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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.