Dear George,

No I do not “believe in a God-Creator” and if I have imparted that impression then it seems we might be on different operating systems. If we are then you are obviously the Mac guy and I'm Windows. Yours is a far more stable platform where as mine is free wheeling, susceptible to viruses, and periodically crashes – but lots of fun.

I'm not trying to impart any deep wisdom here because I don't have any. Rather I'm explaining why I love my OS (please note I'm not asking you to respect it, I wouldn't want to be that presumptuous ;) ).

So when you write “accept the Scripture as a source of wisdom if properly interpreted” I say bugger the 'proper' interpretation. The only people who can tell us what that is are long dead. The interpretations you garner from the scriptures would be far different to those acquired by others a millennia ago or yesterday from some other denomination or even yourself ten years earlier.

Think of the scriptures as art. We should be free to take from it what we will and if it deeply affects us on a level that others don't understand then so be it. I have gathered far more 'wisdom' from directly reading biblical works than from reading any interpretations.

Dear AJ Phillips,

You wrote;

“Only that you agree with csteele that the story shouldn’t be taught to children when he/she never even said that.”

It was a bit of self projection on his behalf that I let slide.

I do not have a problem with children being exposed to biblical literature, rather what I object to is them being exposed to people who would claim to have definitive answers to the moral questions it poses. What I would find acceptable is an explanation prefaced with; 'This is what I think is the message of this story but as you grow up and learn more you will decide for yourself what you think it means and it may well be quite different to my ideas.'

Teaching the bible should be more about opening doors than describing the view. I have no problem with recommending Job over lets say Numbers as a good book to get your teeth into but once led there I shouldn't be telling anyone what message to take, only what I personally got from it.

Having said that I have reread the Job thread and I did happen to write; “Read chapter 24 where Job proceeds to make the case that God has failed to deliver justice as promised. I would ignore verses 18-20 as they are so discordant with the rest of Job’s accusations that I feel they can only be later additions.”

Guilty I'm afraid your honour.

As I am with my fondness of often indecipherable 'crude metaphors'. PC - Mac, my goodness me.

But I am interested to hear George's interpretation of the Abraham story.

George,

I was waiting with excited anticipation for the list of intolerances by atheism. But, it possibly is best we leave it here.

David

Pericles,

>>>”You left out "other religions".”<<<

Do you mean there is more than one?

David

david f,

Word limit is partly at fault although I used the word religion as meaning the idea of religion. I often state that the percentage of adherents in favour of socially progressive notions is not represented by the leadership of most religions.

There was no prejudice intended or indeed displayed by me. Religious leaders, via politicians encumbered by the faith-gene or who are subservient to those that are, keep anachronistic notions going and stop more enlightened legislation from happening.

And, by the way, if the adherents who are for progressive politics do not make a noise about it in trepidation of upsetting the hierarchy, then they are compliant in positive change not coming about.

Many are noisy, but not anywhere near enough of them. If there were enough change would not just be a hope.

David

Dear David,

I agree with David Hume that reason is a slave to the passions. We make emotional judgments as to what is right and wrong and then use reason to support those judgments.

I am writing a history of the separation of church and state. One of the heroes in the progress of that idea is Sebastian Castellio. He saw the burning of heretics in the French Inquisition, and it affected him deeply. When Servetus was burnt at the state in Calvin's Geneva he protested even though most of both Catholic and Protestant clergy agreed with the burning of a heretic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Castellio tells about him.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 contains my article on the subject.

Another person I greatly admire was John Brown who fought slavery. It would be fair to characterise him as a religious nut, but he was right. The more rational individuals who opposed him as well as Robert E.Lee who presided at his execution were wrong.

There are many ugly aspects in religion, but it has also been a support for those who oppose oppression.

david f,

“There are many ugly aspects in religion, but it has also been a support for those who oppose oppression.”

That is a reasonable statement. However, you are speaking of times when nearly all people were religious or said they were out of fear of being ostracised depending what country was involved. There was no understanding of evolution and the theist and deist idea was was in the majority by far. Brave acts can be attributed to people and the actual religious motivation can only be guessed at though I'd assume it was certainly a part of the reasoning of many. Of course, religious reasons may encompass hope for eternal bliss or dread of hell. We just don't know these things and each will make their own evaluation suiting their particular slant.

Neither the AFA nor I am opposed to religion per se if chosen without childhood coercion, especially if extreme supernatural punishment and reward is not used. The trouble is that specific religions and sects within those religions claim they have the ‘truth’. Children soak up these messages by the adult authorities and they can become inherent in their nature. This is not only an unfair thing to do but it also can have negative ramifications for groups in society and civilisation as a whole.

To overcome this, the AFA and I propose that impartial comparative religion be taught to students in government schools and let the ensuing adult choose a religion or none. That atheists exist in large numbers shows that religion is not necessary for some humans. All people should have the chance of making a decision on this with the fullest amount of information available. This decision has serious implications for individuals and the planet.

The reason that religion is opposed to such a scheme is they know that early specific religious indoctrination works and can trap those so abused (a purposely chosen word) for life.

David

Dear David,

<<Religion is demonstrably intolerant of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools.>>

This is defamatory, but others have already been quicker than me to point how logically unsound it is to attribute the attitudes of certain Christian sects to religion at large: how is this different than attributing the woes of Stalinism to atheists at large?

<<Of course, religious reasons may encompass hope for eternal bliss or dread of hell.>>

No, such reasons would be mundane and selfish, not religious.

<<That atheists exist in large numbers shows that religion is not necessary for some humans.>>

No, it only shows that formal religion along with belief in gods is not necessary. Without religion there would be no point in life, but one doesn't need to believe anything in order to be religious.

<<The reason that religion is opposed to such a scheme is they know that early specific religious indoctrination works and can trap those so abused (a purposely chosen word) for life.>>

Ditto the misleading indoctrination as if the universe as perceived by our senses and minds is real, thereby rendering ephemeral material and social goals as worthwhile of pursuit.