians promoting ‘dominionism’ as a way of governing countries. (Are you one of them?) This means following the Bible as is written. Scary stuff.>>

AND

<<I really don’t need or warrant your condescending remarks about me not being ready for your particular god. No, I’m not ready for any of the thousands of gods, but only because I have not surrendered my mental integrity to indoctrinated nonsense.>>

These are further examples from you of red herring logical fallacies. You did not respond to the 5 points I made in two posts. You were off and running with your own agenda without addressing the content of these five points.

Discussion with you is impossible when you continuously resort to the use of logical fallacies. Nice try but no cigars!
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 9:24:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

I don’t smoke, so no cigar for me thanks. A beer to go with the Saturnalian originated festivities of the season would be acceptable though.

There are no reasons good enough that you have offered, for me to take the words in your bible seriously, so I don’t. It’s not that I won’t accept these scribbling’s from centuries ago by a superstitious race of people, it’s that they are meaningless to non-indoctrinated folk.

I do have a sadness for you but I am not responsible for you surrendering your mind to your childhood teachings, not being able to escape the instilled terror of torture forever and your incapability to be able to face death head on, but I do mind that you would just as easily lay this rubbish on the innocent minds of children who have no defence against the fears you would instil. If you wish to think in this contorted fashion although it is not your fault, so be it. Only you can undo the damage you have experienced.

Your god talk is no different than the god talk of other sects of Christianity or other religions.

It is ridiculous to ask me to respond to biblical ideas. That is just a ploy to escape answering the question I posed. Some would call this gutless on your behalf, but I rather think of it as something not of your doing.

It is obvious that the AFA must try harder so as not to let this kind of warped behaviour infect the thought process of new generations. But, on the other hand, the zealotry observed on this thread by religious people is a lesson enough to others that even in Australia, religion, like rust, never sleeps.

The good thing is that like rust, the material rusting eventually rots away to nothing. We are seeing this demonstrated with Christianity now. Even though the flaying around is palpable, within a couple of generations religion will be a negligible and powerless part of society.

I see there has been no answer to the biblical quotes I provided. Interesting.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 10:04:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another pulpit, another bunch of pointless sermons.

What puzzles me most is why the religious find it necessary to lecture atheists at such length, using only their beliefs as evidence. Surely the rational part of their brain - I grant that there must be one - should alert them to the fact that the only arguments available to them are totally circular, in that only if you believe that the Bible is "the word of God" can you remotely imagine that anything in it has any disputational value whatsoever.

Sometimes, it becomes totally bizarre, with accusations such as this one from OzSpen.

>>You are not yet ready to follow Jesus or anything he says for these reasons: You don’t want to know God, your condition before God, and why God needs to change you.<<

The urge to substitute "Bugs Bunny" for Jesus and "Wily Coyote" for God in the above sentence is almost, but not quite, irresistible. Sadly, even if I had succumbed to the temptation to do so, it would not have had any impact at all on its meaningfulness.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 11:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's another perspective:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/21/christmas-atheism-conversation
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 12:44:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozspen,

Your son just confirmed what my brother told me. Brother is such a busy man I don't like taking him away from his business long enough to answer what to him are such easy questions, so am not progressing quickly enough for my liking in understanding this [for me] new way of interacting with this machine.
I have nobody else to ask when I don't understand little things which keep happening. As I said, somehow I deleted my first reply to you, and still can't understand if I hit a wrong key somewhere.

Really need time to explore further, but time is precious in my life as I care for my partner who has cancer. That in itself is a full time job which takes preference over 'me' time.

Yes, I will still read the posts, having decided that despite some disparaging comments made by certain Forum members to my own posts, in general it appears there are enough good discussions put forth to warrant my continuuing interest. So it is easy for me to mostly disregard those people who lower the tone - offer no constructive theories, and are abusive to some other members.

I've been told this is called cyber bullying, and want no part of it.
Posted by worldwatcher, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 1:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

Some of the posters have shown suspicion that all was not well with your story and they have a reasonable right to think that way as this kind of thing does happen intentionally.

There was a recent ‘incident’ on the Religion do we need it thread. You will notice I was waiting for the evidence and made no such accusations.

I think there are grounds to accept you are ‘a babe in the woods’ with computers and we forget this episode and move on. You will get the hang of it eventually. :))

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 4:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozpen/ww
Cyber bulling?
Answer this simple question Arther Fonzerel [the Fonz never said sorry]What did GRAHAM TELL YOU?
if as I think he asured you he NEVER PASSED YOUR E MAIL ON.
Why have you not said sorry I got it wrong?
I have often.
BOTH OF YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THIS!
Inferring this,our country,s number one such site, did that, is no minor thing.
So easy to fix, even get some good feelings by being honest!
A foundation I think you have been put upon here and show remarkable coolness in not persueing it further.
Some thing is wrong here,it will in time be seen, a mistake is so easy and even easier to fix but be careful.
Something about ww is wrong and in my view far better experts than I should be able to convince both cc is nothing other than a way to send to more people without their names appearing on thee mail.
I treat, still strongly defending the site and DEMANDING WW tell us if GY did not assure him it never happened!
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 5:41:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“That is not evidence of supernatural reality. That is evidence that a myriad of people report supernatural experience.”

The usual semantic games.
So people's personal experiences aren't “evidence” of anything? Really?

What “evidence” is there of anything? That you exist?
It's all personal experience, even “scientific” experiments.
Modern physics has even shown that the OBSERVER affects the outcome!
You cannot excise subjective human experience from anything, even science.

“But to claim “no aliens exists” because you don't see any evidence would be preposterous!.”

“Who is making that claim?”

I never said they were. I am making a *comparison* to the atheists who claim “no gods exists” because they don't see any evidence.
You are the one who made the analogy with aliens in the first place, not me.
If you can't even follow your own logic, don't speak.

“They could be mistaken, deluded and yes, or liars.”

And? So what?
You could be mistaken or deluded. Why the need for "foundations" opposing other people's possible folly?
Why the need to rubbish their special day?

“they wouldn't follow what they consider are false claims by you. They are called every other religion except Christianity.
Then, why did you ‘choose’ the one you are now defending?”

I'm not making any claims, you just presume I'm Christian, because I criticise atheists.
You're the one who brought up the “if Jesus was God” hypothesis, not me. I merely responded to that.

“Please read what I have said about....”

I can't be bothered any more.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 6:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<The good thing is that like rust, the material rusting eventually rots away to nothing. We are seeing this demonstrated with Christianity now. Even though the flaying around is palpable, within a couple of generations religion will be a negligible and powerless part of society.>>

With this statement, you are promoting falsehood. You have demonstrated your and the Atheist Foundation of Australia's ignorance about the growth of Christianity worldwide that is happening NOW: http://www.whychurch.org.uk/worldwide.php
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 7:11:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

“The usual semantic games. So people's personal experiences aren't “evidence” of anything? Really?”

Yes, that’s correct and it has nothing to do whatsoever with semantics. It may be real or real to people who have an experience but others are not obliged to accept that as true. This is very simple stuff. Indoctrinating children with personal experience as though it is true, is very bad ethics. No one knows if the personal experience is true, a delusion, or a lie. And there is no way to work out which.

You are misrepresenting science. It is known that the observer interferes with the experiments especially in quantum mechanics. That does not discount all of science if that is what you are saying. Leaving me guessing with your statements is the sign of a confused mind.

Please don’t infer that I am not following logic and what I have supposedly said. Read it again. I find that annoying you do this.
I have not rubbished anybody’s day. I’m giving another opinion. I am not stating anything to be deluded about. If so, what is it?
Are you saying I’m defending a religion? Can you be clear in you language.

Maybe you should be bothered and be precise in what you are stating. You are not making much sense.

Why the aggressive attitude. I don’t use aggression and maybe you should try that. This is a discussion, not a war.

David

OzSpen,

"With this statement, you are promoting falsehood. You have demonstrated your and the Atheist Foundation of Australia's ignorance about the growth of Christianity worldwide that is happening NOW:"

If you had read the sentence before the one you quoted you would not have made such a dick of yourself. Here it is: “even in Australia, religion, like rust, never sleeps.”

Notice, I was speaking of Australia. It is purported that Christianity (And other religions) are growing in backward nations. That is not a recommendation; it is sad fact if true.

You are showing religion in a very poor light, I'm disappointed you have to use chicanery or poor understanding.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 9:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Thank you for your very gracious post. I appreciate your insight that I was simply trying to understand if e-mail addresses are publicly available. Had no intention of starting such a furor

You seem more convinced than myself that I will ever become sophisticated using my new toy. Unusual for me to have self doubt, but the darn thing has so many complexities to overcome that I'm not sure I have enough years left to do it, and still allow enough time to satisfy my quest for knowledge in so many other fields as well.

On the whole I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and the differing viewpoints, and am most impressed at how well informed many people are on various historical references they have produced in support of their arguments.
Posted by worldwatcher, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 9:42:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozpen as you have involved your self in wold watcher MISTAKE TEST ME PLEASE.
IN YOU NEXT POST
tic the box at the bottom under preview.
send me an email no ficaction exetra.
open your e mail server straight after
you will see an e mail to you.
IT INFORMS YOU OF THE NEW POST, AND EVERY NEW POST IN THAT THREAD.
wish only to clear my name 7 years plus months here, I support this forum in both donations and against wrongs.
It was in one posters hands, it still is, to say sorry I got it wrong.
History warns me, not every one is as they appear, in time world watcher may admit a mistake, or other events may add to this one.
No amount of complaining can change this fact*until withdrawn in print as was the inference* WW has charged our forum with a thing it never did*.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 27 December 2012 6:15:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>Discussion with me requires you read what I have said.

Your assertion was that Jesus was a nobody, a "dime a dozen" religious zealot. I gave you evidence to show you that this couldn't possibly be the case. That's fine, however..let's talk the divinity of Jesus.

>>>A very arrogant conclusion, no!

Jesus never claimed that world peace would dawn in His absence. It is the claim of Christianity that there will be judgment of mankind, and then there will peace. You are holding Christianity to a standard that it never imposed on itself; in fact the claim is exactly the opposite. I'm not better than you, either. God doesn't love you any less than He loves me. But yes, you have got the gist of it. Man thinks the problem is in the system and not in himself. The actual problem is the depravity in mans heart, which is why Jesus came to save us.
Posted by washed, Thursday, 27 December 2012 6:35:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>I’ll rephrase the question and expect you to answer it in your own words.

I'm trying to answer your question, but apparently any mention of scripture prevents you from even reading the post so let me answer you without any scripture.

There are two kinds of skeptics. An honest skeptic and a dishonest skeptic. An honest skeptic is someone who doesn't know but is willing to find out. A dishonest skeptic is someone who doesn't know and doesn't want to know. Which are you? Would you be willing to sign your name to this statement?:

God, I don't know if you exist or not. I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I don't know if Jesus Christ is your Son or not, but I want to know, and because I want to know I will make an honest investigation, and because it is an honest investigation I will follow the results of that investigation where ever they lead me, regardless of the cost.

If you are willing to sign off on it, then your assignment is to read the gospel of John. It was written specifically so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you would have life in His name. Although you don't now believe, you can say to God..God I don't know if this is your word of not, but if this is your word, show me. I'll make up my mind before the fact that I will obey you only if you show me this is your word and speak to my heart.

Would you be willing to do that?
Posted by washed, Thursday, 27 December 2012 6:36:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>What will happen to atheists, including me, if we die as atheists?

Your premise is that you could die without really knowing either way, but that isn't the case. God gives revelation to every single person that He exists, through the things He has created and through their conscience. What scripture says is that people know that God exists, but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. There will be a judgment at the end of time and everyone with unforgiven sin will be cast into the lake of fire. Your sins are what are going to send you there. It doesn't matter whether you are an atheist or a backslidden Christian, the result is still the same. God offers you forgiveness but thus far you have rejected Him.

>>>A god relying on indoctrination is not an ethical god.

I wasn't indoctrinated as a child; I grew up in a secular household without any religion. I became a Christian because God revealed Himself to me. He would do the same for you, if you really wanted to know Him. Do you have a Christian background?
Posted by washed, Thursday, 27 December 2012 6:42:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<If you had read the sentence before the one you quoted you would not have made such a dick of yourself. Here it is: “even in Australia, religion, like rust, never sleeps.”>>

Please forgive me for my error. I got the context wrong.

From the Australian 2011 census, mainline denominations are declining, but the Roman Catholics grew slightly; Baptists and Pentecostals grew more quickly. See: http://blog.id.com.au/2012/australian-census-2011/2011-australian-census-christian-religions/.

This census provides these details:

*'Though Christianity as a whole declined as a proportion of the population in 2011 (from 63.9% in 2006 to 61.1% in 2011), there were substantial differences between Christian groups';

* 'Among the larger Christian denominations, Catholicism grew slightly, adding 310,000 people (6.1%), to remain the largest response in Australia. Many of the major protestant denominations fell, including Anglican (-38,340), Uniting Church (-69,633), Churches of Christ (-5,133) and Salvation Army (-4,044). These are somewhat affected ageing of the UK-born population, as well as the drift to no religion. The Anglican Church, long Australia’s 2nd largest religious grouping has fallen from 23.9% of the population in 1991 to 18.7% in 2011.

* In contrast, the Charismatic churches such as Baptist (+35,757) and Pentecostal (+18,305, which includes Hillsong) continued to record increases (they were well up from 1991-2006 so this is a longer term trend)'.

From other details, we have this information:

* For the evangelical Anglicans of the Sydney diocese, 'based on Weekly Average Service Attendance data of all ages, Sydney Anglican congregations are growing at around 1.4% per annum' (see: http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2011/08/why-arent-we-growing/). However, Tony Payne, who wrote this assessment of the research data, headed his article, 'Why aren't we growing?' The remainder of the Anglicans declined. This is expected as theological liberalism (modernist or postmodernist) has invaded the ranks.

* The Western Sydney Regional Organization of Councils indicated that for that region, the total number of Christians, from 2006 to 2011, had increased from 897,075 to 914,855. This is out of a total population of 1,507, 877 in 2011 (see: http://profile.id.com.au/wsroc/religion).

So, the research data here is not as 'rusty' as you want to paint it
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 27 December 2012 6:49:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

Why bring up world peace. What has that to do with this topic?

Are Muslims ‘depraved’? Are Hindus ‘depraved’? Am I ‘depraved’? What form does this ‘depravity’ take in Muslims, Hindus and me? I don’t consider I am depraved.

Repeating posts is not very intellectually impressive. Why do you do that?

And by the way, this phrase, “There are two kinds of skeptics. An honest skeptic and a dishonest skeptic” can be found here. http://www.mountainmonergism.com/on_topic/an_agnostic_is_a_dishonest_.html Is that your website or did you think a bit of plagiarising would go down well? The hint was the ‘k’ in sceptic. That is North American. Are you North American?

So, I’m to be, “…cast into the lake of fire” when I die. Does that bother you? I would be very distressed if that was to happen to anyone. No good saying it is my choice that I’m headed for hell for the monumental crime of not believing because that only shows how religion has taken away your humanity. It really is a disgusting way to think. You can trust me on this, but I will never lower my ethical standards to accept that anyone, no matter the crime, should be tortured forever. What an utterly repulsive idea.

If you had been following the posts on this thread you would know my background. Try reading the opinion of others and stop concentrating on trying desperately to support what you already believe. You may have been brought up in a secular household but your culture was Christian do doubt. But even if you culture was not Christian, it would have followed some kind of woo as all countries do. Some people are more susceptible than others to various levels of indoctrination. Genetics and nurture do not work in an exact manner.

Tell me about how a god revealed himself to you? Was it visibly or did it speak to you or was it both or some other way? And the big question is, why should anyone believe you if it all happened in your head?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 27 December 2012 7:25:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

You are forgiven my son, go and sin no more.

The ABS figures show a general decline but it depends on how you read it. For instance, 20% of the population are children under the age of 14 years. What religion would they be if they were children in Iran or India etc? Children are not little Christians, Hindus or Muslims and only parrot the beliefs of parents/guardians. As this thread shows, even adults have problems coming to grips with religious concepts.

No doubt you have heard of the Disraeli quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Census figures on religion are inaccurate for a number of reasons and the Atheist Foundation of Australia has made a submission to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to alter the question on religion in the next Census. We have done this to stop people such as you promoting false information which can skew politics.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=16194

A good indication of a country’s religiosity is the number of people who attend a church on a regular basis. There are no accurate figures on this but a few years ago it was thought to have been between 7% - 15%. This is hardly a sign of growing religiosity as only a few decades ago the figure would have been 50% or more.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 27 December 2012 7:49:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<You are forgiven my son, go and sin no more.>>

I gladly accept your very kind offer of forgiveness, but the latter, 'Go and sin no more', is not within my capability. That's why I'm daily grateful for God's openness to hear my confession of sin to seek His forgiveness.

I read your AFA submission to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and I agree with some of your suggestions. I consider that the "No Religion" option should be stated at various places in the list for different censuses. In fact, it would make for more open and transparent statistics if the list of religious options were varied with each census. This could possibly reduce the 'donkey vote'.

You stated: <<A good indication of a country’s religiosity is the number of people who attend a church on a regular basis. There are no accurate figures on this but a few years ago it was thought to have been between 7% - 15%. This is hardly a sign of growing religiosity as only a few decades ago the figure would have been 50% or more>>. However, you provided no documentation so I have no idea from which you plucked those figures. The denomination I attend tracks its church attendance at all church services.

The results of the National Church Life Survey of 2011 give an indicator of church attendance and church life in Australia. But the results are not yet available.See: http://www.ncls.org.au/

The data we have from the Australian Census and other information, examples of which I have provided, are not as gloomy ('rusty', to use your language) as you want to post as an atheist. However, church attendance should not be a comprehensive indicator or Christian faith as there are some church services that some committed Christians would not attend. The evidence so far (as presented in my previous post) indicates a shift in attendance to the evangelical churches such as the Sydney Anglicans, some of the Melbourne Anglican diocese, Baptists and Pentecostals.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 27 December 2012 9:29:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<Try reading the opinion of others and stop concentrating on trying desperately to support what you already believe>>

This is a very unfair and biased comment by you to 'washed' as this is exactly what you do. You try to desperately support what you believe as an atheist in every post of yours that I've read in this thread.

Yours is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Yours is a self-refuting statement.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 27 December 2012 9:32:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

“but the latter, 'Go and sin no more', is not within my capability.”

That is or was a Catholic confessional incantation said by the priest. I said it as a joke. Don’t tell me religion has removed your funny bone. It can do that as the jokeless bible will attest to.

The figures for church attendance are hard to find. The figure range I gave you are on the high side. Look here for statistics for Australia and other places. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth

Diagram half way down shows Australia at just over 7%. I haven’t read the page and presume it is indicative of what I am saying. If not, I'm sure if you search you will find the figures I gave are close to reality. And here: http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=2260

“However, church attendance should not be a comprehensive indicator or Christian faith as there are some church services that some committed Christians would not attend. The evidence so far (as presented in my previous post) indicates a shift in attendance to the evangelical churches such as the Sydney Anglicans, some of the Melbourne Anglican diocese, Baptists and Pentecostals.”

I said indication. I didn't say they were a “comprehensive indicator". (Putting words in my mouth not a good idea) True, not all committed Christians attend a church but those not marking the question on religion were only about 9% in the 2011 Census and a fair comment would be they would mostly comprise of people who just don’t care about religion.

Specific places might have an increase but the overall figures show a decline. Evangelical/Pentecostal and Baptist churches are a small minority of the overall population.

And just for interest, the fastest growing group and near largest demographic are those with no religion. (This is guess work but I think true)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but ‘washed’ missed a very basic and repeated point in a number of posts about my upbringing. The search option Ctrl F is your friend.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 27 December 2012 10:21:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<Evangelical/Pentecostal and Baptist churches are a small minority of the overall population.>>

That is changing, as the demographics demonstrate.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 27 December 2012 2:10:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>Why bring up world peace. What has that to do with this topic?

You said Christianity has failed to bring harmony to humanity, which isn't the point. If every single person were a Christian who was truly saved, there would be a lot more harmony than there is today. The commands that Jesus gave us to live by would bring peace to the Earth in some manner, if everyone followed them. When Jesus returns, there will be harmony, but not until then.

>>>I don’t consider I am depraved.

How many times do you think you've broken the ten commandments? Have you ever lied, cheated, stolen, looked with lust, had sex outside of marriage, hated anyone, coveted anything, put anything before God? Give me an estimate.

>>>Are you North American?

It is neither my website, nor did I plagiarize from it. It is most likely an idea which has circulated through the Christian community. I myself heard it from a Pastor named Adrian Rogers. Yes, I am American which is why I spell it "skeptic".

You have asked for proof that Jesus is God but you won't respond to how you get that proof. Why is that? God works by personal revelation, which means that you're not going to know anything about God unless He reveals Himself to you. Would you be willing to pray this and read the book of John?:

God, I don't know if you exist or not. I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I don't know if Jesus Christ is your Son or not, but I want to know, and because I want to know I will make an honest investigation, and because it is an honest investigation I will follow the results of that investigation where ever they lead me, regardless of the cost. If the bible s your word, show me. I'll make up my mind before the fact that I will obey you only if you show me this is your word and speak to my heart.

If not, why not?
Posted by washed, Thursday, 27 December 2012 3:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

>>>no matter the crime, should be tortured forever. What an utterly >>>repulsive idea.

As I explained earlier, you don't go to hell for your unbelief, you go to hell for your sins. It's your unbelief which keeps you from receiving forgiveness. Yes, I do care you are headed to hell which is why I am telling you how to receive forgiveness and be saved. No one who ends up in hell will get there because they were ignorant. Gods word says you don't have any excuse. You don't want to obey God so why should you escape the consequences?

Let me ask you about your ethical standards. Why is it wrong for someone to be tortured forever?

>>>Genetics and nurture do not work in an exact manner.

I don't follow the posts here, in fact this thread is my only exposure to your website. So what is your background?

I am Christian only because God gave me personal revelation. I would never have become a Christian otherwise. I didn't read the bible and think it sounded plausible; it's that God confirmed His word to me as being true and accurate.

>>>all happened in your head?

When I gave my life to Jesus Christ, He supernaturally transformed me in a split second. It happened during my baptism. When I went into the water I was one person, and when I came out I was a different person. The person who went into the water was filled with darkness, and the person who came out of the water was filled with light. Where there was sadness, God placed joy. Where there was hate, God placed love. Where there was anger, God placed compassion. Where there was addiction, God placed contentment. Where there was anxiety, God placed peace. This all happened in a moments time. What the scripture says is that in baptism we are buried with Jesus in His death when we immerse ourselves, and then we are raised to life as new person coming out of the water in symbology to His resurrection. God made me brand new.
Posted by washed, Thursday, 27 December 2012 3:49:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

I am not on a crusade to bring world peace although things would be a lot more peaceful if religion exited as religions show no sign of getting along in a majority. However, as I am the president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, it is my job to educate Australians to keep specific indoctrination of religion away from Australian children and out of Australian politics. If other countries did similar, world-peace may be possible.

I have no desire to lie, cheat and steal. I am as lustful as human nature allows and my sex life is personal. I do not hate anyone, nor have I coveted my neighbour’s ox or ass. I don’t recognise your god to be able to put anything before it. Have you coveted your neighbour’s ox or ass?

Oh, a case of ….. minds think alike!

It doesn't matter what a god does to me or thinks of me. The point is you go along with a monstrous idea and then have the gall to call it a god of love. I would not obey a god that displays such abysmal ethical behaviour even if it did exist. If it threatened me with hell for eternity I’d lie to him then. I don’t approve of tyrannical dictators.

You come from America and deny indoctrination. That is the most religious and dysfunctional democracy on the planet. I see why you said you were raised in a secular household. Atheism is a real no, no in the States. Even the mention of the name could have adverse ramifications. Explain your upbringing? Were you taught about all religion and none? What information was supplied showing the harms inherent in religion? Were you given a wide knowledge base? Do you accept the theory of evolution or believe in creationism? Old/young earth?

More bible nonsense and prayers will not affect me one iota. You have been told they are magic words but that is a fib.

Yes, you say you have had a personal revelation. Great and good for you, but others haven’t.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 27 December 2012 4:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

I didn't have enough words remaining to say, >>Great, but other haven’t – and seeing how the religious mindset is so blinkered and knowing the damage such thinking causes on a national and a planetary scale, others don’t want one. Why would they? Most religions offer the same kind of revelatory experience for their various imaginary gods. Yours is also imaginary unless you can supply proof it is not.If you go back to the bible, you end our discussion as I will take that as there is no hope for you.<<

Some people gain comfort from religion and if so that is fine. But it is not fine to interfere with the minds of children with any subjective idea as though it is some kind of truth, especially utilising threats about hell and promises of eternal life as you obviously have fallen prey to.

David

OzSpen,

“That is changing, as the demographics demonstrate.”

It might be changing but with only a combination of nine hundred thousand in 22 million, you would have to be very optimistic for big change anytime in the future. Be a while before you catch up to no religion and not stated at around 7 million and growing rapidly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia#Other

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 27 December 2012 5:28:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<It might be changing but with only a combination of nine hundred thousand in 22 million, you would have to be very optimistic for big change anytime in the future. Be a while before you catch up to no religion and not stated at around 7 million and growing rapidly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia#Other>>

Large numbers do not determine who are in God's kingdom.

Jesus said: 'For many are called, but few are chosen' (Matthew 22:14).
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 27 December 2012 6:06:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

I've been naughty and not nice and Santa will be cross next year. I used figures for the Pentecostal and Baptist count to see if you really do know what you are talking about and as astute as you make out.

Obviously you don't and aren't.

The combination is not 900 thousand out of 22 million, the real figure is under 600 thousand. My advice, check all facts, even mine.

Or, did you know and thought why not leave the false figure stand. :))

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 27 December 2012 6:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<'ve been naughty and not nice and Santa will be cross next year. I used figures for the Pentecostal and Baptist count to see if you really do know what you are talking about and as astute as you make out.

Obviously you don't and aren't.

The combination is not 900 thousand out of 22 million, the real figure is under 600 thousand. My advice, check all facts, even mine.

Or, did you know and thought why not leave the false figure stand.>>

Where have I stated anything about 900,000 Baptists and Pentecostals? Please direct me to the page on OLO where I stated that.

By the way, if you are going to contest figures, please extend to us the courtesy of giving your links or showing how you arrived at such figures.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 27 December 2012 9:14:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

I gave the link in this post.

OzSpen,

“That is changing, as the demographics demonstrate.”

It might be changing but with only a combination of nine hundred thousand in 22 million, you would have to be very optimistic for big change anytime in the future. Be a while before you catch up to no religion and not stated at around 7 million and growing rapidly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia#Other

David

I gave that link which has the figures in it and you used that link in a reply to me stating,"Large numbers do not determine who are in God's kingdom." as though you checked it out as you should have.

The information is a little way down under the heading "Religious Affiliation in Australia (1986, 1996, 2006, 2011)

If you did you would have found the discrepancy.

It becomes frustrating conversing with those who continually refer to magic books and formulas. It would be like you or me talking to Harry Potter and asking him to explain how he does it with the wand thing.

There is no magic out there and until you can offer solid proof there is, then modern people are going to shy away from such ideas in ever growing numbers.

I expected you to check what I say but you failed. And in doing so, you accuse me of not supplying the information. A very poor show but to be expected.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 27 December 2012 9:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<I gave that link which has the figures in it and you used that link in a reply to me stating,"Large numbers do not determine who are in God's kingdom." as though you checked it out as you should have.

The information is a little way down under the heading "Religious Affiliation in Australia (1986, 1996, 2006, 2011)>>

I did not give any link in support of 900,000 Baptists and Pentecostals. I was simply quoting your link to the article in Wikipedia. I said ZERO about support for these figures - ZERO.

Please don't invent stuff about what I say.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 27 December 2012 9:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>How many times do you think you've broken the ten commandments? Have you ever lied, cheated, stolen, looked with lust, had sex outside of marriage, hated anyone, coveted anything, put anything before God? Give me an estimate.<<

What does this have to do with depravity? My neighbour Alice - not a real person - is a pagan and prays in front of a little statue. She works weekends and doesn't get on with her parents - three commandments broken. My neighbor Bob - also fictional - is totally crazy and he's never broken a commandment since he was a child. He is so ashamed by his childhood transgressions that he flagellates himself frequently as contrition. He is also a crack-dealing serial arsonist.

Who is more depraved? The idolatrous weekend worker Alice or the crack-dealing, warehouse burning flagellant Bob?

>>Why is it wrong for someone to be tortured forever?<<

Is this a trick question? We are talking about torture here. Surely you can answer that question for yourself.

Unless you can't: I don't know if the Bible condemns torture as sinful anywhere. There's no Commandment against it. And you do worship a God who is supposed to be the source of all that is good and virtuous but who will happily toss people into a lake of fire for eternity if they don't worship him.

If you ask me this God bloke sounds like a real prick.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 27 December 2012 10:21:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,

"I said ZERO about support for these figures - ZERO."

Now, now, try and not shout, it is unbecoming.

I used the number of nine hundred thousand and supplied the link. I assumed you would check to see if I was correct with that number as it was obviously wrong. You did not check, therefore I can only guess as to why.

It would have been nice if you checked the numbers and said, Hey, that's not right, you have overstated the numbers.

This is a small point but an important one. You agree to too many assumptions as a character trait. That kind of thinking can lead to one side stories being accepted on the word of others. I prefer evidence.

If an adult believed in Harry Potter's fantastical magical powers without any evidence of how they work, that adult would be classed as immature or delusional. Atheist apply the same criteria on the thousands of religions and their claims of access to knowledge about other kinds of magical powers.

Do you get it now?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 27 December 2012 10:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

<<I used the number of nine hundred thousand and supplied the link. I assumed you would check to see if I was correct with that number as it was obviously wrong. You did not check, therefore I can only guess as to why.>>

False accusation again!!

Bye.
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 28 December 2012 5:59:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously AFAI is a single spokesperson and crusader for atheism on these threads for the doctrine of peace, while he conflicts aggressively with all who disagree with him. As he believes that his ideas for peace, motives, attitudes and actions are merely imaginings that occur in his mind and have no substance in reality.

He says,”They are a reflection of the mind’s experience through the senses and genetic proclivities. Dogs have those attributes. What is your point?” Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 8:52:53 AM

So who is the real David? Is it His physical body or his sensory impact on the spiritual?
However his children and grandchildren on his demise will they only speak of the science and bio-function of his body as that in his view is his only reality. NOT Likely! They will rather speak of his character, his attitudes toward theists, his obsessive actions to have theism removed from society as did the Gestapo in the USSR. That he was an intolerant advocate of atheism, which he deluded, believed was a peaceful solution to the World’s problems as does atheists in North Korea
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 28 December 2012 6:01:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Excuse my language but you really are thick as a brick, aren't you. It is almost like you are intentionally writing drivel just to get a reaction. I wish that was the case, but sadly I think you are the genuine article as oxymoronic is that description. That you are not embarrassed by your outlandish comments is something else, because if you had a grip on reality you would be, and in a big time manner. In typical zealous style nothing is read or absorbed or argued against or commented on with there being just a selective process in scouring through opponents posts looking for anything at all to be disparaging about. There is no understanding of arguments against your own case with limited one-sided knowledge shot out of an unthinking mind in robotic fashion. When your cognitive dissidence levels rise it produces totally nonsensical cringe-worthy statements such as your last post on which I will not spend too much time.

“Obviously AFAI is a single spokesperson and crusader for atheism on these threads for the doctrine of peace, while he conflicts aggressively with all who disagree with him.”

Translation: David is an effective communicator who has already disputed the “doctrine of peace” nonsense and aggression is a word thrown in because of lack of ideas.

“As he believes that his ideas for peace, motives, attitudes and actions are merely imaginings that occur in his mind and have no substance in reality.”

Translation: This is what is wanted to be believed
.
“So who is the real David? Is it His physical body or his sensory impact on the spiritual?”

Translation: Gibberish wrapped up as gibberish.

“They will rather speak of his character, his attitudes toward theists, his obsessive actions…”

Translation: He must hate theists….. mustn't he? He must be obsessive because his words make sense.

“…to have theism removed from society as did the Gestapo in the USSR.”

Translation: I can’t find where he says that but it has to be correct. And I mean Germany.

Translation of last sentence impossible. Incomprehensible.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 28 December 2012 7:53:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

>>>I have no desire to lie, cheat and steal.

Whatever your desire is, how many lies would you say you've told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value? The wages of sin is death, and one sin earns you a death sentence. Gods standard for good isn't a relative standard like humans have. We compare ourselves to one another and say, well I haven't raped and murdered anyone so I must be pretty good. I'm certainly no Hitler! God doesn't show any partiality because His standard is absolute. What God considers good is moral perfection and everything short of that is evil.

>>>I don’t approve of tyrannical dictators.

It's unethical to be an unrepentant sinner and rebel against the God who created you because you don't want to change. A God of love died for your sins on the cross, and if it was just you, He still would have gone. A God of love offers you His hand so you can be forgiven and escape that punishment. How can you say God doesn't love you when He has offered you a pardon? Isn't it more accurate to say that you don't love God and that you prefer to live your life however you want to?

>>>You come from America and deny indoctrination.

To be secular in these United States is to be in step with the culture of this time. I went my whole life without a single person witnessing to me. The only reason I am a Christian is because God woke me up and saved me. Atheism is not only tolerated, but it is being increasingly embraced by just about every establishment and institution there is.

I am going to answer the rest of your questions in the next post and so I expect that you will give me the same courtesy and answer my questions.
Posted by washed, Friday, 28 December 2012 10:38:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was left to come to my own conclusions regarding religion, and I was an agnostic by default. I formally held the view of an old earth and evolution but have since changed my belief to young earth creationism. Yes I had a wide knowledge base, and I read hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of books, more than a few on science and astronomy in particular.

>>>Yes, you say you have had a personal revelation. Great and good >>>for you, but others haven’t.

You have asked for proof that Jesus is God, and that proof is available, but it is something only God can reveal. He is the one who controls what you know about Him and when you know it. Would you be willing to pray a prayer and ask God to show you that the bible is His word, and then read the book of John? If not, why not?

What is your background? Are you a former Christian?

>>>childhood indoctrination

Children actually come to a belief in God naturally without being told that He is there It is evident to them that a creation requires a Creator. You want to teach children how to rebel against their creator and end up in hell, and that is monstrous David.

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
Posted by washed, Friday, 28 December 2012 10:40:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony,

>>>He is also a crack-dealing serial arsonist.

Depravity is expressed in mankinds propensity to sin, to rebel against his Creator. The amount of sin in the world is also steadily increasing. Man wants to believe that human beings are generally good, but they are actually generally sinful. In your scenario, they are both headed to hell. One sin is enough to send you there.

>>>Is this a trick question? We are talking about torture here. >>>Surely you can answer that question for yourself.

I know it's wrong because Gods word tells us that love does no harm to its neighbor. God has an absolute standard for right and wrong, and we all know some things are absolutely right and wrong. My question is, what is your moral standard which informs you that torturing people is wrong?

>>>ut who will happily toss people into a lake of fire for eternity >>>if they don't worship him

We're all sinners who have broken his laws many, many times. If people don't want to repent and change their ways, then they have to face the penalty for their crimes. Imagine if you went into a courtroom and said "your honor..i know ive lied and cheated and stolen and murdered..but i feel really bad about it and im really sorrry. please let me go." Is that judge going to let you go? No, he is going to give you justice, and so is God. If He just let you go He would be a corrupt judge.
Posted by washed, Friday, 28 December 2012 10:41:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

"My question is, what is your moral standard which informs you that torturing people is wrong?"

It's something called "empathy"...and it's a quality that is standard in humans, in fact, it's a defining human trait. One can't operate in a social context without it. (ie, "profoundly" autistic people do not display empathy)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 28 December 2012 10:53:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

I think for myself. You should try it someday but no one can make you. I’m also human and I make mistakes. All the talk about your wonderful god who sends people to hell is only in your imagination.

One cannot rebel against or love that which does not exist.

Yes, I know the poor old persecuted Christian syndrome. Read this.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
“...changed my belief to young earth creationism. Yes I had a wide knowledge base...”

Those statements conflict and are not reconcilable. You have no understanding of science.

View this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8&list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&index=14

I have read the bible, something you possibly have only skirted through and I have read John. The bible has some interesting parts, mostly is boring and is full of the thoughts of ancient and ignorant men. Do you believe pigs can be possessed by demons for instance? Or Donkeys can talk? Information about my background is in this thread a number of times. Try reading it.

Your fear of hell is interesting. Your total disregard of putting that fear into the minds of children shows how you have surrendered your humanity to the forces of darkness.

No court of law inflicts a living penalty forever. Humans are not that ethically corrupt. Apparently, you have knowledge denied others that your god is really, really mean.

I assume you realise I’m only answering your questions to humour you. You are claiming that a particular god exists. It is therefore up to you to substantiate that claim.

Can you drop the charade of asking me stuff and get on with the proof thanks? Not babble, but proof all will accept.

Can you start by answering Tony Lavis’ question to you about this statement? “Why is it wrong for someone to be tortured forever?”

TL said, “Is this a trick question? We are talking about torture here. Surely you can answer that question for yourself. ”

We are all waiting and a big thanks for showing readers how nonsensical is religion.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 28 December 2012 11:23:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

God! Well, as a small child I was told God sat on a throne up in heaven and could see and hear and see everything I said or did. As a result, I wouldn't 'scrump' apples from neighbour's trees like all my little friends were doing.
But oh, I wanted to!
I duly reported even small misdemeanours to him every night on my knees, watched over by my parents.
I didn't lie if I'd done something wrong, but admitted to it, all the while being aware that 'he' was listening in. The result was one very well behaved but scared kid.

Footnote: I still don't lie, so retained that part, but not because of God. Just see no reason to lie, when it's as easy to be truthful. And liars need good memories, which is something I don't have. I also found equally as effective ways to foster moral ethics into my own children - without using a God to scare them into it.
Posted by worldwatcher, Friday, 28 December 2012 12:33:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

Yes, the idea of a god watching every move you make is very invasive for children (and adults) but the fear instilled by torture forever has warped minds for a very long time and still does.

The reason I asked the question of what happens to ‘sinner’s when they die was to flush out this inherent fear which is in most religions.

As a child I was as fearful as were my classmates of the concept. It influenced many of them to remain in the ‘fold’ and I am very thankful no such fear exists in me at all now.

The fear is so great that it can contort the mind of religious adherents to skirt around their own personal terror of hell using all kinds of shenanigans as we have witnessed in this thread. But mainly, religious people will not make the admission. To answer the question by saying you will go to hell, is an admission of the personal fear. To state one has a fear of hell is to say to the imaginary god that it is the fear that keeps one loving it.

I think now and even thought this as a child that the god would know about the fear factor his believers had which was keeping them on the ‘right track’. Do they think their god is stupid or something?

In my experience, the fear of torture forever, even though direct admissions of this are light on the ground, is one of the biggest contributing reasons why some remain mainstream religious whilst others go completely overboard with fundamentalist beliefs. (Or fly planes into building or shoot abortion doctors etc)

And this is exactly what the Australian governments is a party to in allowing religious fundamentalists into state schools by way of chaplains and via religious indoctrination classes. Australian governments are allowing children into a position where many will be terrorised for life. That is why so many thinking people oppose it.

Next time you vote, ask the opinion on this topic of your MP and don't accept woolly answers.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 28 December 2012 1:07:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>You have no understanding of science.

There is no conflict; I changed my mind because of the evidence, not in spite of it. You should also explain how you know what I do and don't know about science.

>>>I have read John.

I've read the whole bible two or three times, and I know what is in it. This wasn't the point as to whether you had read the book of John or not. The question is, would you be willing to ask God, whether you believe in Him or not, to show you that the bible is His word and then read the book of John? If not, why not?

>>>Information about my background is in this thread a number of times.

There's 44 pages of comments and I don't have all day to read through them. You've avoided answering this question now three times for an unknown reason. Why can't you just say it? Why waste all of this time when you could either have told me, or pointed me to the information?

>>>putting that fear into the minds of children

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

>>>No court of law inflicts a living penalty forever.

If they could, they would. The duration of the punishment is only interrupted by the prisoners mortality. God is entirely ethical; if you end up in hell its your own fault. God gives everyone a way out through His Son.

>>>I assume you realise I’m only answering your questions to humour you.

You originally addressed me, remember? Your snideness is misplaced.

>>>get on with the proof

As I've explained to you, only God can reveal Himself to you. If He did, would you follow Him?

>>>We are all waiting

I've already answered this question. I said the bible tells us that love does no harm to its neighbor. Scripture tells us what Gods absolute standard is for right and wrong, and we all know there are things which are absolutely wrong. On what basis do you say that torture is wrong?
Posted by washed, Friday, 28 December 2012 4:57:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Depravity is expressed in mankinds propensity to sin, to rebel against his Creator.<<

Only by you and your bible-bashing mates: normal people think that 'depravity' refers to your moral character or lack thereof - and not to how strictly you follow the bible.

>>Man wants to believe that human beings are generally good, but they are actually generally sinful.<<

What does sin have to do with goodness? I know a lot of sinners who are really good people. They don't follow the word of God but they're much kinder, compassionate, more loving than pretty much every bible-basher posting on this site. They are generally good and generally sinful. I think that's better than being generally bad and generally virtuous.

>>My question is, what is your moral standard which informs you that torturing people is wrong?<<

Then why didn't you ask that?

My moral standard:

* Treat people the way they'd like to be treated. If you don't know how they'd like to be treated treat them the way you'd like to be treated.

Nobody wants to be tortured. Especially not me. So it isn't moral to torture anybody else.

>>Imagine if you went into a courtroom and said "your honor..i know ive lied and cheated and stolen and murdered..but i feel really bad about it and im really sorrry. please let me go." Is that judge going to let you go? No, he is going to give you justice, and so is God.<<

Well you'd hope he would give you justice but the legal system is an imperfect system and judges often hand down unjust sentences - either too lenient or too heavy. I still think they have a better sense of justice than Judge Jehovah who will let you off scot free for perjury, fraud, robbery and murder as long as you say "but i feel really bad about it and im really sorrry and i believe in jeesus" - but who will cheerfully sentence you to cruel and unusual punishment for eternity for the cold-blooded crime of not getting down and kissing his arse.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 28 December 2012 5:00:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

Your comments and questions should really be directed at a believer in your magic man who has you so frightened, not at me. There are a few names for it. Stigiophobia, Hadephobia and Stygiophobia. You can find out about this phobia here http://www.google.com.au/search?q=fear+of+hell&rlz=1C1_____en-gbAU507AU508&aq=f&oq=fear+of+hell&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 and there are ways to overcome it. You may need professional help.

Creationism is a delusion with no peer reviewed articles in accredited scientific journals. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151745 And you say you understand science. Poppycock. Did you watch the video of Eugenie Scott? What was wrong with it?

Read the bible. you say? What about talking the donkey and demons in pigs? Comment thanks.

Use the search option Cntr F. Don’t bother. Here it is. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151689

Last time. Asking a god who doesn't exist anything is pointless. Keep saying this and I’ll assume you are an idiot. I'm close to that summation anyway.

The fear of the ‘Lord’ is the beginning of the waste of a life.

Try and engage brain. Eternity of torture is not acceptable to a human standards. If a god does this, it is a god who should be abhorred, not adored.

What is right with torture?

If a god proved he existed I would acknowledge that existence as I am a rational person. I am also an ethical person and would be opposed to such a monster.

How would you react if you made a ‘godly’ mistake and your ‘Lord’ decided to torture you forever. I guess you would agree with the sentence because of your love for this monstrous idea. Pull the other leg. (Australian-ism for I don't believe what you just said)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 28 December 2012 5:39:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Washed,

Within my circle of friends are some who are what I term as born again Christians.
They don't like to think of themselves this way, and say they are simply Christians.
I am thinking of one particular hard drinking, womanising guy who says he had the same revelation as you describe. And he truly has become very different. We're still firm friends, but I have to say I like to be in his company more now than before this [as he avows] happened to him.

Now for all I know he dreamed this happened, and in reality he may have decided to change without any divine revelation to help him.
But the crux of the matter is that he is at peace with himself, and who would deny him that?

I haven't had this experience, and am content the way I am, but truth is, who can know what goes on inside another person? All I've asked of him is not to try and convert me, or preach to me. We respect each other's differences on this.

Regardless, it is more important that he is happy within himself, and if he chooses to believe he had help, who am I to suggest otherwise?
Posted by worldwatcher, Friday, 28 December 2012 5:41:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>>You may need professional help.

What you're doing is turning the conversation from an honest discussion about God and religion and making it about me. You getting into ad honinems which are logically fallacious.

>>>Creationism is a delusion

Do you know what the creationist position is? If you don't, how do you know its a delusion? No, I didn't watch the video..I know very well what Eugenie Scott thinks of creationism. A more interesting question for this discussion is, why is there uniformity in nature?

>>>Read the bible. you say? What about talking the donkey and demons >>>in pigs? Comment thanks.

The bible contains descriptions of both the ordinary and the supernatural. It also has people being raised from the dead, and Jesus walking on water. Why is a talking donkey some kind of sticking point? God momentarily gave the donkey the ability to express itself to chastise balaam.

>>>Here it is

Ahh, okay..thanks. So why did you leave the Catholic religion?

>>>I'm close to that summation anyway.

How do you know God doesn't exist? Call me whatever names you like. I'll still care about you and pray for you.

>>>The fear of the ‘Lord’ is the beginning of the waste of a life.

The wasted life is one lived in ignorance of the One who created you.

>>>If a god does this, it is a god who should be abhorred, not adored.

Jesus paid for everyones sin on the cross. Your sin would be wiped away and your name written in the book of life if you asked Jesus into your life, and for forgiveness of sins. You don't have to go hell, and neither does anyone else. Hell is reserved for those unrepentant sinners who refuse to stop doing evil. Sin, before a holy and infinite God, deserves an infinite punishment. You don't see sin as a big deal, but God says that by no means will He pardon the guilty outside of Christ
Posted by washed, Saturday, 29 December 2012 6:34:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

>>>What is right with torture?

God doesn't torture anyone. He gives people justice.

If a god proved he existed I would acknowledge that existence as I am a rational person. I am also an ethical person and would be opposed to such a monster.

It's not rational to send yourself to hell. If God exists, He also created everything you love, and the love itself comes from Him. Your idea of who God is warped. Has it ever occurred to you that you could
be wrong about God? This is the crux of atheism, that atheists deny God yet they hate Him. You have a palpable hatred for God, which is proof in itself that He exists. Atheism also is almost exclusively anti-christian, and the reason is, the Christian God is the true God.

>>>How would you react if you made a ‘godly’ mistake and your ‘Lord’ >>>decided to torture you forever.

Christians make mistakes every day. God gives more grace. To fall away from God you would have to willingly turn your back on Him, and refuse to hear Him any longer. We all deserve to go there, but Jesus gives us what we don't deserve; forgiveness for sins and eternal life.
Posted by washed, Saturday, 29 December 2012 6:34:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's important is what the truth is, worldwatcher. It's no secret what God can do. It only takes a willing heart that is open to knowing its Creator. Would you pray to a non-existant God to help you with your unbelief? Just pray..God I don't know if you're there, or if the bible is your word, but if you show me it is I follow you and obey you. Then read the book of John and see for yourself. It's a living God who gives these revelations, and nothing anyone says is necessarily going to convince you either way. I wouldn't expect you to follow God with no evidence; that wouldn't make any sense. God gave me evidence and He will give you evidence, if you want to know. If you're honest skeptic then why not ask Him to reveal Himself to you?
Posted by washed, Saturday, 29 December 2012 6:36:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

It is pointless answering your questions when you don’t return the favour. Rational discussion is a two way street. I've persevered far longer with you than I should have but have taken your naivety into account.

Let’s shift gears for a moment. How about we assume, because I am susceptible, I followed the magic words and am now an avid follower of Jesus/Yahweh….and I love this ‘Lord’ of the universe. It has proven its existence to me with the same magic it proved itself to you. Halleluiah!

I now believe in the sky-fairy as I have had a personal revelation from it. That is fine, but I have not lost my rationality and know that to convince others of my wonderful luck is impossible without evidence. I would therefore not try as I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me as I have no proof. I have also not lost my sense of justice and knowledge of what is ethical and what is monstrous and I know that this god will still torture those not lucky as you and I for eternity if they have ‘sinned’. (Which is just about everybody, according to you)

I'm afraid at this stage I would be in an impossible situation of ‘loving the Lord’ (I really wouldn't love it just because it is a god) and in doing so, surrendering my humanity. There would be no other choice that I could make than to attempt to overthrow this tyrannical monster out of respect for the rights of others as it doesn't know what it is doing. If not possible, after all it is a god, for the rest of eternity I would have to pretend I love it.

My love for this monster having waned because of the suffering it is causing to my fellow humans and instead of love; I would despise it for its lack of compassion, brutality just because it can be and its tyrannical nature.

Thankfully such a monster does not exist and none of this will be needed.

Wake up and figure it out for yourself.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 29 December 2012 6:48:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

No more questions. I am not postulating anything. You have to prove your god exists and not by the emotional filled claptrap provided so far. That is common to religions and does not prove anything. No, I'm wrong; it proves humans are susceptible to believe just about anything if the right buttons are pushed when living in a society/community/ culture of single-minded believers.

I can imagine the warm comments you receive from fellow believers about your transformation from a ‘secularist’ to a ‘true Christian’. You possibly feel very special and I can understand that.

Stop muddying the waters with subjective ideas and a failure to comment on pertinent points. Because you can write words is not meaningful unless those words are rational. Yours are not.

Your religious leaders have told you that you have the ‘truth’ and the attacks on Christianity by atheism have to be countered. They have told you to fight back but have not provided you with the intellectual weaponry to do so. They are desperate and no such weaponry exists.

Read this carefully. I do not have to prove anything.

However, this is all I expect you to accomplish. Anything else you add is just smokescreen. The first reference to words in the Bible or magical ideas will disqualify you.

1. Prove your god exists to rational people right now.

2. Cite studies in peer reviewed accredited scientific journals disproving the theory of evolution by creationists.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 29 December 2012 7:18:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, I have been answering your questions, and if there is one I missed it wasn't purposeful. On the other hand, you've been completely evasive. You make wild claims you don't (and can't) back up such as that God does not exist, and then when I call you on it, you say "no more questions!". Hah. You've also lowered the discourse by engaging in many ad homs, which if you want to talk about rationality are logical fallacies by the way. I mean look at your last replies here. You can't even go one sentence without pouring out mocking scorn and derision upon Christianity, my God, and my person. This is the fruit that atheism bears. It's a lack of virtue on your part that you hate God and Christians, and it is emotionally infantile to rant at me about it. You claim not to believe in God but you sure have a lot of feelings about Him, don't you? Strange isn't it, if He doesn't exist? In any case, I respect your beliefs and think you are a person worthy of respect and love. If you felt the same way we could have a productive conversation, but it's pretty clear that you don't. Even still, I love you anyway and so does God.
Posted by washed, Sunday, 30 December 2012 5:35:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In regards to your hypothetical scenario, your rationality is not rational if God is real and the source all truth, and love. Your rationality, apart from God, is foolishness. You don't know what truth is apart from God, and everything you know is in some way wrong. So, when you received the staggering, mind blowing revelation that God does exist, your entire reasoning process would change. The fundamental problem I think you have is that you think you're a good person, but according to Gods laws, you're not. You're judging yourself by a relative standard against other humans but God has an absolute standard for good, which is moral perfection. He considers everything less than that to be evil. You've lied, stolen, hated, lusted..that makes you a liar, a thief, and an adulterer and murderer at heart. That's not good, is it?

You are seeing things from a rebels point of view; you don't want to conform to Gods laws so you're drowning in excuses. The truth is that no one will have any excuse. Your accusation of God being unfair is just not true. He gives everyone ample opportunity to avoid hell, and if they end up there, it's their own fault. In the same way, you are slapping His hand away and then you cry out that He is unfair. It's your ways that aren't fair, not His.

Let's go back to the basics, what I was trying to tell in the beginning of our conversation. God gives personal revelation. If you want to know God, you have to ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He isn't going to force the door open, but He will keep knocking on it. It's up to you to open it. I asked you if you would simply ask God to reveal if the bible is His word, and then read the book of John. If you're not willing to do that, explain why?
Posted by washed, Sunday, 30 December 2012 5:38:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

1. Prove your god exists to rational people right now.

2. Cite studies in peer reviewed accredited scientific journals disproving the theory of evolution by creationists.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 30 December 2012 6:32:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, because you put God in the same category as "I now believe in the sky-fairy ". This indicates you do not understand or recognise a spiritual reality to life that is not defined by your definition of science.

Define for yourself what is your motive, what intelligent and emotional contribution your having lived has made to the benefits of family and society? What is the scientific reality of your character, is it worthy of extolling as worthy of emulating?

These are spiritual reality of which you do not recognise that have reality because they cannot be tested in a tube, yet they are the reality of you. Your ideas have reality here, they are more than shapes on a page, they express who you are in reality. God is relevant in this area of reality; he is not physical but just as real because he is the creator Spirit and not the created.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 30 December 2012 1:47:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

I have explained my position many time and why I hold it. If you don't want to acknowledge that, fine. If you want to live in a cocoon of fantasy, fine also.

What is not fine is indoctrinating children with unproven supernatural fears and promises as though they have supporting evidence.

Apart from that being ethically obnoxious, those children grow into voting adults and then have the propensity to make bad societal decisions either as voters or parliamentarians.

But of course, as long as you feel secure with your sky daddy, you just don't care.

"What is the scientific reality of your character, is it worthy of extolling as worthy of emulating?"

Yes indeed it is; it's known as critical thinking. Don't leave home without it. (I must stop using the same catch phrase as appropriate as it is)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 30 December 2012 2:44:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
Again you show your antagonistic attitude and unintelligent understanding of how we believe God is revealed, by this nonsense. "But of course, as long as you feel secure with your sky daddy".

Obviousy unable to use critical analysis of our terms. God is not in the sky as some sort of spatial being. Obviously you are blind to a reality beyond your capacity to grasp; as you imagine we believe God to be in the sky. God is Spirit.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 30 December 2012 5:14:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

As I keep telling you God proves Himself to those who are open to the truth and wish to receive Him. You are not open to the truth, unwilling to receive Him, and will not even go so far as to lift a finger to find out. This is why you don't know God. God has already provided you sufficient evidence to know that He exists but you suppress the truth. I could give you many logical arguments which show that a God is likely, or even certain to exist, but in the end the only thing which is going to convince a hardened skeptic like yourself is personal revelation.

As far as creationism versus evolution, I'll let a scientist explain it to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY2Xy52U6tA

Jesus said you're a sinner on the road to hell and you need a Savior. You're free to disagree with Him but you will have to meet Him one day. He died for your sins on the cross taking your punishment and promised to save you when you call upon His name. He is knocking on your door..it's up to you to let Him in:

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
Posted by washed, Sunday, 30 December 2012 5:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dark matter/dark energy are believed to exist although no one has ever observed them directly. It is postulated that they existed at the point of creation/big bang. Scientists believe they exist because the universe makes no sense without them and the laws of physics don't work unless they exist. It is also so prevalent in the universe that occupies our very being.

That is dark matter/dark energy have all the properties of Yahweh other than intelligence. But, since we have yet to observe it, maybe it contains the universal intelligence as well...who knows.

So let's get the scientists to rename DM/DE to Yahweh and we can all go home. Science and religion finally in agreement. Of course Richard Dawkins would be out on his ear, but that'd be a nett benefit as well.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 30 December 2012 5:18:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a very good point, mhaze. Scientists are more than willing to invoke theoretical, invisible, unobserved entities to punch up holes in their models of reality. Then they put it in a textbook and everyone believes its a proven fact. They will not go where the evidences leads and have stated this many times:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin

He says materialism is absolute..and this is the way many of them think.
Posted by washed, Sunday, 30 December 2012 5:30:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Your god would not be offended by how I describe it. A god would not be able to be offended – full stop. Why then are you offended? Could it be a case of insecurity?

That I use a metaphor for your sky god doesn't mean I think it is in the sky. That would be silly. In fact, it is nowhere.

David

washed,

I ask for peer reviewed scientific studies in accredited scientific journals disproving the theory of evolution and you provide a link to a creationist. Your understanding of science is more than flawed; it is non-existent at the basic level. I gave you a link to Eugenie Scott who gave a talk at the GAC using the best known scientific discoveries about geology and other stuff. Your creation scientists have ample access to genuine scientific avenues for disproving Scott’s and the thousands of other peer reviewed scientific evaluations but they don’t because they can’t. If they could they would submit studies through the proper channels.

You then come back with more magic talk and think that will convince me your particular god exists.

You may believe your god to exist and I guess you are young. Could be wrong but young people tend to believe in magic of all kinds as a product of evolution such as pattern recognition when no pattern is present and also in the process of getting to know reality. Get yourself a good book on psychology and read what makes humans tick. I mean that sincerely.

Or, what about, Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. A great read.

And, you will grow out of this is if you are lucky. I certainly hope so for your sake.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 30 December 2012 6:44:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry mhaze (and washed), but it appears you've bother missed where I discredited that line of argument on this thread... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151490.

Funny too, mhaze, how you mock belief and faith on another thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14511&page=0 (forgetting for a moment that the accusations were completely inaccurate on that thread)) and yet it seems to be alright here?

Care to explain the inconsistency? 
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 30 December 2012 7:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I believe that God exists because He revealed Himself to me. He hasn't revealed Himself to you because you refuse to open the door. He will continue knocking but it is up to you to open it.

You have shown yourself to be irrational in the sense that even if you knew God existed you wouldn't follow Him. This is because you think you can judge God on moral grounds, when you are the one who is proven to be morally flawed individual because of your sins. You have an imperfect understanding of morality, and an even less imperfect execution of it, but you think you can sit as judge over God, who is morally perfect. This is the height of hypocrisy. You don't even have a justification for why something is right or wrong. You are drowning in a sea of nihilism because your worldview provides you no foundation for meaning, value, or purpose.

>>>Your understanding of science is more than flawed; it is non-existent at the basic level

So, you think pointing to a video establishes your credentials as an expert? You are unqualified to judge what I do or don't know. I do know quite a bit about evolutionary theory, but I am not really interesting in having a fruitless debate about it. I will ask you though if you believe that science is the only road to truth?

As far as peer review goes, if you haven't realized this yet, mainstream science is in a state of war with creation science. There is no research being done, and no papers being accepted, because they are not going to give up even an inch in this debate. A scientist who questions evolutionary theory has no future as a scientist. He will not be able to get a job, have access to labs, or get the funding he needs to do his research. Any scientist questioning the theory of evolution may as well throw out his diploma and go work at Taco Bell. Evolution is a sacred cow, and it is conventional wisdom in science
Posted by washed, Monday, 31 December 2012 10:09:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
washed,

I'm not disputing that you think a god has revealed himself to you. I am opposed to what that idea does collectively and negatively to other people. I am opposed to implanting un-evidenced supernatural fears and promises into the malleable minds of children. I consider people are more important than vague ideas of one of the gods.

I don’t follow any dictator. Why anyone would love a god is way beyond me. I figure it is the Stockholm-syndrome at work. Love is a two way street and it cannot be forced. If it is, as in your case, it is subservience.

That you are so judgemental about the alleged ‘sins’ of others is quite revealing. It shows arrogance and one that is only justified by imagination. Gosh, you must be frightened out of your skin about supernatural-repercussions.

You have to be told what is right or wrong and that is a very dangerous character flaw.

If your god told you to kill me, would you? (Answer required)

Look up the word nihilism. It roughly means anarchy. Point out where I advocate that. My world view concerns the only world I am ever going to live in. It is a most enjoyable place and I will be sad for it to come to end one day. However, all-encompassing wishing for it to continue is a waste of life. Feel free to do that.

You are overstating a war between creationism and science. A recent survey at the Academy of Sciences showed only 7% of respondents believed in any kind of a god. These are the top-scientists in their fields. The war is in the head of creationists. Better said, a nuisance.

Again, you have a distorted idea of science. If creationists could prove there is another force, even a supernatural one, at work in the universe, mainstream science would love it. Discovery is the name of the game.

You have been told this kind of rubbish with anecdotal stories in support but it is a false picture. Your persecution complex is showing. Many religions rely on persecution thoughts.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 31 December 2012 11:22:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

you wrote: "Sorry mhaze (and washed), but it appears you've bother missed where I discredited that line of argument on this thread..."

Well AJ I admire your chutzpah in believing that your post totally demolished a way of thinking. But I read your post and, with respect, I have to say I was profoundly unconvinced. Merely asserting that something isn't so, isn't the same as proving it isn't so. Indeed in some circles, it would be assumed that if the best argument against a particular point is mere assertion, then that point has gained in status.

you wrote: "Funny too, mhaze, how you mock belief and faith on another thread....and yet it seems to be alright here?"

Now AJ, I'll try to explain this as simply as possible. Just because I was making a point about the relative equivalence of unprovable beliefs in religion and some parts of science, didn't and doesn't mean that I was supporting one over the other. Indeed I am agnostic on the question of a deity.

I note within these threads a certain absolutism among the activist atheists...'you're either with us or against us'. So in my post, since I hadn't come out unequivocally opposed to any thought of the divine, I must be, according to AJ et al, an advocate for Yahweh. Well, it is actually possible to be uncommitted, if that's OK with you.

As to mocking beliefs, I wasn't. I'm a big believer in beliefs :). I was however pointing out that there is much in science that is held to be true with the minutest of evidence, and often just on faith. What I do mock is the failure of many to see this, unquestioningly asserting that all science is based on meticulous research and hard fact. And, refering to the other thread you mentioned, AGW is right up there in that regard. Indeed 'green' is a religion based on superstition and faith, just like all other nascent belief systems.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 31 December 2012 6:26:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me, reading through these posts, that the believers in the divine, have made a mistake in being forced to defend their beliefs from a scientific viewpoint. Asking for and/or trying to provide proof or disproof of God is foolish. Trying to prove God using science is as impossible as trying to disprove God using science.

Nothing science has discovered in the last century or three disproves God. If you buy evolution, its still possible to think that God guides it. If you buy the big bang, you can still believe that God was the catalyst for it.

The appropriate response to the provocations of the activist atheist is for the theists to simple say that God exists but his existence is beyond scientific proof. That doesn't make it any less real to the believer. Science can't work in religious terms and religion can't work in scientific terms.

Equally the appropriate response to the assertion from the activist atheist that they are only thinking of the kids is to treat it with disdain and recognise it as merely a device to try to impose their beliefs of lack of them on others. Absolutism again.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 31 December 2012 6:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

“Equally the appropriate response to the assertion from the activist atheist that they are only thinking of the kids is to treat it with disdain and recognise it as merely a device to try to impose their beliefs of lack of them on others. Absolutism again.”

This is a simplistic statement that is not backed by what has been said in this thread unless you want to be selective by using creationist tactics. It appears you have no respect for anything but your own narrow point of view. And using ‘active atheists’ as a derogatory phrase at every chance you get shows only a desire to misrepresent . You really are pathetic.

Yes, children need protecting from supernatural thoughts that terrorise them but the upshot of that protection is that they will then have the chance to grow into adults who make political decisions based on empirical evidence and not faulty fantasy. Society in general benefits from this.

Why are you opposed to it?

What beliefs or lack of beliefs are atheists trying to impose and how are they achieving this?

And while we are at it, explain this phrase. “Absolutism again.”

Your response will be most interesting. Best you read the thread first.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 31 December 2012 8:33:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note in Stephen Hawkins TV presentation he is concluding the Universe has design. I wonder who designed it? Design means a consistent, predictable and controlled order that the human mind can grasp. So there is superintelligence in the Universe that Stephen can understand!

How God is revealed in our world is by the following evidences:
1. A love that cares and acts even for the welfare of an enemy.
2. A Joy and security that is not dependent upon the surrounding threatening circumstances.
3. An inner peace that is not disturbed even in the middle of a warzone.
4. An unmoving patience that believes good will win in the end.
5. A kindness that gives good gifts to an enemy.
6. A peaceable and gentle heart
7. A spirit that is always in control of the body.

These are ways God is revealed in human society, all these have reference in Christ
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 1 January 2013 8:17:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for the
mysteries of the universe, religion would have less
and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.

But there are still gaps in our understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the
nature of morality.

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

Happy New Year one and all! May it surpass all of
our expectations!
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 1 January 2013 9:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David (afai),

Wow, for someone who claims to be soooo rational, what an irrational response.

I generally avoid these type of discussions in this thread since they inevitably end up all heat and no light. But I was drawn here via the Alien thread and having read through the posts felt compelled to point out that the theists had made a mistake of conceding home-ground advantage to the AFAI by trying to argue God from a scientific perspective.

And in response I get this invective laden outburst from our resident atheistic guru. It seems that I am "really..pathetic" for reasons that are unclear but appear to having something to do with not offering whole-hearted support for David's every utterance.

Just to address a few points. David is upset with my using the term "activist atheist" which he feels is derogatory. But I just use it to differentiate the likes of David from what I'd perceive to be the majority of atheists who make a personal choice and leave it at that. That David sees it as derogatory is probably the result of paranoia (all the theists are agin' me)...or a guilty conscience?

David wrote "explain this phrase. “Absolutism again.”" (what, no please?:)). In the previous post I referred to the absolutism of some in this thread who adopted the view that if you're no with us you're against us.

David wrote: "Why are you opposed to it?" "it" being saving the kids from indoctrination by those awful theists.
As a general principal I'm not opposed to stopping indoctrination of kids...if it were possible. But David isn't proposing stopping indoctrination, just replacing it with an indoctrination of which he approves. As a rule of thumb, you should always be wary of those who just want to save the kids. Cut Co2 to save the future generations. Censorship to protect the kids etc etc. It almost always conceals a further agenda. And here David doesn't even try to conceal it. Re-indoctrinate the kids to create more atheists, which to David, is a good thing....more like him must be good for society, right?
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 5:16:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

“But David isn't proposing stopping indoctrination, just replacing it with an indoctrination of which he approves. As a rule of thumb, you should always be wary of those who just want to save the kids.”

Seems you missed on explaining how atheism is going to indoctrinate ‘kids’. Maybe you can explain that?

I agree that using children to support a stance is a questionable tactic. But further explanation that children grow into voting adults is ample justification as we all have to live in this thing called democracy. Be nice if it worked as best it can is my opinion with the privileged position of religion curtailed somewhat, dontcha think.

You use the term ‘activist atheist’ to separate people into a suspect class. I guess you are an inactivist something or other. Paranoia has nothing to do with it, nor has insecurity whatever those terms mean in your reading of what I have said. Can you explain them…..thanks!

Nice try at a squirm out of ‘absolutism again’ but make it clearer for those of us who respect rationality. Don’t point the absolutist gun at me and think you can get off scot-free with no explanation as to what you mean. I'm waiting.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 5:38:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

I noticed this just came onto the AFA forums. It is not unlike the endless number of similar stories that are reported to the AFA on a constant basis. That you are blind to the reality of childhood religious mental and physical indoctrination is a sad reality in society that concentrates on sexual abuse as that is, well, sexy and shocking. That is only one part of the shock.

This is the Catholic Church and I would like you for a moment to contemplate a fundamentalist brand and how children in their ‘care’ might suffer.

Trying to diminish this reality by vague accusations at me, that this has and is happening to thousands upon thousands of children, makes you just an unwitting puppet supporting the unconscionable. Not your, fault but have a think.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=358302&postcount=1

I have a reason to be on this forum and it has nothing to do with self-aggrandisement, pushing an agenda or indoctrinating children.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 7:09:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David - afai,

1. I wasn't squirming out of the explaining 'absolutism'. Struth, where do you get these notions? I explained it when I first used it and I explained it again at your request. When I used it I was drawing attention to a certain attitude in the thread that those who weren't whole-heartedly supportive of the AFAI's aims must be opposed to them. In particular I was pointing to a response to my original post where I'd posted a neutral view but been attacked as pro-theist. I was not specifically refering to you at that time. The gun (what a quaint term) was aimed elsewhere....its not all about you, you know.

2. "You use the term ‘activist atheist’ to separate people into a suspect class. " Nup. When I used it I was talking about the appropriate response from theists. I was specifically referring to the response to activists such as yourself. There is no need to respond to non-activist atheists, although some theists may want to respond with sorrow or pray. But 'suspect class'? Wow!

3. "Seems you missed on explaining how atheism is going to indoctrinate ‘kids’. " I used my entire 350 word quota. I can't explain everything to you in one post. I also suspect it won't be possible. What others will see as indoctrination, you'll see as just laying out the facts. Elsewhere you wrote..."The state should teach students about all religions as a subject in the humanities....This would include that religions have no empirical evidence in support and the foibles produced by religion not hidden. " This, in the eyes of others, is untrue or not the full truth and is therefore, to them, indoctrination. I suspect you won't get that.
Parents have rights and the right to have their kids taught as they want is one of the more important. Its fundamental to our society and we dilute it to society's cost. I know you won't agree. This comes, of coarse, with the proviso that the parent makes the decision solely with the child's interest at heart.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 3 January 2013 7:59:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does that include the denomination of a kids belief before they are even borne.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 3 January 2013 8:09:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

The word ‘absolutist’ has a specific meaning(s) as does ‘activist’.

This nonsense of, ‘if you are not with me you are agin me’ has nothing to do with absolutism. Just admit you were using an inflammatory word for effect. The same as stating , “resident atheist guru.” Your posts drip with this kind of venom.

“Activist atheist” is just another. Are those promoting religion, ‘activist theists’? Can you quote yourself where you have use that term? That should be easy as there are far more of them promoting religion than there are atheists asking for the evidence of their gods existences.

It really is useless interacting with you when the all-round non- specific religious education I and many educators consider a good thing is called by you, propaganda.

What exactly is being propagandised? Have you a dictionary? If so, look up the word and get back to me about this.

To then take religious indoctrination away from state schools as I have been promoting, into the realm of general parenting, is a continuation of your mischievous use of ideas and language.

State schools should not be the instrument for specific religious indoctrination in a multi and no faith society. This is not rocket science.

You are digging the hole deeper with deviousness. Maybe this is a good time for you to stop and re-evaluate what you are saying and why you are saying it.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 3 January 2013 8:47:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

My last post was a bit vague, so I’m not entirely sure if we’re on the same track here, but anyway…

<<That is dark matter/dark energy have all the properties of Yahweh other than intelligence.>>

Well, there is also the fact that dark matter/energy is a prediction whereas God is a blind guess.

Dark matter/energy is also useful in that it helps to explain something; a god does not. Inserting a god in as an explanation for something is a dead end; it is an excuse to not look any further. There are no models of the universe in which the presence of a god is required, productive or useful.

<<Nothing science has discovered in the last century or three disproves God.>>

And nor is it required to. The burden of proof is another thing that has been covered extensively on this thread.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

<<…I admire your chutzpah in believing that your post totally demolished a way of thinking.>>

Well, I didn’t say “totally demolished”, I said “discredited”. But yes, over the course of this whole thread, I guess you could say I totally demolished a way of thinking. Please point out how I haven’t, if you don’t agree.

<<I note within these threads a certain absolutism among the activist atheists...'you're either with us or against us'. So in my post, since I hadn't come out unequivocally opposed to any thought of the divine, I must be, according to AJ et al, an advocate for Yahweh.>>

Please point to where I said you were an advocate for Yahweh (or anything of the sort).

Forgive me, though, if I ever confuse agnostics and theists. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my years on OLO, it’s that agnostics (please do see my discrediting on the common use of that term too) and theists make the same errors in reasoning as each other and argue using the same logical fallacies. And no other thread on OLO has demonstrated that more than this one.

It’s a bizarre phenomenon.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 3 January 2013 12:36:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

Worse still, self-proclaimed agnostics/fence-sitters/etc. attack atheists far more than they ever attack theists.

What’s with that?!

<<It seems to me, reading through these posts, that the believers in the divine, have made a mistake in being forced to defend their beliefs from a scientific viewpoint.>>

How is that a mistake? They allege that their god exists, and anything that manifests in reality is (or will eventually be) demonstrable, measureable and verifiable. Otherwise, we can’t distinguish between their god and something that doesn’t exist - and neither can they.

Of all the claims that one could ever make, religious claims are the ONLY claims that no-one expects the claimer to justify. So why does religious belief get a free pass here? What has it done to earn that?

You see what I mean about agnostics?

And they don’t just reserve all their attacks for atheists; they’ll defend religious belief tooth and nail.

Your last paragraph to me was just paranoid conspiratorial delusion that failed to demonstrate any understanding of how science works. But I’ll address the following just briefly, because earlier another poster here didn’t seem to understand what indoctrination was either…

<<What others will see as indoctrination, you'll see as just laying out the facts.>>

Indoctrination, in the context of this thread, is teaching one to think and believe uncritically and unquestioningly.

It’s no co-incidence that religious parents feel an urgency to get their children believing in their god before the critical thinking skills begin to develop. Most of us who had a religious upbringing remember being taught that it was a sin to question God’s existence.

So the implication in your statement here - that it’s all relative or subjective and who’s to say what’s indoctrination and what’s not - is just plain wrong. We can know what indoctrination is and there's a pretty clear line as to what does and does not constitute it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 3 January 2013 12:36:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh boy, mhaze. I can’t believe I missed this…

<<Merely asserting that something isn't so, isn't the same as proving it isn't so.>>

Could you show me where I have “merely asserted” anything here?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 3 January 2013 1:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,
FACT: God is not defined by science as God is not physical.
Give me a scientific analysis of motive, character, immagination and creativity, which is where God is revealed in the physical. I do not want the physical analysis of the brain function.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 4 January 2013 7:39:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

So does this go for gravity too?

<<FACT: God is not defined by science as God is not physical.>>

I think what you're really getting at here is that whole bit about God transcending the physical world. If so, then fine, but if that's the case, then you have no way of distinguishing between your God and something that doesn't exist. And while that may be all fine and dandy too, it doesn’t portray you as someone who really cares much about the truth of their beliefs.

<<Give me a scientific analysis of motive, character, immagination and creativity, which is where God is revealed in the physical. I do not want the physical analysis of the brain function.>>

Yeah well, I could challenge anyone to explain anything without using its explanation and I'm going to stump them. But that doesn't mean the next logical step would be to insert a god in as a second explanation. And if there's already one explanation, then why add an unnecessary second layer?

Could you point to any evidence that God is in fact revealed in motive, character, imagination and creativity? Or are you just asserting this?
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 4 January 2013 10:00:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP,
Since Stephen Hawkins can define his TV presentation as "THE GRAND DESIGN" indicates there is intelligence in the universe understood by man. A grand design indicates a designer at work in the physical.

If you had read my previous post you would recognise God is revealed in the spiritual. The Scripture forbids the immagination making or invisaging in the physical an image of God. God is Spirit, that is why we are to exhalt in worship pure motives, holy character, grand design, great deeds, and sacrificial acts. All these are found in Christ, we do not worship the body of the man but the expression of God through his Spirit to our world. As the Scripture says, "No one has senn God in the physical at any time". Jesus has revealed God to us.

You yourself are expressing a low view of wonderment that is beyond the physical. You are more than a body, you are an expression of your convinced view of how life is to be understood. To you everything is only physical sciences that can be defined by man.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 5 January 2013 6:20:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Did you just watch the title, “The Grand Design” and then turn off the television in case you encountered disturbing material that might have shaken your arcane views.

Stephen Hawkins is an atheist. He does not promote the idea that a god, in your case, Yahweh/Jesus, designed the universe. Stephen Hawkins’ physical impediments, even though he is amazed as we all should be to be living at a time when science is unravelling the wonders of the universe, is an example of the design not being perfect and god like.

The title could be his own or a provocative one-liner by the producers of the show. It seems to have provoked you.

It is unfortunate that Stephen Hawkins has also let the cat out of the bag on what atheism is all about, but hey, what can you do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPPebr5Llvo

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 5 January 2013 10:07:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, but would the reasoning, polite and respectful Stephen Hawking agree with the crassness of AFA in posting a thread to deliberately insult and provoke Christians on their holy day?

As well, the insult probably displays some intended secondary cultural offence. Because AFA apparently reserves this sort of crude offence and niggling to Christians.

Prophet's Day is Thursday, January 24, 2013. As I remarked earlier, all could bet London to a brick that David will not be aiming similar offence at Muslims on behalf of AFA. However like many others I would (similarly) object if it did happen.

The elephant in the room is why David and the AFA find it so necessary to offend. What was the motivation? What was the desired end product? All this this sort of behaviour does is impress upon its OLO audience that the AFA likely represents intolerant and uncivil people who get their jollies out of causing offence and want to force their opinions on others.

Do David and AFA represent all atheists? Most likely not.

Would Stephen Hawkings ever be responsible for posting a thread like this, or lend his name to it? Most likely not.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 5 January 2013 12:18:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Last sentence should be Hawking, not Hawkings.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 5 January 2013 12:19:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

“Yes, but would the reasoning, polite and respectful Stephen Hawking agree with the crassness of AFA in posting a thread to deliberately insult and provoke Christians on their holy day? ”

I assume you didn't look at the video I posted. If you are insulted by facts, then who is to blame? The ‘holy’ day is derived from the festival of Saturnalia. Did you miss that?

“Prophet's Day is Thursday, January 24, 2013. As I remarked earlier, all could bet London to a brick that David will not be aiming similar offence at Muslims on behalf of AFA. However like many others I would (similarly) object if it did happen.”

If Islam presented the same political/social problems in Australia as does Christianity, the AFA would visibly object. But, now read this once or twice so it sinks in, it is the Atheist Foundation of Australia. You would object because it is just another religion. That decision is devoid of ethics.

“The elephant in the room is why David and the AFA find it so necessary to offend. What was the motivation? What was the desired end product? All this this sort of behaviour does is impress upon its OLO audience that the AFA likely represents intolerant and uncivil people who get their jollies out of causing offence and want to force their opinions on others.”

It might pay you to read the thread and see why the AFA brings to light the foibles of religion. Intolerance is a forever product of religion and if you did read the thread you would see that. For the umpteenth time, think women, gays/lesbians, those seeking voluntary euthanasia, lack of effective sex education, 30 billion dollars annually non taxed money etc.

The AFA stance on most topics is representative of most atheists, no one is claiming all atheists, and interestingly enough, it represents a majority of religious adherents on many positions also.

“Would Stephen Hawkins ever be responsible for posting a thread like this, or lend his name to it? Most likely not.”

Did you look at and understand the video?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 5 January 2013 12:45:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prophet's Day is Thursday, January 24, 2013.

A day when doubtless David will be sallying forth to fulfill his promise to bring to light the foibles of religion and the intolerance "affecting women, gays/lesbians, those seeking voluntary euthanasia, lack of effective sex education, 30 billion dollars annually non taxed money etc".

No one is willing to take up that wager of London to a brick that David and the AFA don't have a similar stunt for Prophet's Day. Easter in around 80 days might be a different proposition though.

For myself, I would be happy if the AFA wasn't petty, narky and downright rude to Christians or any other religions on their holy days. The AFA has many other opportunities where it can engage in polite and respectful informing and debate.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 5 January 2013 3:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

Sorry to let you know but you do not dictate what and what not can be discussed on this forum. If you are offended by my posts, then my suggestion is to not look at them. The censorship you suggest is typical of religion which fears critical examination of the effects of its mores, tenets and traditions on ordinary people.

Some parts of Islam, which is a religion, would kill others if they criticise it, Christianity used to do the same until the enlightening clipped its claws.

Are you suggesting that atheists criticise Islam which has no effect on politics in Australia just because you want us to. May I suggest you think about why you wish to criticise Islam. How about give us the reasons? You have failed to comment on anything I have said but I expect you to comment on this.

"The AFA has many other opportunities where it can engage in polite and respectful informing and debate."

Yes indeed it does and it makes use of them the same as it does here.

The respect religion demands is not warranted and until it lifts its game there will be people letting it know about its inherent problems. I am one of those people.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 5 January 2013 4:17:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you do play favourites. Prophet's Day is safe but come Easter those Christians will get another roast!

My wager was always a safe bet.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 5 January 2013 7:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

So, you are saying Islam is dangerous to criticise. Of course, you are going to criticise Prophets Day.....because?

Do you intend to do it under the pseudonym of onthebeach or are you suddenly going to gain some intestinal fortitude and do it under your real name. I doubt that very much.

You can't even have a discussion with someone the least likely to harm you, me, an atheist, using your real name.

Notice, I do use my real name.

It is possibly about time you answered my questions and made some comment about my statements...dontcha think?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 5 January 2013 7:41:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point is that you play favourites.

But why so? After all, you say your mission is to bring to light the foibles of religion and the intolerance "affecting women, gays/lesbians, those seeking voluntary euthanasia, lack of effective sex education, 30 billion dollars annually non taxed money etc".

Why the obsession with provoking, niggling and roasting Christians?

Aren't the major religions equally offensive and in need of AFA chastisement?

AFA's political correctness perhaps? A cultural cringe?

Just what is AFA policy? The Prophet's Day is imminent and Easter is only eighty something days away. I'd prefer that you leave both alone and conduct a civil debate without trashing religious days. There is no need to do that. It is just rude, a cheap shot. But it is a free country and you are generally welcome to be as offensive as you like.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 5 January 2013 9:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

And you are free to live in a fantasy where no-matter what religion is responsible for, it will have your full support. Religion just loves people like you. Your attitude is a big part of its lifeblood.

In Australia, Christianity is responsible for undemocratic follies which I won't enunciate as they are in many posts. Therefore, the AFA concentrates on Christianity. Is there a word or idea in those couple of sentences you are having trouble understanding?

The main religions have negative impact on the planet but (again) we are talking about Australia and it is the Atheist Foundation of Australia. Again, is there some word in there that's a problem?

As a point of interest, where do you propose that the AFA should carry out its mandate?

Of course, you have it all worked out without even having to think and why should you give any answers or comments to anything I might say. You consider you are right by self-decree with no justification needed.

I think Thomas Jefferson had it right with this little quote.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them"

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 5 January 2013 11:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
You are out of your depth if you claim Australia needs atheism more than any other country in the world because of the influence of Christianity. Australia has just been ranked #2 in the world of all Countries to live in because of the hospitality of its people.

Countries where Christians have been predominant are amongst the most affluent in the World. You claim science has the answers to understanding the Universe, not beliefs. Teach science not attitudes to others beliefs.

You are deceived by your own importance and obsessive motive to deny the existence of a super intelligence behind all reality. History will record your importance to Australian Society. Not likley. Get a real cause, where change for the betterment of people will occurr. Start with an African Country.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 6 January 2013 6:59:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

“You are out of your depth if you claim Australia needs atheism more than any other country in the world because of the influence of Christianity. Australia has just been ranked #2 in the world of all Countries to live in because of the hospitality of its people.”

Can you point out where I have stated Australia needs atheism more than any other country?

Australia is near top of the list because it is one of most secular nations on earth. The more religious influence in a country, the more indices of dysfunction exist. This is observable to the reasonably astute and is backed by this study. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP073984414.pdf

“Countries where Christians have been predominant are amongst the most affluent in the World.”

This is untrue except for the USA where the dysfunction indices are off the scale.

Who is actually out of their depth on this matter because it is not me?

“You claim science has the answers to understanding the Universe, not beliefs. Teach science not attitudes to others beliefs.”

I don’t claim that at all. Science has the best method for understanding the universe. That doesn't mean it has all the answers.

“You are deceived by your own importance and obsessive motive to deny the existence of a super intelligence behind all reality. History will record your importance to Australian Society. Not likley. Get a real cause, where change for the betterment of people will occurr. Start with an African Country.”

I don’t consider I'm important at all and I don’t deny the existence of a super-intelligent something. Rather, I consider it most improbable. On the other hand you take the possibility of super intelligence and turn it in Yahweh/Jesus. Fine, if you want to believe that. Just don’t expect privilege and the right to impose it on others just because you think it true.

Yes, Africa is a good example of a religious county. The Christian missionaries especially have a lot to answer for.

To stay high up on the successful and happiness list, there are few greater causes than separating church and state.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 6 January 2013 8:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, no, Josephus. Not "define", but "entitle"...

<<Since Stephen Hawkins can define his TV presentation as "THE GRAND DESIGN"...>>

I think David said all that needs to be said here.

<<A grand design indicates a designer at work in the physical.>>

Ah, the watchmaker fallacy.

If everything is design, then what could you possibly be comparing it to, to recognise it as such? One of the methods we use to spot design is by comparing it to that which is naturally occurring. But you're saying that everything natural is design too!

<<If you had read my previous post you would recognise God is revealed in the spiritual.>>

Yes, and did you see my response regarding claims of transcendence? Same goes for the spiritual. 

But okay then, explain how exactly God is revealed in the spiritual and how we verify that what we have found is in fact God and not just the product of an overly creative and emotional disposition.

<<God is Spirit, that is why we are to exhalt in worship pure motives, holy character, grand design, great deeds, and sacrificial acts.>>

Well I've never suggested God was physical, but if these are the things in which God is revealed, then you would need to demonstrate the they are not possible without God for there to be anything reliable about the evidence and revelation. Unless God is just making himself an unnecessary second layer to all these things. In which case, it wouldn't say much for a god who apparently has an important message for us all if he's just dicking around and hiding in emotive stuff. 

<<You yourself are expressing a low view of wonderment that is beyond the physical.>>

No, I'm just not willing to make stuff up to express it. 

<<To you everything is only physical sciences that can be defined by man.>>

Yes, but I remain open to the possibility of something else if the evidence ever suggests.

Unlike theists, atheists have the luxury of being able to change their minds, without the fear of retribution or losing a comfort blanket, if they are shown to be wrong. 
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 6 January 2013 10:50:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFA,
In your own words. "In Australia, Christianity is responsible for undemocratic follies which I won't enunciate as they are in many posts. Therefore, the AFA concentrates on Christianity. Is there a word or idea in those couple of sentences you are having trouble understanding?

The main religions have negative impact on the planet but (again) we are talking about Australia and it is the Atheist Foundation of Australia. Again, is there some word in there that's a problem?

As a point of interest, where do you propose that the AFA should carry out its mandate?"

My Local Church and I support the building of primary and High Schools in Kenya as one project among many to overcome pagan superstition, ignorance and tribal fighting and bring children into first World Education and employment standards. What is AFA doing in Kenya? Teaching atheism as the answer??
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 6 January 2013 11:34:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,
I do not accept everything religious people believe, as my writings as an independent thinker will show, nor everything I hear from pulpits. I fear no retribution or rejection as you would like to believe.

However I do support intelligent understanding of spirituality and the revelation of the character of God in our world. The revelation through persons who are made in God's image and have his heart. Persons who show selfess care for others, who have the capacity to hold no ill toward an enemy, and do genune deeds of kindness for them.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 6 January 2013 11:51:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Still picking and choosing in what to comment on, so I see. I guess you are used to that, after all that is what religions do with the content of their holy books. Ah, well, let’s move on.

“My Local Church and I support the building of primary and High Schools in Kenya as one project among many to overcome pagan superstition, ignorance and tribal fighting and bring children into first World Education and employment standards. What is AFA doing in Kenya? Teaching atheism as the answer??”

The AFA is a philosophical/education organisation. It is not a philanthropic one, nor is it a religion. It would be like asking a philosophy club or a chess club what they are doing for world poverty. Individual atheists support all kinds of organisations designed to help the underprivileged. Atheists do not do this for a supernatural or temporal reward but because it is the right thing to do.

I'm not decrying donations your church makes to Uganda but really, replacing superstition with another superstition has shown not to be very helpful in Africa. How much of the money donated goes on the indoctrination of the young?

You seem not to be reading the words of others. One cannot teach atheism. One arrives at the atheistic stance individually when evidence supporting the wild claims of religion is not forthcoming. This coupled with acknowledging there are many religions, immense suffering on the planet and the antiquated ideas in most religions is the reason religion is being dropped in Australia in droves. People become atheists because maintaining a state of cognitive dissonance becomes too much to accommodate or they were never indoctrinated in the first place.

And of course, the negative results of religion on society are very hard to miss for those who have removed their reality hindering faith-oriented blinkers.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 6 January 2013 12:37:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was wrong. What about, you may ask? I said to OzSpen: “Notice, I was speaking of Australia. It is purported that Christianity (And other religions) are growing in backward nations. That is not a recommendation; it is sad fact if true.”

I did say religion was “purported” to be growing in other nations. Actually, it is not.

http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf

And politicians, read this as it has a commentary about American politics that Australian politicians had better wake up to as the non-religious quotient in Australia is far higher.

From here.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/10/survey-says-atheism-is-on-the-rise-worldwide-and-in-america/

“What does all this mean? For America, where only 60% of the population calls themselves “religious,” and an additional 30% calls themselves “non-religious,” politicians are making a big mistake by ignoring us during election seasons. As philanthropist Todd Stiefel pointed out in an email, “they go after Jews (1%), African Americans (12.6%) and Hispanics (16.3%) like crazy, but [the] non-religious+atheist crowd (35%) is larger than those three groups combined (29.9%).”

Parliamentarians, we are non-religious, we are an appreciable (growing) number and we vote.

If you continue to take note of the unrepresented of Christianity, Australian Christian Lobby, you do so at the cost of your individual and party demise.

Tell Tony and Julia about it. That would be a wise move.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 6 January 2013 2:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
What social and physical benifits has atheism brought to Australia and the USA, other than a negative belief system? "This life is all there is so grab all you can to enjoy." A rather selfish indulgent life in Western society, "Look after #1"
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 6 January 2013 7:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

I suppose you know that I know that it is pointless having meaningful discussion with you. Unfortunately, you are too far gone into fantasy land to be able to discern fact from fiction. That's OK but it is a warning to others that religion can lead in this direction.

Australian politicians are allowing this kind of mindset into the state school system and some children will be affected in this manner. This is beyond disgraceful.

I honestly thank you for supplying the opportunity to provide an insight into your mind and your narrow interpretation of reality. Your critical thinking skills have been wrenched from you by others. I think you should blame them and not me.

And just for your interest, the position of president of the AFA is an unpaid voluntary one and it is quite demanding on my time.

I suppose you think I am fulfilling the Stephen Hawking video and gaining souls for Satan. Of course, you won't admit that you even watched if you did, which is unlikely. And one has to accept that the fictional character of Satan actually exists. All atheist and that includes me, don't.

I wish you well.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 6 January 2013 7:39:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
For your information, I also do not believe in a singular being called Satan. My commentary on the book of Job, as my defence against Gnosticism outlines. The term satan in Hebrew means any opponent, and equally refers to any opposition. In current thought he wears human clothes, and is an opponent of good attitudes, character and behaviour.

Obviously your reading of my views is very faulty. I do watch the Stephen Hawking presentations but do not accept his unfounded conclusion regarding his dismissal of a Creator intelligence.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 6 January 2013 8:33:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josehpus,

Yes, I was using the common interpretation which possibly originated as exampled here. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=satan

"Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. [Elaine Pagels, "The Origin of Satan," 1995]"

Can I take it from that, you believe in the official nasty, the 'Devil'? I, of course, do not.

I think that Stephen Hawking would accept your disbelief in his views and I am absolutely sure he would not threaten you with hell for not accepting them.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 6 January 2013 8:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

I’m not sure where I’ve said, or how I’ve implied, that you accept everything religious people believe or say.

<<I do not accept everything religious people believe, as my writings as an independent thinker will show, nor everything I hear from pulpits.>>

With literally hundreds of contradictions in the Bible (http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf), you’re obviously not going to believe EVERYTHING others say and believe. You need to cherry-pick the parts that suit you - seemly unaware that truth is not something we can pick and choose as we please.

<<I fear no retribution or rejection as you would like to believe.>>

And I didn’t say anything about rejection either. David was right; you are not reading the words of others.

<<However I do support intelligent understanding of spirituality and the revelation of the character of God in our world. The revelation through persons who are made in God's image and have his heart.>>

But again, though, how do you know this? How can you verify that it is his heart we have and not just our own? Because the Bible says so? Were we given God’s heart, or did we give God ours when the Bible was written? Did God create us in his image, or did we create him in ours?

The evidence for God, and the way in which he reveals himself, is pretty damn poor if there are other more rational explanations.

<<Persons who show selfess care for others, who have the capacity to hold no ill toward an enemy, and do genune deeds of kindness for them.>>

And again, for this to hold any weight, you would need to demonstrate that all this is impossible without God.

I’d also note that this runs in complete contradiction with runner’s evidence of God; which is apparently revealed in our “Adamic” nature. According to runner, we’d all be perfect had God not existed and the fact that we’re not perfect is proof of his existence.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 7 January 2013 10:50:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The concept of the Devil is a Roman idea expressed in the Greek; if goodnes comes from God then evil comes from one who opposes God.

Jesus uses the term to identify ideas opposed to, or a corruption of the truth of God. He says to orthodox Jews who tried to identify him with a pagan god Baalzebub. They upheld their orthodoxy as sons of Abraham because of their geanealogy. Because they had corrupted the truth Abraham held Jesus says,"You are of your father the Devil" - meaning your belief is opposed to the grace and truth of God". The truth being "There is only one God". [The universe though diverse operates as a unit.]
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 7 January 2013 11:36:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

That didn’t answer the question I asked nor did it make much sense.

I’ll ask a few more.

1. Do you believe the Devil is a real entity as you believe your god is?

2. Do you believe the Devil entity exists in Hell?

3. Do you believe the ‘souls’ of ‘sinners’ go to Hell and are tortured by the Devil entity and/or its minions or both for eternity?

4. Do you believe that children should be indoctrinated with these ghastly ideas?

5. Do you believe the demons cast out from humans into swine, apparently an act of mercy by Jesus (in one version of the 'event) instead of sending them to Hell, were real demon entities?

(Footnote: Jesus wasn't all that merciful to the swine as they not only had uninvited demons forced into them but they subsequently drowned – I understand that animal rights groups at the time were outraged as well they should have been)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 7 January 2013 12:04:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Do you believe the Devil is a real entity as you believe your god is?
Answer: It is man who is at enmity with the purity of God.

2. Do you believe the Devil entity exists in Hell?

Answer: Hell is the eternal termoil state of the soul of the person who's life is opposed to the purity of God. It is an unfulfilled life that has never realised the desire for righteousness.

3. Do you believe the ‘souls’ of ‘sinners’ go to Hell and are tortured by the Devil entity and/or its minions or both for eternity?

Answer: people who follow evil men and ideas find themselved in eternal torment.

4. Do you believe that children should be indoctrinated with these ghastly ideas?

Answer: Do we warn children of consequences of bad behaviour?
As well as example ourselves and teach good character, motives and actions. Some use fear to control children which is poor parenting.

5. Do you believe the demons cast out from humans into swine, apparently an act of mercy by Jesus (in one version of the 'event) instead of sending them to Hell, were real demon entities?

Answer: NO! I've written a whole article on this. The man himself believed he was posessed of demons; identified when Jesus asked his name. Jesus never stated people were posessed by demons unless they themselves believed they were. A common idea of the culture of the time to understand antisocial behaviour was to consider the person demonic. Demons were a Greco-Roman cultural idea not a Christian concept. Jesus freed people from the belief they were demonic.

The text says it was the man now empowered who sent the swine into the sea. This to him indicated he was freed of the social stigma and in his right mind
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 7 January 2013 3:30:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

These are your answers of sorts:

1. Ambiguous but possibly no Devil. (This is not a common thought in Christianity but I guess your interpretations is the correct one)

2. Yes there is a hell. (If there is no Devil, who runs Hell?)

3. Yes, people are tortured forever in hell. (By who or by whom if there is no Devil?)

4. Not a distinct answer to, ‘should children be terrorised by stories of hell’. Some use fear to control children is a strange comment. (As Hell is part and parcel of religion, that means not some, but the majority of religious parents teach of the terror of Hell.)

5. That is one interpretation of the Gadarene Swine myth. (One assumes that other interpretations are wrong?)

How wonderful is the religious mindset that can accommodate that people can be tortured forever. I know of no human who would be deserving of such a monstrous punishment. I know of no human who would deliver that kind of torment. It is far more than a psychopathic action.

Hiding from what effect this might have on children is a big problem with religion. It is one of the biggest problems with religion.

And the Australian government is foisting this onto children in thousands of state schools. It is not uncommon for children to inform their parent that the parents are going to hell if they don’t accept Jesus as their saviour. The children don’t even know what they are saying. All they have is the fear factor of eternal torture. It physically sickens me to the stomach every time I hear that a child has succumbed to this insidious religious propaganda whilst in the care of the government. I never get used to it.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 7 January 2013 4:17:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

You are an activist and an atheist so the description is apt and remains.

As to absolutism, its mildly amusing that your view that only your understanding of the term is valid. An absolutist about absolutism.

This is of course, quite standard among the zealot. In David's world, he is both rational and educated and therefore the conclusions he's reached about the deity (or anything else for that matter) are rational and educated. It follows therefore that anyway who has reached different conclusion is either irrational and/or uneducated. This theme continues on the AFA website where belief in the supernatural is considered to be infantile and the result of brainwashing.

So let's consider some of the people who would be considered to be the victims of brainwashing such that they aren't rational or educated enough to avoid infantile beliefs. Let's ignore all the great minds of history and look at the last generation or so....K.Rudd, K.Beazley (snr and jnr), T.Blair, Obama, JFK, Pachauri. All of these believe(d) in " imaginary supernatural beings" and therefore, in AFA-world are irrational/uneducated/brainwashed.
Obama is particularly interesting. Having been raised in an atheist household, he came to his 'irrational' views in adulthood. That type of thing probably doesn't compute in AFA-world.

The fact is that millions upon millions of people come to belief in a deity not through irrationality or lack of education or brainwashing. They look at the same world as David and come to different conclusions. It takes a certain type to assume that they are therefore stupid.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 7 January 2013 7:09:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Who do you think you are fooling with the ‘activist atheist’ comments? You use it as though demonstrating that religion has negative effects on actual people is a bad thing. Grow up.

Let’s not beat around the bush here, what am I absolutist about. Why do you have to play with words to try and make a point? A point that is nonsense, might I add.

There are many opinions on the AFA website and they don’t necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone but the author. It seems trite to ask this continually, but have you a point to make about this. If so make it and stop fudging. Yes, I try to be rational and I am sorry to hear you consider that a bad thing. Educational levels haven’t a great deal to do with belief in a god or not but they appear to be significant statistically.

That you have to bring in the argument from authority of such wonderful people who are religious smacks of that you have no case. What if I brought in Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins and a whole heap of others, would that be proof of anything. No, it is not.

Then it is the argument ad populum. Saints preserve us, do you read anything? Just because a billion people believe in Islam, does that make Allah real?

I see you are sensitive about being ‘stupid’. Actually, that doesn't have a whole lot to do with being religious. Cultural indoctrination and evolution propensity are the main components. Can you point out where I have called religious people, stupid?

Again, I certainly hope that government minders are watching this thread and working out that the unhealthy mix of religion in politics and state schools is not going to benefit Australian citizens or the polity in future. You are doing your political masters a disservice if you refuse to inform them very strongly that the changing attitudes of the average person will not continue to accommodate antiquated ideas formed in the cauldrons of an ignorant antiquity.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 7 January 2013 7:40:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David seems to think that democracy would work better in a secular world where people weren't brainwashed into beleifs that he considers infantile. It is a unifying feature of the zealot to think the world would be a better place if only there were more people like them.

Just as a thought exercise I'll just put this out. Every time democracy has arisen organically (ie not been imposed) it has been in a highly religiously devout society. We have no examples of how a democracy would work in an atheistic society (ie Athens, Rome, USA, Britain).

On the other hand we have some very good examples of how government and society works when it is dominated by atheists - Germany 1933-45, Soviet Russia, Maoist China. The most murderous regimes of all time.

I think anyone who knows their history would be rather circumspect about living in an atheistic society.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 7 January 2013 7:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Those hackneyed arguments have been handled umpteen times and shown not to hold water. Ideologies that force people to comply is not a part of the discussion we are having. You are living in the dreamland of people who are panicked by the rise of non-religion. It is a worldwide phenomena so you had better get used to it. David Nicholls is not causing this, even though I thank you for the praise, it is the result of people making their own choices.

If you consider that indoctrinating religion is the way to go, then you live in a world where choice is not an option.

Please read this and try to understand that freely chosen atheism has never caused any problems for any society. Freely chosen secular states or those trying to achieve that status are the best protection against ideological take-over that exists for everyone. Do some reading on the topic and get back to me.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 7 January 2013 8:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If atheism is a worldwide phenomena on the rise - I wonder why it's so necessary to jump onto forums to provoke the religious.

Surely they'll just peter out from natural attrition.

Strange.....
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 7 January 2013 8:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

I’d rather you read what I say before commenting. Non-religion is a worldwide phenomenon. Atheism just happens to be one of the groups spearheading it. Social change does not happen without people pointing out problems with the existing system, atheists are doing this.

Do I need to supply other examples where radical change has happened by groups becoming vocal about absurdity?

No one is suggesting that people will not have a choice in choosing religion when they are mature. Can you give me an argument that says such a choice without indoctrination of the young is not a good idea?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 7 January 2013 8:50:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze writes: "Just as a thought exercise I'll just put this out. Every time democracy has arisen organically (ie not been imposed) it has been in a highly religiously devout society. We have no examples of how a democracy would work in an atheistic society (ie Athens, Rome, USA, Britain).

On the other hand we have some very good examples of how government and society works when it is dominated by atheists - Germany 1933-45, Soviet Russia, Maoist China. The most murderous regimes of all time."

Er... Yeah. Because those claims haven't been debunked over and over again on OLO, have they. 

You don't frequent OLO very often, do you, mhaze?

<<I think anyone who knows their history would be rather circumspect about living in an atheistic society.>>

And anyone who knows their philosophy realises just how asinine this argument is since there is nothing within atheism to support what those regimes did.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 7 January 2013 9:30:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I notice that you keep instructing people to read this or that. Perhaps you ought to practice what you preach...or is preach a swear-word in your circles?

I mention a few prominent theists. You immediately assume I'm trying to prove the existence of a deity through an "argument from authority" DESPITE the fact that I specifically said why I was mentioning those names....it was to show that believing in a deity doesn't necessarily devolve from being irrational or uneducated or brainwashed or infantile or ignorant. But instead of addressing that point, you run off on some silly tangent.
Then you assert that I'm making a "argument ad populum"! Where I'm supposed to have made such an argument is anyone's guess but anything to avoid the actual point, heh?

So let me (again) make the actual point.I am agnostic on the question of the deity. There may be one (or more), there may not be. We'll never know until after we leave this mortal coil and then, if there is indeed a soul, we'll each have our answer, or not. In the meantime I'll remain agnostic.

But others have made that decision one way or t'other and that's fine with me. I don't consider them ignorant or brainwashed or irrational. Likewise, as regards atheists, I don't consider them to be overly simplistic in their thinking. Each of us has to look at the issue in their own way and come to their own conclusion. And no particular conclusion is better or worse than another since none can be shown to be right or wrong.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 10:44:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/cont

As a libertarian, I am content, even anxious, that people be allowed to live their lives as they want, provided it doesn't interfere with those same rights of others. If people want to live a religious life that's fine with me. Equally if they want to raise their children in a religious life, that's also fine with me. I am opposed to any attempts to impose outside views on a parent who is raising their child in a loving, caring environment. I view all your scare-mongering about kids being traumatised about the after-life as so much bunkum. Apart from quoting a few disgruntled converts, you have no evidence for that. It is merely an excuse to try impose your wishes on others- in this case to impose your views on how kids should be raised on others. And that in my view is wrong. I note your rather comical schizophrenia on this point. On the one hand you want to tell us about all those poor kids being damaged by hell stories and that the indoctrination of the church is so very successful. Then on the the other, you want to tell us about the growing masses who are rejecting the churches indoctrination. Double-think lives.

As regards the issue of atheistic regimes, I specifically wasn't saying that all atheistic societies would be like Stalin's Russia. But in the same way that a religious societies are sometimes less than admirable, equally atheistic societies are not always as you'd imaging them. But you immediately leap to the conclusion that I'm saying all atheist societies would lead to the gulag. Its that famed absolutism again - `he's saying its not white so he must think its black. But the world is indeed all shades of grey.

Finally I object to your smarmy view that your views are rational, educated and correct while others are irrational, infantile and plain wrong. From what we've seen here, rational isn't one of the words that pops into one's mind when describing our David.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 10:47:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Can you name the contemporary persons I have called "ignorant or brainwashed or irrational"? Possibly the word irrational has entered my lexicon as religion can cause that. And I agree, religion is not the only reason for irrationality.

Religious indoctrination is not an individual accusation against the intelligence of a person, although statistically that is possibly correct, it is a fact for the reasons I have given and repeated needlessly.

As I have stated, a survey of top scientists at the Academy of Sciences only had 7% who believed in any kind of god. One would have to assume these are intelligent people.

Using Occam's razor, what is the best explanation for a particular person claiming that a particular god/religion (Or sect of a particular religion)is true. Make of that as you will.

There is no way to work out which god/religion is true, if any or if the person proclaiming such internal 'proof' is telling the truth as she/he sees it, is deluded (Humans can be deluded as many religions demonstrates) or is lying.

Internal 'proof' is okay for an individual. It is not OK for that internal 'proof' to be foisted onto the malleable minds of children by government or used in policy making by parliamentarians.

This is all very simple stuff.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:04:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

I posted before your last effort was noticed. And a slight correction. The phrase, "Make of that as you will." should have been following, "One would have to assume these are intelligent people."

Why you have to play on the rights of parents to indoctrinate their children when I have specifically stated a case against governments doing so. Are you intentionally attempting to muddy the waters or have you decided that is what I must mean. Which, of course, it isn't.

My personal opinion is that parental control of information given to their offspring should be all encompassing. One would hope that stigma against harmful indoctrination will become more widespread. I am not advocating legal remedies.

I think your 'double-think comment qualifies for a position next to 'reds-under-the-bed'. Non-religion is increasing dramatically. This doesn't meant that religion has gone away. There is still much work to be done.

Backtracking on atheist societies was an interesting ploy. Australia is a good example of a godless society and and no one is jumping on rickety boats to leave it. Can you name a few democratic societies where atheism is causing problems anywhere near the problems caused by religions in all societies?

I have never said my views were "educated" but I do try to be rational. You should also.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:26:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh boy, mhaze. You really did come late to this thread...

<<And no particular conclusion is better or worse than another since none can be shown to be right or wrong.>>

And this is where every agnostic goes wrong. Just because we can't know with absolute certainty one way or the other, that doesn't mean we can't reach a high degree of certainty. 

These things aren't always black and white, you know. The world is indeed all shades of...

Hang on, where did I just hear that?

<<Its that famed absolutism again - `he's saying its not white so he must think its black. But the world is indeed all shades of grey.>>

There it is. 

Speaking of the "absolutism again", it was actually your fellow agnostics who couldn't break themselves away from this black and white way of thinking, not David or anyone else. 

You have just demonstrated precisely why the inability think in shades of grey (or "absolutism") had been raised on this thread and yet here you are desperately trying to pin this mode of thought on David.

Shameful.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 3:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFoAI>> Non-religion is increasing dramatically.<<

Sorry sport, we can't have you making fact less statements.
Christianity in the first world is abating at a rate of knots. But the second and third worlds are booming. There are more Christians alive now than at any other time. Further, what about the other major religions of the world. Do you know there are more practicing Muslims alive now than at any other period in history? Probably not.

David, the relatively affluent consumer society has left God. You may as well call them the Caucasians, and Caucasians make up less than 15% of the globes population.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 4:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

As you are obviously not reading the thread and just taking pot-shots using an obvious very inferior weapon every now and then, read this previous post and maybe even go to the links provided. Now, isn't that a novel idea.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif

Get back to me on this.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 4:58:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curses, she cried. I'm wasting a post. The link I supplied was wrong. This is the one to which I was referring.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#152718

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 5:03:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips>> Oh boy, mhaze. You really did come late to this thread...
And this is where every agnostic goes wrong. Just because we can't know with absolute certainty one way or the other, that doesn't mean we can't reach a high degree of certainty.<<

Aj, I told you earlier in the thread that dressing up a “guess” in terms likes “high degree of certainty" does not make it so. Or any more a valid “guess” than anyone else’s given the subject matter. All you have to refute a creator is the physical and your own minds penchant for an answer that suits it.

Given we are talking the ethereal, where does physics come into it, and that is what your mind is using to gain a conclusion. You can only have a “high degree of certainty” if you know what “was” before the big bang tiger.

Best guess from our brightest is that a molecule the size of a single atom explodes and created everything. The molecule was just sitting there waiting, if you can use that term, because it had substance but it had no time. Then bang, from nothing to everything....who lit the wick? The nature of matter is that you cannot destroy it.
Burn it or degrade it, it remains in one form or another. But we know all matter originated 13 Billion years ago. What created matter?

AJ that last line reminded me of a line the devil says to a demon in Time Bandits "I made mysef, I cannot be unmade"....great line.


Just tell about what “was” one second before the big bang and then you could claim a degree of certainty, other than that you are guessing like the rest of us. About the semantics of your title.You can only be agnostic. Atheist is a psychological term invented for supremists who delude themselves that they absolutely, categorically, unmistakenly,know what what happened 13 Billion years ago.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 5:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I've debated with myself after reading all the threads, whether to ask a polite question without risk of offending you.

As I've previously said, I also had a religious background as a child, but in my head then I wasn't tortured by thoughts of hell. Rather my idea of God was more that of a nebulous figure who would back up my parents when they sought to disipline me [on the rare occasions I needed it :)].

So, here goes. Do you think that your upbringing as a Catholic was so damaging that it has carried over into adulthood for you?
Is it possible that other variations of religious belief can more easily be left behind?

Speaking just for myself, I honestly don't think there is any religious residue left from what I was taught as a child. Have given this a lot of thought, because there are plenty of other things which have stayed with me as an adult. However, we were taught to have respect, be kind to other people,and the main one I remember is " If you can't be nice, try not to be nasty". That has really stuck in my head over the years.

I appreciate this thread has stirred deep emotions within Forum ranks which is a shame, because as individuals, regardless of belief/non-belief I'd like to think we're basically all good people, and even words can be hurtful - once given, they can't be retracted.
Posted by worldwatcher, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 5:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFoAI>> Curses, she cried. I'm wasting a post. The link I supplied was wrong. This is the one to which I was referring.<<

Yes David I agree, the post limitations break the flow of a thread. Can’t think of a valid reason for it, but I don’t know the issues the administrator has seen…must be a reason.

>> sonofgloin, As you are obviously not reading the thread and just taking pot-shots using an obvious very inferior weapon every now and then, read this previous post and maybe even go to the links provided. Now, isn't that a novel idea.<<

Had a look at the link…tell me how the percentages given give an overview of the number of people worshiping around the globe? This from your link:
TREND IN RELIGIOSITY INDEX AMONG
40 COUNTRIES SURVEYED IN BOTH WAVES 2005/2012

Pakistan went up from 78% to 84% +6% Pakistan has a population of 190 million

Iceland went down from 74% to 57% -17% Iceland has a population of 320 thousand

David your link then totals up the 40 national percentages and gives a definitive…religion is diminishing globally…..How does that work? It answers nothing.

David you are right I did jump in, I dived out at page 10, but I am back.
Where goods are being sold at ridiculously low prices, I will be there.
Where music is played for free, I will be there.
And for you David:
Where a psychological penchant becomes a pseudo religion, I may as well come too.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 6:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

As to your point about my upbringing making me into an ‘angry atheist’, well there is some truth in that but not as you imagine. My upbringing was most interesting and it taught me heaps more than intended by the various religious components. It gave me the knowledge by my own understanding and by observing those around me at the time that children can be very susceptible to messages given as truth by the authority of adults. Supernatural threats and promises make these stories very believable. On further investigation on maturing I found that the ‘truths’ didn't exist.

And still more investigation demonstrated very clearly that these truths were less than beneficial to many parts of society and indeed to civilisation as a whole.

By a set of circumstance I found myself in the position of being able to do something about this situation and therefore I do.

There is no great mystery here. I have no ill feelings toward the nuns, brothers, priests and those of religious persuasion in my social group. To me, they were the victims of nature and nurture.

I had the fear of hell as did most of my peers but even though I overcame that it was obvious that others did not. It is a constant theme in the interactions I have with atheists and the religious. You must remember that I have contact with countless people of faith and no faith as a part of being the president of the AFA. And having been in the AFA for about 30 years, I know how underrated is the strength of the fear of an eternity of torture. Even many religious people are in denial about the terror they feel on the topic.

The clue to something is wrong with the loving of a god that would allow torture forever for some people is why anyone would love such a monster. The Stockholm Syndrome is possibly the answer.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 6:17:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Worldwatcher>> because as individuals, regardless of belief/non-belief I'd like to think we're basically all good people,<<

I just want to say that WW in no way represents my thoughts about individuals on OLO.

Paul.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 6:19:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFoAI>> The clue to something is wrong with the loving of a god that would allow torture forever for some people is why anyone would love such a monster. The Stockholm Syndrome is possibly the answer<<

I think that WW may have a point.
David you are definitely possessed by saints and demons from your formative years. The above impassioned critique of the “bastard in gods clothing” exhibits a deep psychological wound regarding authority …lol.

Bottom line sport is that I say there is a possibility that there is a creator…it may be a formula, it may be an entity, but there is an alpha…. and we may find it complies with physics.

Is your issue with the concept of a god or the manifestation of it through religious observance. In other words do you hate god or do you hate mankind. Because god or not, mankind is your oppressor. Now there is a truth for you.

David just to let you know I have no personal animosity towards you. But you take it upon yourself to discredit the views of the faithful….why sport? Is it the only philosophical view that you carry, I mean you started up your own incorporated org to battle the faithful. There is a vast difference between an opinion and a mania, what caused your mania?
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 6:42:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

“David your link then totals up the 40 national percentages and gives a definitive…religion is diminishing globally…..How does that work? It answers nothing.”

57 countries were surveyed as an indicative-sample by Gallup.

The dropping-global religious numbers is a sideline to what I was saying. If you can’t imagine how hard it is to get accurate figures, even in Australia, on religiosity, then you are deceiving yourself. But even in Australia with distorted figures the non-religious demographic is increasing very rapidly.

Just for a moment imagine trying to get the truth about religious proclivities in Iran, Pakistan, Uganda and a multitude of other nations. Lives and livelihoods are under threat for divulging such information. Stop trying to make a case when you don’t even know the realities on the planet where religion is involved.

People are being killed and imprisoned for apostasy in many nations and the threat is always there. If you consider for an instant that people being fearful can bring accurate stats on religiosity, then you are living a dream.

And to bring you down off the self-erected-pedestal, the statistics include children under the age of fourteen years. Do your really believe they are little Muslims, Christians, Hindus etc. They are parroting parents. In Australia that is 20% of the population – in the developing nations it could be 30%+. Even adults are confused by religion. If you have a point in all of this, can you clarify it?

The AFA has been operational for about 42 years and was not started by me. I am its third president.

And the proof for your alpha entity is…..?

That you say I have deep psychological wounds is very funny. Have you heard of projecting?

There are all kinds of possibilities but non-delusional people do not support such ideas or act on them until they turn into probabilities. I know that is a bit much for you to comprehend.

Yes, you are correct; there is a difference between a mania and opinion. Mania doesn't require thought. It is my hope you think about that, but you probably won’t.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 7:56:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

Boy, oh boy. I thought we'd already settled this. Or the fact that you had to dodge and weave before you left at least suggested that.

<<I told you earlier in the thread that dressing up a “guess” in terms likes “high degree of certainty" does not make it so.>>

Um... No, you didn't say anything like that. Your talk of guesses ended when I explained that we can reach varying degrees of certainty (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151430).

I have not dressed anything up. You are simply refusing to see the shades of grey in anything. To you, everything is black and white; guess or absolute certainty. And I had explained this, along with the problems with your way of thinking at... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151430

All you came back with was this... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151.

...asking how my determined probability holds more weight. 

To which I then replied explaining how we (and I, on this topic) can reach various levels of certainty (without physics or mathematical equations) and asking you how you reached your conclusion of a probability of precisely 0.5, but you didn't answer... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151490

As I re-iterated in my second post to Lexi (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151561), all we need is reasoned arguments based on logical absolutes to establish the truth of a claim (or at least approach it), but your black and white view of the world prevents you from understanding this. 

<<All you have to refute a creator is the physical and your own minds penchant for an answer that suits it.>>

Yeah, you didn't pay much attention, did you. 

<<You can only have a “high degree of certainty” if you know what “was” before the big bang tiger.>>

Forget "high" degree of certainty, you claim that no degree of certainty is at all possible and worse still, that it becomes a perfect 50/50 thing if that's the case - or so it seems (I'm still waiting on your reasoning as to how you arrived at a probability of precisely 0.5).

As I've explained before, not knowing for sure what happened before the big does not make the creator scenario any more credible. It just means that we don't know.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 8:36:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

And as i have also explained before, given the vast array of explanations we've found for all sorts of different phenomena that had once been thought to be the acts of gods, it is statistically unlikely that a creator would be responsible for the big bang... Tiger. 

<<Then bang, from nothing to everything....who lit the wick?>>

That's only how it appears. On what actually happened, scientists can only hypothesise for now.

There are various hypotheses about what caused and came before the big bang that, while unprovable one way or the other at this point in time, are at least mathematically consistent.

And besides, why does it have to be a "who"?

<<But we know all matter originated 13 Billion years ago. What created matter?>>

Again, in its *current form*, yes. 

<<About the semantics of your title.You can only be agnostic. Atheist is a psychological term invented for supremists who delude themselves that they absolutely, categorically, unmistakenly,know what what happened 13 Billion years ago.>>

Again, show me your references. I provided you with links supporting my definitions and yet you went silent when I asked for your alleged references.

So anyway, my point to mhaze still stands. 
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 8:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David wrote:"Why you have to play on the rights of parents to indoctrinate their children when I have specifically stated a case against governments doing so. Are you intentionally attempting to muddy the waters or have you decided that is what I must mean. Which, of course, it isn't.

My personal opinion is that parental control of information given to their offspring should be all encompassing. "

So, am I to take it from that that you'd support a system whereby parents could choose the education that they wanted? That is, they could choose to send their kids to Catholic, Anglican or whatever schools where they could be educated (traumatised?) as regards hell and all the other (what you refer to as) foibles of the faith?

As to the issue of the alleged decline of faith worldwide which you assert based upon, it has to be said, rather dicey evidence, I offer another perspective for consideration. I think its very true that there is a decline in the advanced west which you put down to better education. On the other hand, perhaps its due to life being so much better in the west as compared the rest and as compared to the past. I think it can be demonstrated that religious adherence climbs in tough times and declines in good. and its been good in the west for a very long time. It may take a while to test but I suspect even a well educated Australia would see a rise in religious fervour if/when times turn tough. I wonder whether your applauding science for having defeated religion may be a case of premature congratulations :).
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 8:42:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,
“So, am I to take it from that that you'd support a system whereby parents could choose the education that they wanted? That is, they could choose to send their kids to Catholic, Anglican or whatever schools where they could be educated (traumatised?) as regards hell and all the other (what you refer to as) foibles of the faith?”

I would accept such a system if the government did not financially-back it. Unfortunately it is a parental right to distort the minds of their children. I therefore could never ethically support it.

So, you are saying, that when people become frightened, poor and insecure that they turn to a god. Do you really consider that is a good thing? Does that somehow make the god exist? Would it not be better to cure the problems?

I’m not denying that the existence of a god is important to impoverished people because that is all they have. I would not wish to take that away from them. But it is a very poor argument to say that educated prosperous nations should turn to a god for that reason.

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the belief in a god is not the big factor. It is the distortion of politics resulting from it that is. It is the fear induced to maintain that belief that is wrong. It is the injustice caused to selected groups. It is the financial burden on all. It is the idea that religion cannot be criticised.

Any ideology that self-replicates by indoctrination, even if it contains truth, and this one doesn't, is not acceptable to any kind of ethics I know of.

It is only in your mind that science is applauding itself for defeating religion. Science doesn't even recognise religion. People in Australia and further afield are defeating religion by not be involved in it. They are voting with their feet and that is what is motivating you to be so opposed to atheism and me.

If the religious position is so secure, why bother with this thread? This very large thread!

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 9:09:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just an after thought, SoG.

Going back to the burden of proof for a moment... On both a practical level and a philosophical level, disbelief* (i.e. atheism) is not only reasonable when the one(s) making the positive claim have not yet fulfilled their burden of proof, it's the default.

On no philosophical level that I'm aware of, is throwing one's hands in the air and just giving up - claiming that's impossible to attain any degree of certainty one way or the other, so why bother trying - a valid response to anything. It's also completely useless on a practical level.

*I realise you have troubles distinguishing between belief and knowledge but no, "disbelief" does not mean absolute certainty. 
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 9:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

You are right of course, children do parrot their parents. When we were very young, until these changing times, our parents were all we had for guidance. Not sure how working Mums and daycare from 6 months old in some cases will alter the future perceptions of today's children. Only time will tell.

Then came our schooldays, and the input from our teachers had to also be heard, though not always heeded as we went from primary to high school. By then we were beginning to think for ourselves, and questioning - all the time challenging what was being fed to us.

Finally thank goodness, we too became adults and gained freedom to become our own person, and choose our own direction.

Now as we grow even older and more mellow [and hopefully wiser too] we can use our varying experiences to be finally content.

I harbour no ill-will towards my father who believed in corporal punishment, as I realise he was a product of his time, or my mother who cried so bitterly that God wouldn't accept her grandchildren if they weren't baptised. To give her comfort we went through what to us was a meaningless ritual, but gave her peace.

My own children were not given corporal punishment, but oh the tears when my youngest misbehaved and had to sit on the wooden kitchen chair for 15 minutes.

Again, only time will prove us right or wrong.

As I do not have the religious belief in a life after death, I'm determined to enjoy this one to the fullest

That's what keeps life so fascinating - not being able to predict the future, savouring each moment, and always hoping the future will improve for our progeny, despite the many mistakes we've probably made raising them.
Posted by worldwatcher, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 10:10:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J Philips>> Again, show me your references. I provided you with links supporting my definitions and yet you went silent when I asked for your alleged references.<<

C’mon AJ, we were debating semantics back on page 10. Fifty pages on and semantics is still the issue. As I said the term atheist is a psychological crutch that describes an opinion that placates a psychological urge to believe without validation, nothing more.....a guess in other words.

AJ keep guessing and call it an outcome if you prefer....but you are still just guessing regardless of your “high degree of certainty”. I might add that the word certainty has “faith” as an alternative in the Oxford thesaurus. So it seems the faithful have faith, as does the atheist…..faith is a guess.

AFoAI>> Finally thank goodness, we too became adults and gained freedom to become our own person, and choose our own direction.<<

You should have a caveat in there sport.
It should read “we too became adults and gained freedom to become our own person, and choose our own direction, except for theists who have no right to an opinion if it is not the same as my personal un validated guesstimation.

Worldwatcher>> or my mother who cried so bitterly that God wouldn't accept her grandchildren if they weren't baptised. To give her comfort we went through what to us was a meaningless ritual, but gave her peace.<<

WW, you have encapsulated the issue, your mum had faith, and your selfless act of baptizing the children placated her. The act of baptism meant nothing to you, but it obviously meant the world to your mum. The likes of the AFoAI set out to destroy the pacifier that the faithful find in their religious dogma.
Posted by sonofgloin, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 5:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

Your story shows luck in that your makeup and abilities allowed for developing your own worldview despite another being imposed upon you as a child. No all are so fortunate. A good example is sonofgloin who finds it impossible to overcome cultural input. Maybe time will alter that.

You made a very important point that this is the only life and we must live it knowing that. It gives a spark to existence that the religious miss out on. Some of the faithful need religion but none of them should have been indoctrinated into needing it. Freely chosen religion when thinking is mature enough to do so is the same as freely choosing atheism.

You are also on the right track with expecting certainty in life. That is an illusion.

David

sonofgloin,

If you cannot be bothered in reading what is in this thread then you should remove yourself from it. But, on the other hand, it is your reputation you are trashing and it is a free country. Surely you realise others are also reading this thread. Anyway, let’s move on.

You have no idea of what is being said, are quoting worldwatcher as though it was me and acting like a real dork overall. You misrepresent my stance either through the ignorance of not taking notice of what is being written or because of an imagined heightened sense of self-importance that requires no investigation as you just know you are right. You have not comprehended what AJ Philips has repeatedly said but continue on as though nothing has been explained and explained in such a fashion as a normal person could comprehend.

I believe you think you are the white night protecting the faithful from the nasty atheist. If you would read the thread you would find it is the ‘nasty’ atheist who is attempting to protect the religious and others from themselves.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 8:13:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

This has become surreal. Not only are you completely incapable of comprehending what others say; you show no desire to comprehend it either.

<<C’mon AJ, we were debating semantics back on page 10. Fifty pages on and semantics is still the issue.>>

Hang on… you’re the one who raised semantics again in your last post to me. I simply responded by asking you for these elusive references regarding your creative definition of atheism.

No, semantics are not the issue. They are just an aside. The actual issue was covered in the 500 or so words of my last postings (which you’ve completely ignored) that came before that.

<<As I said the term atheist is a psychological crutch that describes an opinion that placates a psychological urge to believe without validation, nothing more.....a guess in other words.>>

Yes, I know what you said and I’m asking you to back it up with either these references you spoke of, or some reasoned argument that negates what I’ve been saying.

You’ve provided neither.

You simply ignore what I say and continue on with your demonstrably false assertions as if nothing had been said at all, and that’s rude; particularly when someone takes the time to explain something to you as clearly as they can.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 12:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David and AJ, c’mon boys the thread is 60 pages long, so my posts are repetitive as are yours. David thanks for suggestion that I leave the thread….but it is a bit rich….have you told anyone else to leave the thread? Or can you handle the others?

Yes I am sticking up for the faithful….I wish I had a faith, but I am an agnostic. The only point I have bleated on about is the conclusiveness of your stance without one iota of empirical proof.

There is no creator….fine….prove it.

AJ Philips>> You simply ignore what I say and continue on with your demonstrably false assertions as if nothing had been said at all, and that’s rude; particularly when someone takes the time to explain something to you as clearly as they can<<

AJ, I do apologize for bolting at page 10, but you were not acknowledging my stance and I was not acknowledging yours. You believe that there is no creator and I say that we do not know. Y

You qualify your conviction with such terms as “burden of proof” or “high degree of certainty” which is rubbish verbiage meant to enhance your lack of facts. All I state is one fact….we don’t know.

TBC
Posted by sonofgloin, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 1:27:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The human hands that wrote all the texts for all religions intimate or stated that mankind is singular as the top of the food chain. No mainstream religions acknowledge life except on earth again intimating that we are the creator’s only plaything. The Jews, Christians, and the Muslims even believe we were made in his image.

The universe is a big place and 13 billion years is a while, countless beings should have evolved and declined, but we can find no proof, and I look gents. I am an amateur astronomer and have had my computer linked to the SETI program from the early days.

We still have not found any anomalies that have been repeated. We found a narrowband signal 35 years ago called WOW which bore the expected hallmarks of potential non-terrestrial and non-Solar System origin. Our primitive society has been seeding the universe since Marconi’s first transmission and another low technology civilization can read our footprint. But we have found nothing.

If anything could be gleaned from this it is that we are possibly alone….if that is so it is marker towards a creator given religions all say that we and the creatures of the earth were created as a singularity.

You guys don’t consider that point of view plausible. In fact when I asked you to qualify what “was” before the big bang…..silence. To be an atheist you must know this because the time you now use did not exist before that. But something that produced matter did.

You guys have not got a clue…it’s a pseudo religious activity being a card carrying atheist.
Posted by sonofgloin, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 1:27:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

Are you trying to impress anyone with your scientific expertise because you dabble in amateur astronomy and run the SETI program on your computer? If so, you have failed dismally.

Radio-transmissions have only been sent from earth for about 100 years. At the speed of light they have travelled, although severely weakened in power, for a distance of one hundred light years. That is an infinitesimal distance compared to the 100,000 light years being the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. Or the few million light years to the Andromeda Galaxy or the billions of light years to the furthest galaxies. Humanity has looked at a next to nothing in its quest to find other life forms.

There is the mystery of the Fermi Paradox but there are also hypotheses explaining it somewhat. That discussion is not for this thread.

I'm not going to be side-tracked with a discussion on the possibilities of extra-terrestrial life or intelligence existing but no conclusions that a god exists can be drawn from these facts. When I say that I mean, none zilch, nada, nothing. If anything, that the universe is so huge and the earth but an insignificant spec in it, shows an awful amount of wasted space.

You have failed to keep up with the thread but still prattle on inappropriately without understanding the difference between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’ or recognising there is a difference between a philosophical stance and a practical one. My guess is that your understanding of a ‘hypothesis’ and a ‘theory’ would also be to be too much for you to comprehend.

Here’s a challenge for you. How about sign up to the AFA Forums, introduce yourself and then tell all those ‘dumb’ atheists they have all got it wrong and explain why that is so.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/index.php

I won’t enter the discussion on that forum nor have any input at all. Now, if you are genuine, which you are not, you would do that. But I don’t have to be a seer to know you won’t.

What’s that saying - are yes, “all mouth and trousers”.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 3:40:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SoG,

This is getting repetitive, but at least some onlookers or genuine fence-sitters may find some value in it, so I’ll persist for the time being.

<<The only point I have bleated on about is the conclusiveness of your stance without one iota of empirical proof.>>

You are the only one who has spoken of conclusiveness. There is nothing to say that an atheist cannot change their mind if the evidence dictates, or leave it open for other possibilities.

Like I said before, disbelief is the default position.

<<There is no creator….fine….prove it.>>

Again, burden of proof.

<<You believe that there is no creator and I say that we do not know.>>

Yes, “believe” and “know”.

I also don’t think that we can know, but that doesn’t mean we can’t hold a belief.

You’re REALLY struggling with this, aren’t you.

<<You qualify your conviction with such terms as “burden of proof” or “high degree of certainty” which is rubbish verbiage meant to enhance your lack of facts.>>

Yes, that’s been your allegation. Yet you still have not been able to back it with any evidence or reasoned argument to demonstrate that this is so.

<<The human hands that wrote all the texts for all religions intimate or stated that mankind is singular as the top of the food chain.>>

So what? Ten points to them for observation, eh?

If you’re referring to our apparent uniqueness as humans, then I’d remind you of the other various homininae found in the fossil record and in remote parts of the planet, such as the Neanderthal, whom we wiped out.

<<No mainstream religions acknowledge life except on earth again intimating that we are the creator’s only plaything. The Jews, Christians, and the Muslims even believe we were made in his image.>>

And they would too. They’re all Abrahamic religions with the same origins, and none of those primitive people could have imagined that the specs of light in the night sky were other “suns” with planets. Heck, they thought the entire universe was just a big dome with a flat earth.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 4:19:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<The universe is a big place and 13 billion years is a while, countless beings should have evolved and declined, but we can find no proof...>>

Yes, the universe is a big place and our limited ability to investigate other bodies in the universe, along with the unique conditions required for life, don’t make this at all surprising.

This is not evidence for a creator and nor does it suggest that there is any truth to the claims of the Abrahamic religions. To imply otherwise is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

<<We still have not found any anomalies that have been repeated … our primitive society has been seeding the universe since Marconi’s first transmission and another low technology civilization can read our footprint. But we have found nothing.>>

Marconi’s first signal would have only traveled about 0.11% of our galaxy’s diameter (and let’s not forget the billions of other galaxies In the universe), so it’s not unusual that we haven't found anything.

<<If anything could be gleaned from this it is that we are possibly alone….>>

Possibly, but even if only a very small portion of the billions of stars, in each of the billions - possibly trillions - of galaxies, had planets, then the chances that we are alone in the universe are still extremely small.

<<…if that is so it is marker towards a creator given religions all say that we and the creatures of the earth were created as a singularity.>>

Not really, because it doesn’t say anything for why they actually made those claims. Holy books also imply that the Earth is flat. Is that evidence against a creator?

Of course it isn’t.

<<…when I asked you to qualify what “was” before the big bang…..silence.>>

Utter rubbish. You were given an answer. “I don’t know” is still an answer even if it’s not a satisfying one. Your claim that there was silence was simply inserted for dramatic effect to make us sound clueless - as the rest of your post explicitly alleges.

You have been totally dishonest every step of the way here.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 4:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

A slight correction here. I wasn't making a sweeping statement that this is our only life. What I said was that for myself it is [purely my own] belief. I do not presume to state that my belief should apply for everyone. To each his own.

Many people do good deeds which are directly attributable to the teachings of their church. Many atheists also do good deeds simply because they are good people.

I do not decry my friend's religion which sees them go down to Mexico once a month to distribute food and clothing to the needy. This is a direct result of what they hear in their [born again] christian church.

By the same token, we as atheists have also contributed food and clothing to those less fortunate than ourselves.

I therefore don't see big differences between believers and non believers, but more as a difference between good and bad, or caring humans as opposed to selfish ones.

Being rather outside the main stream on this issue I never attempt to argue my theory, but am content that, as I said previously, I can live my life without the stress of examining in more depth a matter I resolved years ago.

Sonofgloin,
My love for my mother transcended my own ideals. And I still don't regret it. Such a small sacrifice on our part as a token of my love for her, who had made so many big sacrifices for her children - as did my father. Love is a 2 way street.
Posted by worldwatcher, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 4:30:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

I said, “You made a very important point that this is the only life and we must live it knowing that.” I was pointing out something that is important to remember and you also had that thought personally. I’m not suggesting you want all to accept that.

Sorry if there was ambiguity in the way I expressed it. I make that statement reasonably often as do other atheists as a way to place focus on an idea that some are not used to or have not contemplated.

I agree, doing good deeds is a human and not solely a religious imperative. Although, I can imagine some religious folk do good deeds to get into heaven. The paying of ‘indulgences’ to the RC Church was a reasonably good example of that. I think, that even though the official practice has ceased, the idea remains.

To me, sitting on the fence of ‘live and let live’ breaks down as one side is not fulfilling its ‘let live’ part of the bargain. I therefore stand against it. This does not mean that everyone should do likewise, but those who see the problems with religion have an obligation to take that into account at the polling booth. That is if the idea of equality in democracy is important to them.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 5:47:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I did a quick survey of the 7 currently-employed state school teachers I know. None of them are aware of any instances where kids in state schools are taught fire and brimstone type religion. So you are basically calling for a system that is already in place. No religion in state schools, anything goes in private schools as regards religious instruction. Glad we got there.

David wrote:"So, you are saying, that when people become frightened, poor and insecure that they turn to a god. Do you really consider that is a good thing? Does that somehow make the god exist?"

Its neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Its just a truth of the human condition. Remember those atheistic regimes I mention earlier? They also wanted to change the human condition. The Soviets called is perfecting man.
Belief doesn't make God exist. The deity exists (or doesn't) irrespective of belief.

"I’m not denying that the existence of a god is important to impoverished people because that is all they have. I would not wish to take that away from them. But it is a very poor argument to say that educated prosperous nations should turn to a god for that reason."

It goes deeper than that. We in the west have divorced ourselves from the essential life forces. People don't see miracle of birth and renewal. Even the birth of our own progeny is mired in tubes, forceps and chemicals. And likewise, death is hidden away and sanitised. Poorer people are closer to the essential life forces and are therefore more likely to see the wonder of life. That's why they believe in the deity.

"It is only in your mind that science is applauding itself for defeating religion."
Well since that's not what I said at all, it probably isn't in my mind. You've spent so much time putting words in my mouth I've had to increase my dental hygiene regime.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 7:46:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips>> You have been totally dishonest every step of the way here.<<

Sorry you feel that way AJ, I found you committed and succinct, but I still don't agree with your rationalization of what is.

ALoAI>> Here’s a challenge for you. How about sign up to the AFA Forums, introduce yourself and then tell all those ‘dumb’ atheists they have all got it wrong and explain why that is so <<

David old bean, thanks for the offer but the atheist/ agnostic debate is too circular for me to dive into another forum to continue it…..Why don’t you bring the guys to this forum if you are having difficulty overcoming me. David tell them that OLO is like the Darwin philosophy forum used to be….a lot of bright people no matter what their opinions,…. they might like it….Hang on…is it not poor form trying to poach posters from other sites? Nah, I’m staying put for now.

>>Are you trying to impress anyone with your scientific expertise because you dabble in amateur astronomy and run the SETI program on your computer? If so, you have failed dismally<<

Yeah sure David, I’m a stargazer, I’m the oracle………Yeah, get the other boys to come over you are doing terrible.
Posted by sonofgloin, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 8:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Small sample anecdotes when you don’t even understand the complexity involved does not mean anything. There are thousands of Christian fundamentalist chaplains in state schools and religious education classes are common. Even though these are two distinct situations they demonstrate to children that they are accepted by the schools and government. Kids believe adults and some of these ‘instructors’ do give the hell message. They should not be in state schools period as the potential zealotry is well known about. Read the mission statements of Access Ministries.

If the chaplains and religious instructors were Muslim, atheists or Nazis, (Nazis were Christian) would you still agree to this system.

You mean tyrannical communist ideologies that did not like competition from the churches. This argument is so weak as to be non-existent. What has this to do with atheism freely chosen in a democracy? I despair at your gullibility.

Uneducated people see the world in uneducated terms. It has nothing to do with be closer to nature. That is nonsense. They are scientifically illiterate and that is why they are still slaughtering children as witches in Africa.

Here is what you said about science defeating religion.

“ I wonder whether your applauding science for having defeated religion may be a case of premature congratulations :).”
And here is what I said, "It is only in your mind that science is applauding itself for defeating religion."

Here is your latest reply to that.

“Well since that's not what I said at all, it probably isn't in my mind. You've spent so much time putting words in my mouth I've had to increase my dental hygiene regime.”

So, exactly what words did I place in your mouth? It's obvious, your increase in dental hygiene was nowhere near enough?

I hope you can do better than this.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 8:34:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin,

My prediction was correct then. I just love the way you skirt nearly every comment and question and make out you are in control. It's obvious that inside you are in panic mode but have to try and maintain a show of strength. Very macho but better you than me.

And you can't even come up with an original idea about visiting another forum. You would get intellectually slaughtered over there, worse than you have here, and you know it.

It would be for your benefit to at least think about what others are saying. There is no shame in being wrong but there is in maintaining stubborn falsehood.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 8:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Thank you for clarifying that point.

I do understand that in your position in the Atheist Foundation it is exigent for you to promote your cause in the same way as a Priest vicar or any other religious leader would promote theirs.

Not quite sure how the polling booth can define anything other than politics, as I thought we had a separation of church and state in Australia.

Whichever party wins the next election, one would sincerely hope that parents will first and foremost pay attention to a party which can provide a better level of education for their children, and a stable future for themselves.
Posted by worldwatcher, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 9:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALoAI>> sonofgloin,

My prediction was correct then.<<

Thank god for that David. You are good at predictions. Perhaps you should rename the incorporated to "Australian Prediction Society".
Posted by sonofgloin, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 9:36:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but there is no official or unofficial separation of church and state in Australia. If there was there would be no chaplains in state schools and no religious indoctrination classes in state schools and no financial assistance to private schools not following the state school curriculum and abiding by the laws regarding discrimination.

This is why religious leader are vehemently opposed to formalising the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with an ethical stance, it is plainly and simply wishing to hang on to the privileges they now enjoy. And they are taking Australia for a ride whilst doing it.

My point about voters making a choice at the polling booth is that if a politician shows that she/he votes for faith initiatives not supported by empirical evidence or the electorate then that should be taken into account. Why anyone would vote for a politician who represents her/his religion in preference to the electorate on any matter is beyond me. But, unfortunately it happens.

Sometimes I really do wonder how the democracy we have actually happened.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 9:42:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I lost my post to you. Have to start over, and be more careful with the buttons.
I wasn't aware that religous education was still a part of the curriculum in all state schools, especially as we now have a growing Muslim population.

I only have known one school chaplain. She informed me that her job was similar to that of a school counselor. We have now lost touch, but I don't know how she jumped from school bus driver to chaplain with no qualifications. Unless we count the time she paid for a few months tuition in the States which was run by some obscure sect many years ago.
This lady has at various times thought she could heal through 'laying on of hands'. Another time she claimed to talk in tongues and to be able to understand others who did this. Personally I see her as a danger to impressionable children, however well meaning she thinks she is.

You astound me David. One would think it logical to separate politics and religion. This then makes us no different than Muslims, where the two are so firmly entwined. And we're supposed to be a democratic society. How can we be that until politics and religion are separated? Now you're telling in effect that we have no choice in this matter.

If there is anyone from Singapore who reads this thread, I would very much like to know how they separate all their various religions from their politics.
Posted by worldwatcher, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 11:18:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worldwatcher,

The choice to opt-out of ‘religious instruction’ (code for Christian indoctrination) is in most state-schools. It should at least be opt-in to make up for parents who haven’t a clue or are too busy trying to survive to think about it.

This is a separate issue from the Christian chaplaincy program which is in possibly thousands of state-schools.

Your experience with a chaplain, whilst interesting and informative for readers, is only a small part of the problem. There is a code of conduct which disallows proselytising on state school property but one has to wonder how that is enforced. It does not stop the out of schools meetings which have a distinct Pentecostal flavour and which are organised from school grounds by word of mouth or pamphlets. The biggest problem is that students see chaplains as a legitimate part of school procedure and therefore supernatural stories without evidence must have truth to them. That is the most insidious component to chaplaincy in state-schools.

You are correct, but Australia is not in a position as drastic as Islamic regimes. Of course, there is no denying Australia is a soft-theocracy more so than a democracy that works semi-okay because of the goodwill of government. There is also no denying that changed circumstance could lead us down the Islamic type path as we have no constitutional protection from religion, but it is unlikely.

Singapore is an interesting case and one religious people in Australia should take note of. I don’t think, but could be wrong, that there is a constitutional separation of church and state, the same as in Australia. The government there has banned certain written religious material with fines and jail terms applicable for infringement.

Given a change of political circumstances in Australia, the same or worse could happen here. Those not wanting there to be as Jefferson put it, “A wall of separation between church and state” are either unaware of the problems without such a mechanism or expect their particular religion to benefit from not having such a wall. This is a dangerous and selfish attitude.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 10 January 2013 9:07:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason Religious Schools are increasing in attendance is because parents decide what they want their children taught. They do not want a ‘values free’ purely secular system taught to their children.

Chaplains are not teachers of religion in State schools they are there to give individual care to a troubled child. In many cases it also includes interviews with parents and teachers. Religion as a subject in State Schools is a subject chosen by the child, not enforced on the child and it is the study of comparative religion.

Religious education is an option to the child taught by volunteers on a set curriculum.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 10 January 2013 12:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Parents in many instances choose private schools because they can afford to do so and the amenities are superior. As well as this, they think their kids are getting a better education. A dubious claim by all accounts. Of course, in other instances, indoctrinated parents also wish to indoctrinate their children. That’s how it works.

I really wish you would read what I said about chaplains and ‘religious education’. I have not said chaplains officially teach. But they are not equipped, nor do they have the years of training necessary to handle the problems faced by modern children. They can refer students to experts on various matters but minor (to them) stuff can and is mishandled. Zealotry has a way of escaping from zealots.

Children do not choose religion in state schools. If the opt-out form is not signed by the parent, they attend automatically. The teaching of comparative religion by teachers and not Christian volunteers is the dream we all want. It remains a dream at present as those 'teachers'are Christian volunteers.

Education bodies want a radical revamp of both systems. Why do you think that is so? Could it be for the reasons I have given. Let me answer that for you. Yes.

If you wish to continue this conversation you will have to answer this.

If the chaplains and volunteer teachers were Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, Environmentalists, from mining companies or the Nazi party, would that be OK?

I know you definitely would have a problem with the Nazi option, as we all would, but there would be a similar code of conduct not to proselytise. That should work fine, shouldn't it!

Your disapproval at that scenario is exactly why Christian chaplains should not be on state school grounds or anywhere near a school.

But, I'll wait and see how you answer the question.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 10 January 2013 3:35:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So, exactly what words did I place in your mouth?"

I wrote:" I wonder whether your applauding science for having defeated religion....". ie its was you applauding science, not science applauding itself. Or do you consider yourself to be the embodiment of science?

Actually, I've noticed this quite a bit throughout the thread. You appear to read what you think the poster would say rather than what they do say and then excoriate them for it.

" This argument is so weak as to be non-existent. What has this to do with atheism freely chosen in a democracy? I despair at your gullibility."
I have, throughout, only mentioned these atheist regimes as being the only examples we currently have of nations run by atheists. I've never drawn conclusions from that in regards your your fantasy utopia of an atheist democracy. I despair of your reading skills.
When/if we ever get an atheist democracy, we'll see how it behaves. I have grave misgivings.

"People in Australia and further afield are defeating religion by not be involved in it. They are voting with their feet and that is what is motivating you to be so opposed to atheism and me."

Actually that's completely wrong. I'm not at all motivated to oppose atheism. What I do oppose is your form of activist atheism whereby you seek to do combat with the theists with the vast majority of atheists, agnostics and quite believers caught in the middle.
Its you smarmy assertions you are educated, you are rational, you are adult and that those who don't accept your version of the world are uneducated, irrational, infantile.
This is why I don't accept that your atheist democracy will be as benign as you think. throughout the ages we see those who think like you, unable to maintain a benign stance. After all, if the others are uneducated, irrational, infantile its your duty to impose your views on them for their own good, right?
And its that type of thinking that we see throughout this thread and throughout the AFA website.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 10 January 2013 5:31:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/cont

For example "Infantile concepts seriously hinder the full potential development of humans in a world with problems that require logical thought.". So, obviously, these infantile concepts have to be over-ridden so that logical thought can solve the world's problems, right?
I'm sure you sincerely believe that benign prompting will get the theists to see the truth as you know it. But we've seen plenty of occasions in the last century as to what happens when well-meaning folk find that their gentle prodding doesn't work. If you are as absolutely certain of the correctness of your views as you are, eventually that devolves into providing justification for all sorts of unwanted actions.

And that's why I'm opposed to your brand of atheism. I hold no special truck with the deity. I'm agnostic on the issue as I've mentioned several times.But, in your absolutism, since I don't agree with your views I must be implacably opposed to your views.

People who believe in truths beyond science aren't irrational, uneducated or infantile and its rank arrogance to say they are.... although when I pointed this out with a few examples I noticed you retreated with a good degree of alacrity.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 10 January 2013 5:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Maybe you need a cuppa tea, a Bex and good lie down. You are right off the track.

I have continually pointed out the wrongs with religion and have never proposed that everyone should be atheists. If I have, can you point it out thanks? Atheism is a freely chosen position, unlike religion which is imposed in childhood.

Your fear of the Gulag state, not even imagined, intimated or mentioned by freely chosen atheism is a sign of paranoia.

You have the gall to speak of atheism being a possible problem when you live in Australia, one of the most godless nations on earth and one of the best.

If you want to have a hissy-spit, then that is OK, but pick some decent reasons for doing it because you haven’t come up with any yet.

You would like to silence me because I am effective in communicating a point of view. Oh, you don’t like the way I do that. Then don’t frequent thread I am involved with.

How easy is that?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 10 January 2013 6:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFA,
Of the six Chaplains I know all are graduate School teachers with degrees, and themselves have young family. In one primary school the chaplain organizes the breakfast program for children who come to school not having sufficient nourishment, as well as dealing with children with learning and problems at home.

It seems you are struggling with anger against the choices of adults you call indoctrinated. WHY? Is it because you wish to impose your atheistic doctrine on children against the will of parents? You are a desperate person with very little of real consequences to give to the needs of human society. Teach science not an interpretation you are obsessed with; i.e. "there is no god". One way or the other it does not change the facts of true science which all children learn. I worked for 9 years for Alexander Boden, at that time Australia’s leading Industrial Chemist, who wrote post Graduate courses and School text Books that were promoted around the World. He could accommodate God in his world view and it did not affect his authority as a scientist.

Can I ask how many children do you have?
Do you enforce upon them a view, "There is no God"?
Can they have access to persons with other points of view?
Do you give scientific validation of natural physics? Like "All actions have a cause, including the first action."
What was the first cause, was it physical or mental [spiritual]?
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 10 January 2013 9:42:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Because six chaplains have degrees as teachers does not make them, a) have expertise in counselling and b) does not validate others who do not have degrees in teaching anyway.

You see anger where none exists. What I see is injustice brought about by children being indoctrinated thus potentially harming their own lives as well as the lives of other because of the narrow views they may take on board.

Anecdotes about people are not proof of anything and that you think they are shows how religion has interfered with you critical thinking abilities or you have missed out on them for some other reason. This is not a derogatory remark, just an accurate one.

My personal life is irrelevant but I do not advocate the forcing of any view on children. Are you reading the thread? Children should have access to all points of view for their age but supernatural threats and promises should not be a part of that. That kind of thing has known long lasting and detrimental consequences. Think Twin Towers. Think runner.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 10 January 2013 9:56:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFA,
One's personal life is where the rubber hits the road, much more than one's beliefs. Your obsessive negative attitude to theism would alianate any children and they consider you an angry old man. Such attitude passes on to other areas of your life, so start being balanced and not paranoid. You are not the keeper of intelligent thought or the direction of evolution.

Mrs Mary O'Haire an atheist managed to remove prayers from American schools by her campaign. However her inquisitive son Murray researched the Christian Gospel and today is a Christian evangelist. I have attended six of his sessions while he visited Australia. It was his mother's negative obsession to theism that made him think there was a better more positive life than what he had grown up with.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 11 January 2013 8:01:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Seeking social justice and attempting to improve democratic process is difficult. But I have to inform you that your label of me being obsessive is just a defensive mechanism for you. I might remind you that I answer posts as they appear because there is no hardship in that and it needs doing by someone. I am someone.

You have to pin something on me so that your way of thinking is not threatened. This is a common method used by religious persons who have run out of ideas. You will see it all the way through this thread.

The atheist is angry, had a poor experience with religion, is obsessive, hates a particular god, dislikes religious persons, is really going to create Gulags, is a sinner, is unhappy, will cause Stalinistic-type situations, wants to indoctrinate children with atheism(sigh), etc.

I suppose you know that children with atheist parents, from my experience and from what I have read, appear to be very well adjusted and happy with no thoughts of parents being ‘angry old men’ (or women).

Why are you lashing out with such nonsense as, “You are not the keeper of intelligent thought or the direction of evolution.” What does that mean?

If your understanding of atheism is from Madalyn Murray O'Hair, (Not Mary) then you are obviously living in the past and wish to bring it back. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, like us all, had good points to her character and bad points. Her son, William can be viewed here. The opinion piece is interesting as are the comments. I know you will view it with an open mind.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/07/madalyn-murray-ohairs-son-talks-to-mike-huckabee-about-his-conversion-to-christianity/

William left out some very important points such as how children who admit to their parents they are atheist are often disowned, particularly in the USA.

But the more interesting aspect is that you take one alleged case and extrapolate that to all cases. I respect logic, rationality, reason and common-sense far too much to do that kind of thing. On the other hand, religious people can often grab at any straw available to support their rickety-case.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 11 January 2013 9:14:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a contradiction in here somewhere, Josephus, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

>>It was his mother's negative obsession to theism that made him think there was a better more positive life than what he had grown up with.<<

You appear to be suggesting that having militantly atheist parents is a force for creating born-again Christians. Why then are you being so censorious of David's views? Surely, you should encourage them, so that more Christians pop up in the future?

Incidentally, if you are up to it, I'd appreciate some clarification of this:

>>"All actions have a cause, including the first action."<<

You give the impression that this is a "scientific validation of natural physics". I am unfamiliar with the phrase - could you expand upon it a little?

In scientific terms, if you are able.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 11 January 2013 9:53:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David wrote: "Atheism is a freely chosen position, unlike religion which is imposed in childhood."

Do you actually hear yourself? I feel like some elder trying to curb the rash impetuosity of a brash teenager. I can only chortle and shake my head.

Atheism is chosen, religion imposed. No chance of the reverse? Not in David fantasy world. A person raised in a religious family becomes religious because its imposed. A person raised in an atheist family, becomes an atheist through free choice! No such thing as a person raised in an atheist household choosing religion. Or maybe people who choose religion in adulthood are just too feeble minded to see that they are having it imposed. Two kids raised in a religious family. The one who chooses religion is a victim of indoctrination. The other who chooses atheism is a free thinker. What a laugh.

Amazing how we have all these clearly intelligent theists who just don't see that their beliefs are just the result of indoctrination from their parents.

Poor old (or juvenile?) David just can't get past it. Atheists are rational, educated, analytic. Theists are infantile victims of thought-control. Honestly....

And then he claims to be logical and rational.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 11 January 2013 12:53:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze.

How you get it so wrong is, well, errrrrr, interesting.

Take the early days in the Atheist Census produced by Atheist Alliance International.

http://www.atheistcensus.com/

Look at the statistics for Pakistan. A very large proportion of the non-religious respondents were once Muslims.

Look at the USA figures and the non-religious came predominately from Christian roots.

It is repeated likewise in India with the Hindu religion, in Israel with Judaism, Thailand with Buddhism.

As I said, these are early-days figures but they are very indicative that geographical location on the planet produces the particular religious adherent. And how is that achieved; by parents, peers and culture.

The major religion in most countries is well known and they follow the above pattern.

Even though these religions are markedly different in outlook, practice and tradition, those who have chosen atheism from the pool of these religions have only one commonality. They are atheists because they accept there is no evidence for a god or gods.

Not having a religion, for that is how we are born, is the default position. Particular religions or sects within religions are an add-on by parents and culture.

You cannot indoctrinate children with atheism in a democratic society. You can supply all the information available and allow mature people to make the decision for themselves without coercion. And coercion is pretty well off the table as there are no underlying threats and promises that entice people to become atheists as there definitely is with most of the religions.

It would be true that in a predominately non-religious culture, most children when they mature would become non-religious. That is to be expected. But I can just about guarantee that the majority would remain non-religious even with missionaries running amok all over the place as long as they did not have access to children. Those choosing a religion as a mature adult would have the full support of atheists as long as they practiced it in private between consenting-adult and did not try to influence politics in an unrepresentative-manner.

I certainly hope you can see the difference now.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 11 January 2013 1:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, "Those choosing a religion as a mature adult would have the full support of atheists as long as they practiced it in private between consenting-adult and did not try to influence politics in an unrepresentative-manner.

I certainly hope you can see the difference now."

Difference?! Pot meet kettle. There is no difference between the authoritarians of atheism and the authoritarians of religion. There are botherers on both sides who are forever minding the business of others.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 11 January 2013 4:46:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

Semel fatuo, semper morionem

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 12 January 2013 7:18:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

You are in need of anger management. Here you go, try to Feel Pretty,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmv3WlKa6U8
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 12 January 2013 9:47:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

Yes, most interesting, quite humorous, but irrelevant. One can proclaim all kinds of things guided by a lack of knowledge but when shown very clearly that they do have a lack of knowledge concerning those claims and this is done in a way that the average person can understand, repeatedly, and they still persist with the same erroneous claims, what description do you think would be fitting for them?

Your words thanks, a video response won't cut the mustard.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 12 January 2013 9:57:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every time I post in this thread, I tell myself it'll be the last since poor David is clearly beyond consideration of alternate views. Then I see his response and, when I've stopped laughing, I find myself wondering what new feats of logical contortions he might yet get up to.

Now we find out that in David's fantasy-land, we can prove that people are indoctrinated by their parents into belief in the supernatural because those people tend to take on the broad religion of their parents. Pakistani kids become muslims because of their parents. Christian kids become believers by being indoctrinated into Christianity.

Of course, kids also tend to take on the language of their parents proving in this fantasy-land that they are indoctrinated into it. Oh the humanity! If only those parents would leave the kids alone, they'd all speak Esperanto and the world would be so much better.

And kids in NSW tend to follow NRL while kids in Victoria tend to follow AFL. Clearly they are being indoctrinated by their parents and if left alone they'd all follow tiddly-winks.

Here's a thought...maybe kids just want to talk and they use the tool most available to them. Maybe kids are just sporty and follow the game most available to them. Maybe (some) kids have a proclivity toward belief and they use the tools most available to them.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 13 January 2013 6:19:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/cont
The religion of a region reflects the culture of the region, indeed is part of the culture. Equally, the culture of a region reflects the religion of the region. It is no coincidence that circumcision forms part of Judaism since the it is a health issue in that region. Equally the semitic against pork makes sense in a region where pork is likely to go off very quickly. (I have a theory about the general religious opposition to homosexuality which uses the same logic, but that's for a different thread).

David asserts (for it is an statement minus evidence) that being atheist is the default position for mankind...that we are born irreligious and have it imposed. Given that there has never been a society that was irreligious or atheistic until very recently, perhaps it might have occurred to David that the evidence suggests that mankind naturally gravitates toward belief in the supernatural. As far as we are aware, every civilisation, every tribe, every primate grouping, every learned society has had its gods, its views on the soul and the soul's journey, its views on the nature of the supernatural. To say that, despite this, we are predisposed to atheism is an assertion of heroic proportions that only someone as blinkered as David could make. But I guess its difficult to think outside the square when you don't even realise there is a square
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 13 January 2013 6:21:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

You know what brings you back each time; it is the irresistible urge to prove you know what you are talking about and to prove that to others. That’s a fail and a double fail in many instances. It is your insecurity at fault.

If you would read your own last two posts, do you know what you would find? Well, let me tell you and it is very simple, so simple that even you will understand it.

Yes, it is that children can be influenced to think, talk and act in a way promoted by their culture. I’m glad we are over that little hurdle.

Now, the next step is to see if that influence in some or all parts is beneficial or not to the child and others in the culture and to ascertain if the culture has it right.

It is obvious that if this method of en-culturing is detrimental to some groups, or even civilisation then the culture should try to adjust its input to make for a fairer system.

Religion disallows such change and would rather continue with the status quo no matter what the cost is to others or even if the survivability of the planet is at stake.

Many people could give up their football team etc. if they saw such negative outcome were a result but because religious indoctrination goes deep into the psyche with its supernatural threats and promises for this life and the next, it becomes immovable even in face of incontrovertible damming evidence. This coupled with the natural unease of humans knowing they will die one day and voilà, we have a recipe for self-delusion.

The reason I am an atheist and this goes for many of my kind, is because I do think outside the square because of lucky circumstance and I try to spread that luck around.

Have you ever considered that saving your ‘immortal soul’ as a priority when others will be lost could be influencing you reject what I am saying and do you consider that a tad selfish because, I do.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 13 January 2013 6:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
Please give us the statistics on current rise of Christianity in Communist China and Korea. From where did they get indoctrinated, or was it an adult intelligent choice? A choice from atheism while at university in Western Universities?
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 14 January 2013 8:18:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

“Please give us the statistics on current rise of Christianity in Communist China and Korea. From where did they get indoctrinated, or was it an adult intelligent choice? A choice from atheism while at university in Western Universities?”

I’ve never said I am an expert in having at my fingertips the numbers of people in developing nations who choose Christianity, Islam, Hindi or Buddhism. I’m not even sure why you are making such a comment.

There is a strong following of Christianity per rata in China and stronger in South Korea. So what? Does that somehow prove Christianity is true in its supernatural claims?

Are the Chines and South Koreans more in tune with your god than Westerners who are dropping the idea and if so, why is that so?

Are the Chinese and South Koreans more adept at seeing the truth of Christianity and if so, why don’t Western churches follow their example?

The culture of developing nations or inward looking countries can be fertile grounds for zealous cash-loaded Christian missionaries who play upon existing superstition that may not be working satisfactorily to the minds of the inhabitants.

I assume you are putting forward a case that educated Chinese and South Koreans are becoming Christian in large numbers so can you supply some statistics in support of that.

And this all leads back to the argument ad populum if indeed it is even true. Numbers of believers do not make a belief true. It doesn't matter how many people believe a falsehood, it remains a falsehood unless supported by empirical evidence.

I hope you clarify what point you are trying to make thanks because I would love to know?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 14 January 2013 9:30:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
My point is that Christianity (or religion) is not child indoctrination in the West as you claim. If so why is Western countries with Christian families loosing their children to indifference or agnosticism; while atheistic parents in China are loosing their inquiring adult children to Christianity (or religion)?

Childhood indoctrination is not as settled as you claim. Individuals will make their own decisions.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 9:02:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

“My point is that Christianity (or religion) is not child indoctrination in the West as you claim. If so why is Western countries with Christian families loosing their children to indifference or agnosticism; while atheistic parents in China are loosing their inquiring adult children to Christianity (or religion)?
Childhood indoctrination is not as settled as you claim. Individuals will make their own decisions.”

The ubiquitous indoctrination cycle of only a few decades ago has been broken, information is more available, the harms of religion are more obvious and people are working out there is no evidence for any of the supernatural claims of any of the faiths. The penny has dropped that the emotional-hold of religion is just that, an emotional hold. They are concluding that the emotional-hold is a human reaction to religious stimuli and if it exists in a person, that it can be overcome.

The Chinese culture has very strong superstitions and it just happens that missionaries have replaced local superstitions with Western ones. The reasons can be manyfold but poverty, equating it with Western democracy, inadequate education, and lack of power over one’s life and feelings of helplessness etc. would contribute. Christianity spins a good story and if critical thinking skills are inadequate, then they can be believed on the word of the preacher. Intelligent people can fall prey to cleverly constructed ideas as well. A big reason is that oppressing a superstition can create the opposite of the intention. It can make the superstition attractive.

The numbers of Chinese people taking up Christianity compared to those that don’t is quite small as far as I know. But numbers do not make something true even if large.

And what I have consistently said about religious indoctrination is that ‘statistically’ geographical location determines the religion of the adult. That breaks down somewhat with international travel no longer a barrier. And no indoctrination process is one hundred percent perfect but its degree of effectiveness is largely dependent on cultural support whether that is localised or national.

Many Western nations have lost that necessary item.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 9:44:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David wrote: "You know what brings you back each time; it is the irresistible urge to prove you know what you are talking about and to prove that to others. "

Well I can certainly understand how someone who thinks of himself as rational educated and adult while those who disagree with him are irrational and infantile, would feel comfortable deciding that my motives are quite different to what I think they are. The zealotry that people like David personify seems to empower them, in their minds, to allow them to decide for others in all things....its what makes them dangerous.

Its been quite a journey but we've got there. It started out with David asserting that it was the church's indoctrination of kids in their schooling that was the route cause of all the detrimental effects of theism.
We've now finally got to the point that he acknowledges that culture is the real indoctrinator, that people get their religion from the society around them.

Now this is both good and bad. Its good that David is now closer to the truth. It bad since he'll now need to work out how to force change on the culture to achieve his utopian atheist democracy. Oops, maybe I did a disservice by gently leading him to the truth.

Just one final question before I move on....if belief in the supernatural is irrational, uneducated and infantile what of those like Obama, Blair, Rudd, JFK etc who held/hold such beliefs. The last time I asked that, David obfuscated with the incorrect claim that I was using these people to prove the deity. Just to be clear, that's not my assertion. I'm simply asking how belief in the supernatural can be irrational and infantile if such people believe it.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 7:53:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

I suppose you realise that your posts are very adversarial and spit venom more than needed. I personally don't mind but you should consider how other perceive you. It's not a good look.

You’ll have to explain about the “dangerous” David. In what way am I dangerous? Are the words I use laced with some magic that is going to mesmerise all who read them or have I a secret plan involving Gulags and re-education camps? Tell me about it.

You don’t seem to get the cultural indoctrination process and I'm not going through it again. But no doubt you and all the Christians you know of were brought up in an Islamic, Hindi or Buddhist culture and have found the truth in Christianity. Hallelujah!

Again, some references to where I suggest others and I are planning a “utopian atheist democracy” would be nice.

Naming individuals who are religious is no proof of anything. Wider statistics need looking at and for the umpteenth time a survey at the Academy of Sciences showed only 7% of respondents who believed in any kind of god at all.

And again, and I ask forgiveness of those who are taking notice, it doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true because that doesn't make it true.

Since you are into questions, here is one for you. Is the Islamic Allah of the Muslim religion the one true god because numbers who believe that are very impressive? Is Krishna also true because, number again shows there are millions of believers?

Another question as I don’t think you have volunteered the information, to which particular sect of Christianity do you ascribe?

Is it young/old age universe creationism or something else?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 8:41:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

David should be satisfied that the youth in the Western countries are becoming indifferent to religion where the Church is powerful (as he claims). From my obsevations youth in the West have generally lost their way and are living selfish lives.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 6:07:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

<<From my obsevations youth in the West have generally lost their way and are living selfish lives.>>

Perhaps, but to suggest that this is because they are not as religious is quite a leap. Particularly when, rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, suicide, homicide and just crime in general tend to rise the more religious a society or community is.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://globalsociology.com/files/2012/12/Religion-by-Behavior-29p2nsv.png

The world we live in is a far more complex place than it ever was in the past and this is more likely to contribute to what you observe. I would dread growing up now.

As for why the youth of today are less religious, I think the answer lies in the fact that there is now more information out there and that it is more easily accessible than ever before. The fact the each generation is more educated than the last probably plays a role too; religion is currently only flourishing in those places where the people are less educated and more superstitious.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 8:01:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,
So you are telling me that committed Christians are most responsible for rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, suicide, homicide and just crime in general. What utter garbage. Most of the situations you give are characteristic of youth roaming the streets with no committment to anything, not even atheism as a belief system. Though they might use it as a cover, if questioned, for their immoral behaviour
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 3:20:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, Josephus...

<<So you are telling me that committed Christians are most responsible for rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, suicide, homicide and just crime in general.>>

I'm telling you that societal health declines in correlation with the religiosity of a society or community. I even linked you to statistics and studies proving it. You didn't bother to look at them, did you?

It's probably more a result of the bigotry, encouraged ignorance (e.g creationism and lower education levels in general with higher levels of home schooling), poor sex education and the failed push for abstinence that all tend to be more prevalent in religious communities.

<<Most of the situations you give are characteristic of youth roaming the streets with no committment to anything...>>

Maybe, and this is something else you tend to find correlates with the religiosity of a society/community. Perhaps it's the ultra-strict and ultra-conservative parents who boot their kids put of home for falling pregnant or telling them they don't believe in God anymore? Or the kid's who run away from home because they don't want to go to military school? I could imagine there's many reasons. 

<<...not even atheism as a belief system.>>

Atheism isn't a belief system. This assertion has been discredited multiple times on OLO and has currently just been discredited again recently in another thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580&page=0). So why is it that you guys so stubbornly continue to speak as though it were? It just sounds petulant.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 6:52:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ PHILIPS,
"You didn't bother to look at them, did you?" I read them they did not prove anything. America is a diverse culture not a totally committed Christian Nation. If you claim the statistics prove that committed Christians are responsible for these behaviours then the researchers are intending bias against people of faith
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 7:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Well, they don't *prove* anything as such...

<<I read them they did not prove anything.>>

But as I mentioned to Rhian once before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11631#198785), it puts to rest the arrogant and asinine assertion by christians that societies are crumbling and families falling apart (oh yes, I forgot to mention the fact that divorce rates rise with religiosity) because people are abandoning God.

<<America is a diverse culture not a totally committed Christian Nation.>>

Exactly! And that's why it makes such a good test case for religion and societal health.

What on Earth did you think you would achieve by pointing this out?

You obviously didn't do anything more than skim those links I provided. 
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 9:03:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David wrote:"I suppose you realise that your posts are very adversarial and spit venom more than needed. I personally don't mind but you should consider how other perceive you. It's not a good look."

This from a man whole also wrote "Semel fatuo, semper morionem".... hypocrisy or grand self-delusion?

I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming that you are intelligent enough to understand my point about the theists I mentioned and that you are obfuscating because the answer is uncomfortable for you. So I'll try once again.

I agree fully and have never disputed that the numbers of people who believe proves nothing. If the entire planet believed in Yahweh it wouldn't prove its existence. (Although I note with some amusement that you constantly quote the 'fact' that 93% of some scientific grouping are atheists - the numbers mean nothing unless they agree with you, heh?).

So in mentioning those prominent theists, I'm NOT, repeat NOT, trying to prove the deity. Instead....

You and the AFA maintain that theism is irrational and infantile. The basic attitude seems to be that theists have been unthinkingly indoctrinated into their belief without having given due weight to the evidence. Atheists, on the other hand, in your view, have made the only adult decision having looked at the evidence. That, in a nutshell is the activist atheist case.

So (and let's simplify it by just taking about Obama), if theism is irrational, unthinking, the result of indoctrination, infantile, does that mean that Obama's beliefs are irrational, infantile, the product of indoctrination? And if not, then how do you continue to assert that theism is those things and that theists are those things. Would you not have to concede that it is possible that a portion of theists have looked at the same evidence as you and in an adult, rational way, reached a different conclusion?

I look forward to seeing what device you use to avoid answering the question this time.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 17 January 2013 9:51:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David asked...."Another question as I don’t think you have volunteered the information, to which particular sect of Christianity do you ascribe?"

I have previously said, on several occasions, that I am agnostic. I was, in my youth, involved in Anglicanism, but moved on in my late teens. So I don't belong to a Christian sect or any other religious group. While agnostic on the deity, I'm pretty sure that Jesus was just a man, as was Mohammed. Each were lucky to have had dedicated and intelligent successors to carry on and distort their work.

Although agnostic, I think, on the balance of probabilities that a creator of sorts exists. But that creator is remote and doesn't deserve or require worship or devotion. Pick any examples you want but I'll mention the holocaust and the 2004 tsunami. If there is a deity one of three possibilities exist:
* it doesn't care about the suffering
* it doesn't have the ability to stop the suffering
* it organised the suffering

Either way, it is to be ignore and/or despised.

(I know the theists would say that we can't know the motivation and must just accept the deity's greater purpose...but I think that's just trying to square the circle).

Nonetheless, I accept that others can and have looked at theses sufferings and come to other conclusions about the deity. And I accept that those conclusions are just as valid and heartfelt as my own.

When I came to this thread, following a link from AJP on another thread, I saw you blandly and pompously asserting that those who formed a view different from yours were infantile, unthinking,uneducated, victims of indoctrination. So I set out to disabuse you of that fallacy (mission accomplished) or at least put an alternate view.

I now think its about time to move on although your response might cause me to hang around.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 17 January 2013 10:17:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze.

Now read this and see if it clarifies your mind. Theism is believed on the emotional level as there is no peer reviewed empirical evidence supporting anything supernatural. Now, that’s okay, if folk want to believe emotionally that a god exists etc.

Atheists, on the other hand expect the religious to supply peer reviewed empirical evidence before they will accept the god hypothesis on ‘faith’.

The religious wish to impose their emotionally held beliefs on others and some of those are damaging to others.

Atheists do not wish to impose anything on others. They wish to give others a fair chance at developing to their full potential without supernatural coercion.

What is your problem with this? You bring frustration onto yourself by playing infantile mind-games concerning these matters.

Thanks for the explanation of your stance, I was unaware of it but it doesn't alter anything especially as you are protesting too much. That could be your pride at work.

“When I came to this thread, following a link from AJP on another thread, I saw you blandly and pompously asserting that those who formed a view different from yours were infantile, unthinking, uneducated, victims of indoctrination.”

Now here is a good example of infantile mind-games. You list a number of attributes supposedly said by me “blandly and pompously” in this thread and add at the end, “...victims of indoctrination”, which I do state as being actually the reason for most religious belief coupled with the fear of annihilation. It has its roots in evolution. And where have I said those who form a view different to mine were such and such…

I'm going to call you on this and expect a response even though you are intending to give it away.

Supply the direct quotes from this thread where I state, “…those who formed a view different from yours were infantile, unthinking, uneducated, victims of indoctrination.”

You are making stuff up and taking it out of context and it’s not good enough. Get cracking with a response. Quote mining will not be accepted.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 17 January 2013 11:06:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David wrote: "Now read this and see if it clarifies your mind. Theism is believed on the emotional level as there is no peer reviewed empirical evidence supporting anything supernatural."

Well, since that was the very point I made in my first day on this thread, I don't think my mind needs clarifying. But its nice to see you caught up.

"The religious wish to impose their emotionally held beliefs on others... "

Well some do and most want to evangelise. Of course the ones that want to impose their beliefs on others generally don't follow Christmas and you've already indicated you're too scared to take your case to that group.

"Atheists do not wish to impose anything on others."
Well most anyway. Others, no names mind you, just want to rig the system so that we make the 'right' choices.

Now let me get this straight. Are you now denying that you think belief in the supernatural is infantile as your website asserts? Or do you now deny thinking that "a healthy education about science inoculates humans against" belief? Or that people accept their indoctrination without giving it proper thought?

Or are you just trying to avoid answering my Obama question?
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 18 January 2013 1:42:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Both AJ and David, are in the science group that believes matter and life came of itself. Similar to an ancient belief that stagnant water produces frogs and rotting meat produes maggots.

They cannot produce evidence that proves matter came from nothing or that living cells had inherent potential in the nature of nothing.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 18 January 2013 7:47:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

You wrote nothing about emotionally held beliefs in you first post on this thread. Catching up to you might put me back fifty or so years.

You have not comprehended this mammoth thread and seem to have no understanding what imposing religious beliefs is all about? Your Islam infatuated brain certainly needs to actually read the words. Last time I say this. I am the president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia. Therefore here’s a question for you.

What reason would an Australian Atheist organisation concentrate on Islam when Islam has no power in Australia?

“Now let me get this straight. Are you now denying that you think belief in the supernatural is infantile as your website asserts?”

Here is what the AFA website says, which I didn't write but with which I agree.

“Infantile concepts seriously hinder the full potential development of humans in a world with problems that require logical thought.”

If you could read and properly comprehend, you would understand that the infantile parts of religion do hinder humans reaching their full potential. Maybe that happened to you, as an example. Or, maybe it didn't. But your selectivity in thinking strongly indicates something is interfering with your thinking processes. It could be just lying, I suppose.

I would ask you not to say I am avoiding questions as you have avoided most of mine. What Obama’s religious route to his present stage or what he actually believes is impossible to ascertain. Lack of intelligence is not necessarily an indication of religious belief but it can be. If he said he was an atheist, he would be out of a job. Stop being so thick, if you want to interact with me.

Now get on and answer the questions I have posed.

David

Josephus,

Science and I do not know how matter and life came about. There are various hypotheses; some show promise and one day may produce an answer.

On the other hand, religion hasn't a clue but that doesn't stop it making stuff up. God of the gaps is not an answer.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 18 January 2013 9:36:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
Since you havent got a clue how matter or life came about; how can you be so sure atheism has the answer. You are therefore in this field an agnostic. Theists have equal opinion that spiritual intelligence created the Universe; because intelligence is the creative power evident in our world.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 19 January 2013 12:55:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

What are you talking about? You are confused. Atheism is accepting that your god and all the other gods probably don’t exist because there is zilch peer reviewed empirical evidence for supernatural phenomena. Atheism has nothing to do with how the universe or life came into being.

Having said, that, there are some interesting hypotheses out there that follow on from what is known that may one day explain it all. There is no indoctrination about scientific based origins. If you prattle on about evolution, I will assume you really haven’t a clue. Evolution and origins are two completely separated topics.

But, no one is threatening children with eternal damnation for not accepting those hypotheses and in fact no one has to accept them at all. I say again, there is no indoctrination process accompanying them.

However, the supernatural god hypothesis does not have any credible antecedent information supporting it. That makes it a complete guess.

The big difference is that not accepting the god hypothesis comes with eternal supernatural threats and promises and is supported by childhood indoctrination.

Any god that relies on childhood indoctrination for belief in it is not much of a god.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 19 January 2013 1:46:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,
Obviously David was indoctrinated as a child and he has not grown over his rebellion as he has no understanding of the Creator of all scientific reality. This is the Creator mind behind intelligent science to whom we owe our life and being. From his continual use of the term "infantile" indicates how he believes in the Maker of reality.

He is not interested in science just opposition to it having the possibility of being made by a higher intelligence. He is promoting a personal opinion and not a scientific reality.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 20 January 2013 4:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

‘Infantile’ has been used about 28 times by various posters on this thread, mostly by you. I actually have used it three times not including the quotes of the word. The context of how I used it was not inclusive of every religious person as I have stated and as is obvious by the quote on the AFA website. Your confirmation bias won’t allow you to recognise that though. That’s very sad as it would be clear to most.

No, I don’t believe in your particular creator and I suspect you are struggling to believe in it yourself. That is why you make a case that wouldn’t hold treacle let alone water. And that is why your posts are becoming more and more irrational as we continue. You certainly are not a good advertisement for Christianity. But, as I have pointed out often, others read these posts and you are an immeasurable help in assisting people to escape their own religious indoctrination.

Your last sentence is incomprehensible but I’ll have a crack at it.

Wrong, I am interested in science and the scientific method as that is the best way of determining how nature works. Being made by your particular alleged creator is so far-fetched as to be less than a negligible prospect.

What personal opinion am I promoting? Please don’t say that it is that there is no god because I have never said that. I’m waiting for you to supply the evidence that all will accept that your particular alleged god exists. But it doesn't bother me one iota that you might think that it does. Just practise that belief in private between consenting adults and don’t let it interfere with politics in an unrepresented manner and we will get along fine.

Unfortunately, religion is incapable of doing that and that is the reason for the existence of the Atheist Foundation of Australia. I’ll be more than pleased when the AFA presence is no longer required. It may take a couple of generations but it will not be needed eventually.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 20 January 2013 8:51:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

That post was mistakenly directed at mhaze. Mea culpa.

If you disregard the first paragraph, I think you will see I have answered your post adequately.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 20 January 2013 9:14:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David
We do have adequate evidence that creative intelligence exists in our universe. The human mind is such. It is just that you absolutely deny the possibility of an existence of a creative intelligence higher than human intelligence. The diversity, order and design of plants suggests creativity working upon the gene of the original plant cell; if you believe it began with one common cell to produce the diversity.

I think this thread has now expired.
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 21 January 2013 9:07:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

You are not the arbiter of when this thread expires.

Do you mean the creative intelligence that has killed countless millions by way of natural disasters (and I don’t mean the imaginary flood that killed all life except the chosen few which, even as a metaphor is not the work of an ethical creative intelligence when amongst those deserving drowning were ‘evil’ foetus’ in the womb – I think the word infantile beliefs is applicable here)

Or is it the creative intelligence whose creation kills and maims millions by genetic illness and pathogens.

Or is it the creative intelligence that designed a system where all life preys on other life, much of it with a sentience similar to that of humans and some in the most brutal ways possible, in numbers that are mind-bogglingly huge.

Or is a creative intelligence that allows famine and starvation to exist when it has an alleged reputation of being all-powerful.

Or do you mean a creative intelligence that only permits itself to be recognised by a well-honed system of indoctrination of children with eternal supernatural consequences for not believing in it.

And, who do you think you are fooling by using the term, “creative intelligence” when you actually mean Yahweh/Jesus, one of the thousands of gods that have been invented by humans.

I hope you have learned something in this discussion. Try broadening your reading base as a follow up.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 21 January 2013 9:30:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What reason would an Australian Atheist organisation concentrate on Islam when Islam has no power in Australia?"

Well if you close your eyes and put your hands over your ears, you might just convince yourself that Islam has no power in Australia.

On the other hand.....
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/free-speech-dogged-by-politics-of-difference-20130120-2d13b.html#ixzz2IYAUxCvN

http://www.afr.com/p/national/gillard_backs_down_in_un_vote_on_BWa6M1TJJskwz1XPQ4AzxJ

David, there's no real shame in admitting that you'll harangue Christians because they only resist in word while steering clear those of whose main counter-argument is violence. Better, much better, men than you have done so eg Hans Rotmo, Penn Jillette. The brave souls in the activist atheist community are happy to see works of 'art'like Piss-christ but we'll never see a Piss-Mohamed.

Asserting that you would go after Islam is/when it gets more power is unconvincing and fools no one.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 21 January 2013 12:04:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

You dare accuse me of hiding from Islam when you can’t even place your own identification up on this forum. What is your actual name and address and how have you put yourself in the firing line with Islam (or anything, actually)? You are not just afraid of Islam, you are apparently afraid of everyone.

If and when Islam is a problem in Australian politics the AFA will probably be the first in making a noise about it. Can you enunciate the problems caused by Islam in Australian politics that requires the AFA to act?

You supply one link about Dutch MP Geert Wilders and another concerning a decision on Israel by Labor. Year, so what?

What exactly do you want the AFA or me to do?

Spell it out and stop being so obnoxious.

If Muslims needs criticising because of a religious stance on a particular matter I do speak about it as I have on Online Opinion. Have a read through this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14209&page=0#245941

And get back to me with some intelligent comment about it, although, I feel I'm asking far too much with that.

You have absolutely no case and bring all kinds of red-herrings into the conversation to cover yourself. You have displayed a fairly weak effort really.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 21 January 2013 12:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, "If and when Islam is a problem in Australian politics the AFA will probably be the first in making a noise about it"

Jolly good, here you go then:

<A radical sheik who has called for Australia to become an Islamic state ruled by sharia law should be "slapped down" by moderate Muslims, according to a federal MP.

Sheik Ismail Al-Wahwah, the Australian head of extremist Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, suggested during a Christmas Eve sermon that jihad should be used to implement hardline teachings.>

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ship-out-sheik-ismail-al-wahwah-says-queensland-liberal-mp-steve-ciobo/story-e6freuy9-1226551484704

It must have escaped your watchful vigilance while you were sorting those long-suffering Christian congregations at Christmas. No sense chafing at the bit when there is work to be done correcting those "foibles" of religion.

A Prophet's Day prank along the line of your "Chistmyth" perhaps? Here is a calendar for you,

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/australia/

You will not have my support for a Christmyth-like prank because I believe in religious tolerance and being civil to others. By all means criticise, but do it in such a way as to remain polite and respectful at all times. Goodness knows why anyone would want to stir religious observers on their special days. I regard it as petty and shameless attention seeking.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 21 January 2013 3:11:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach,

Having trouble reading I see. “If and when” seems to have missed your notice.

People can make all kinds of statements and propositions that will never get anywhere except in the minds of the paranoid. The AFA has far too much to do with Christianity which is a problem in politics to make serious comment on the fantasies of various clerics.

If Australian politics is threatened by any religion the AFA will react accordingly.

If you think we should be hindering free speech of a few radicals then you don’t understand what freedom of speech and expression is all about. In fact you are the same as those you target.

I suppose you know the AFA engaged in debate about the Muslim religion at the University of Western Sydney where we were totally outnumbered by rather angry Muslims about a year ago.

These strawman arguments get very tiresome.

No one is asking you to take notice of Australian politics or do anything about the inequity resulting from it, but others take a more responsible view.

What is seen as offensive up against actual control by religion in politics is a no brainer for the astute.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 21 January 2013 3:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David gives no ideas how an atheist society would work. His view is not a positive vision for Australia, just a negative protest against honourable people.

How does he remove children from religious indoctrination. Does his society remove them from their parents? The USSR tried this and where are they today? His social plan would only work if children are removed from parental influences, and be indoctrinated in atheism, as much as he tries to deny such. Another Atheist Socialist agenda, where children are asked to spy on parents to the atheist State. Christians believe in freedom of belief, and speech; unlike atheists with a totalitarian world view. In a totalitarian State the minority are victimised not accomodated.

It would be interesting to know how he treats his children.
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 21 January 2013 9:19:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze.

I should have put a link to the Islam encounter at the University of Western Sydney by the AFA. Here it is.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=7142

Josephus,

Read the thread and stop making a complete dork of yourself.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 21 January 2013 9:37:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David shows embrasment that he has no answeres for a diverse society. He outlaws a creative artistic immagination of spirituality, and prefers a straigh laced society governed in thought by current views of pure physical science.

He is not able to tell us how he relates to his own children. Yet he wants to control others children, and remove them from faith. He if had the chance believes in a totalitarian State, with thought (belief) control.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 8:17:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

I know who should be embarrassed and it isn’t me. Why are you so imprisoned by your views that even looking at the thread is beyond your capability?

Having to repeat myself continually with you and a few others only helps demonstrate that religion has been of little help so some.

If you did read the words you would find atheism is accepting there probably is no god. Not a Gulag in sight with that. Not a hint at a totalitarian state. No indoctrination either. Or have you some evidence to back your wild claims. Is there a secret atheist agenda that only you and a select few other know about? Share the secret with the rest of us.

It is the various god systems on the planet that are the closest to the definition of a totalitarian state. The best protection against such ideas is where church and state are separated by the Jefferson ‘wall’.

Australia is nowhere near such a dismal political system but in effect it acts similarly towards various groups of people by controlling their lives (or deaths) against the empirical evidence and against un-interfered with normal human empathy and compassion.

It is religion that is controlling children’s thoughts with some ensuing adults making political decisions with those warped ideas to the detriment of others.

Stop making vague accusations and support them with evidence. It is the easy way of non-thinking to parrot the opinions of others who have influenced you. Why not try thinking for yourself.

Now, when you have read this post, think about the ideas in it and respond to them. The psycho-rant you exhibit is not that attractive. It is also totally uninformative except in cementing the idea that religion in the wrong hands is a very dangerous notion.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 9:08:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
Obviously you do not understand the human psyche which is controlled by beliefs, and atheism is a belief otherwise you would not defend it as the only true opinion. Atheism in the hands of some has proved equally as destructive to human society as has some religions. Neither in those cases has given human society peace and personal security.

Your obsession with the minds of children influenced by their parents choice, who are the primary teachers of children's opinions and beliefs. This indicates you are not happy with parents who choose to give their children beliefs of Christian faith.

Do your children have exposure to ideas of faith, or do you insist they must believe as yourself?

If so you are totalitarian in your control of your children. I have taught my and other children and they have been exposed to science at school and university and the views of Russell and Hawking and others. They got atheism thrust into them by some lecturers at University.

Your dislike of the idea of God indicates there is a deeper personal issue in your life than religion in general, and Christ in particular. Calling him a myth.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 11:04:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Some people in the eighteen century (might have been the early nineteenth) believed fairies existed. They did not produce empirically convincing evidence so I accept that belief to be unfounded. Is that a belief on my part?

Atheism is not an ideology. Marxist-Leninism is that to which you are referring.

My opinions about parents and what they teach children are irrelevant. I asked you to read the posts to discover that the AFA, other secular groups and education bodies do not agree that State schools should be indoctrinating children with one particular religion. If you agree with such indoctrination, then we are at serious odds with each other.

Children should be exposed to the historical aspects of religion and their influences on civilisation. This should be taught by qualified teachers and not volunteer zealots of a particular religion. Children should be given all available information and not indoctrinated into any ideology. They should be informed that there is no evidence for any supernatural part of reality. If such children choose a religion when they mature, society should support that but not pay for it or let it interfere in an unrepresented way in politics. (All of this is in the thread you refuse to read)

(Continued next post)
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 12:44:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued from last post)

Actually, I like the idea that a choice for an extended life (not eternal life) would be obtainable. Unfortunately, no matter how hard one wishes for this, there is no evidence it is true. This has nothing whatsoever to so with not liking the idea of a particular god. Disliking a non-existent entity or the idea of a non-existent entity is rather stupid. It’s only the impact of that harmful notion that the AFA deals with.

Because you believe in the god of your indoctrination does not automatically mean I must have some personal issue. There is no evidence for your god or any of the other thousands of gods.

If you met me you would realise that the personal issues story (told to you by religious leaders about why some people are atheists) is a fabrication. And might I add that I’m very happy with my life and am over-the-moon delighted that I am an atheist. It is the best and most fantastic thing by far that has ever happened to me. Many atheists think that.

I shiver when I consider that I could have remained locked into someone else’s ideas for the only life I am ever going to have. My opinion is that if somehow one could review the life they lived after death (without there being an afterlife), I would be very depressed and despondent at having wasted the only available.

But, to each her/his own as long as it is not imposed on civilisation.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 1:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
You certainly have a childish view of how we as Christians view reality by continually associating our view of the origins of reality with faries. Indicates lack of intelligent research of others views.

You are not a leader of original intelligent research of all views but a follower of senior atheists views that like to belittle others faith. You are held by the emotion of atheism and not by a genuine tolerance of others alternate views of origins.

You began this thread as a myth and end it with faries. We have learned a lot about your level of thought.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:13:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Says David, "Some people in the eighteen century (might have been the early nineteenth) believed fairies existed. They did not produce empirically convincing evidence so I accept that belief to be unfounded. Is that a belief on my part"

Actually, the cosmos can get along without fairies, but the existence of the cosmos, life and all else cannot be ignored, and has to be accounted for.

For example, what specific VERIFIABLE scientific evidence do you have to establish that our dependendent dying universe, that cannot even sustain itself or prevent itself from running down towards heat death and maximum entropy(disorder), was able to actually bring "itself" into existence.

Here's the reality. Science is a million miles from establishing ANY of the multitude of ASSUMPTIONS on which your philosophical naturalism and materialism is founded. Meaning, at this point in time your entire godless naturalistic view of reality has no VERIFIABLE scientific basis, and is thus based entirely on "blind faith". In short, yor godless naturalistic worldview has its feet planted firmly in mid air.

So, David, all we need from you is real VERIFIABLE scientific evidence that the cosmos and all else is IN FACT solely the result of natural processes and causes alone. So, off you go. Let's see what you come up with.

Here's the good news! If you can answer this problem there is a big juicy Nobel Prize just waiting for you.
Posted by johnheno, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Secondly, the theory of evolution, that you so treasure, is not based on verifiable empirical science. Evolutionary theory is a HISTORICAL THEORY based on "subjective" ideological INTERPRETATIONS and ASSUMPTIONS as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the UNOBSERVED distant past. Which is why Dawkins repeatedly refers to creationists as "history deniers", and why the Nobel Committee does not recognise historical theories as prizeworthy science.

Here's your problem. There is no possible way of anyone ever using the Empirical& Scientific Method to establish that past historical evolutionary events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether the evolutionary continuum happened at ALL.

Moreover, creationist scientists are growing by the day and gaining traction. Eugene Scott's and others distortions of creationist views have been repeatedly discredited at creation. com. And those of us who have looked closely at the anti-creationist propaganda engaged in by Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, Eugene Scott and others have long ago realized that evolutionary theory has an evidential crisis. Which is precisely why the creation-evolution debate has been going on the over 150 years, and may well go on another 150 years. Simply because the evolutionary historical "interpretations" of past remains and relics are far from conclusive or persuasive, other than to the true believers
Posted by johnheno, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:25:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

That’s an interesting take on the thread. I didn’t realise I had you so rattled.

It would do you well to look back at your own posts and try to work out that it is impossible for others to be convinced or indeed accept the deductions you have arrived at using the highly subjective jargon on which you depend.

You cannot just keep on making wild statement and blindly attacking the integrity of opponents because your range of arguments is limited or non-existent. To make that a little clearer, you have not put forward a cogent case or even attempted to do so.

You may believe you are the holder of some kind of supernatural truth but sophisticated discussion relies on ideas being presented and critiqued by others to arrive at a determination conducive to the facts presented. None of this appears in your methods.

You might be frustrated that the points you make whilst being believed by others who have been through a similar religious indoctrination process, they are not accepted by those that have escaped or never have experienced that blinkered way of thinking. These people require evidence and as much as you rebel against that idea, it is the best way to arrive at sensible conclusions. Some evidence is not there (yet) but jumping to the ‘god did it’ answer is unsatisfactory, particularly so as there are and have been many gods.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:48:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
johnheno,

It is only a statement and not a truth that, “life and all else cannot be ignored, and has to be accounted for.” Who says it has to be accounted for. Something’s are not known and may never be known. Others things not known now, may be known later. So what?

I don’t understand how the universe and life came into being…and neither do you nor any of the clerics for all of history. This has been covered here in this post in this thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#153859

It is a nonsense statement that “creationist scientists are growing by the day and gaining traction.”

The survey at the National Academy of Sciences, which is comprised of some of the best scientific minds alive, showed that only 7% believed in a god of any description. Therefore, as mainstream religious belief would be most of those 7%, the number who would be creationists has to be extremely small to non-existent.

Creationism is not gaining credibility to any extent at all in scientific circles; in fact it has never published a peer reviewed study in an accredited scientific journal disproving evolution. This has also been covered in this post. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#152110

Or, maybe you can supply such a study instead of just capitalising words for effect.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:54:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 72
  7. 73
  8. 74
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy