Yuyutsu,

I imagine that you imagine that you had something significant to say but my imagining of your imagining imagined, and it only took an extremely slight instant, that you really didn't. Or did I just imagine that?

I have already explained some of this before but mixing concepts derived from philosophy, metaphysics, solipsism and, catachresis without due regard for reason which is the universally proven best way to interpret the senses, they are bound to clash and make no discernible practical addition to a conversation at all. Your post was an excellent example of that.

Mind you, it is a great way to keep the mind confused to such a degree that it thinks it is being profound when it really is expounding highly subjective nonsense.

Sorry to be the one to break the bad news. Someone had to.

David

Dear David,

So the human mind, full of itself, has universally "proven" that its reasoning is the *best* way to interpret the senses, so has the cat "proven" that he's the *best* to guard the cream and the blind "proven" he's the *best* to lead the blind.

Mind you, it is a great way to keep the mind confused to such a degree that it thinks it is being profound when it really is expounding highly objective nonsense.

Sorry to be the one to break the good news. Someone had to.

Dear David (Atheist etc.)

You wrote: "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."

No, David, I am also speaking of current times. There is a struggle within Christianity and Judaism to accept homosexuals and the female clergy. This struggle is going on in the present. As I mentioned in my post (which you didn't seem to notice) it is a struggle because there are people of conflicting views within the religions at present.

The civil rights movement in the United States was a great expression of conscience against the legal oppression of black people. Prominent in the movement was Martin Luther King Jr. and other clergy, both white and black. People of good will, many religious and also non-religious, supported this movement.

One of the problems with humanity is we tend to ascribe virtues to those who agree with us and vices to those who disagree with us. Although I believe in no supernatural entities I will join with religious people when I think they are on the right track.

I am concerned with militarism, racism, inequities in society and the destruction of the environment. I find that many religious people have the same concerns. Where I can work with them I will even though I do not believe what they believe in regarding supernatural fairy tales.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk and www.sojo.net are the addresses of two religious groups. They both have a social conscience. I support much of what they are doing and will continue to support them. I have joined with Catholics connected with Dorothy Day houses when they have protested militarism. They exist very much in the present, and I think are a force for good.

david f,

I was referring to your mention of Castellio and John Brown. They were from another era. If you are speaking of current times the voices that get attention are Pell, Jensen and shamefully the Australian Christian Lobby who represent very few Christians and the like as well as the Pope and let's not forget the many imams and other religious leaders and promoters.

My suggestion would be approach organisations concerned with the matters I have raised and ask them why progress is so slow in reform. I am involved with many of them to larger or lesser degrees and it is no secret that religion is the problem.

Whether there are good or bad religious people is irrelevant. If you cannot concede this point it will not be very productive in continuing with this discussion.

Would the struggle over these issues in religious circles even exist if the measures I suggested about how children should be fairly treated were implemented?

It is not the mandate of the AFA to join with religious organisations who still promote mental child abuse as I have described. Individual members of such faiths may disagree with it and they should make their voices heard.

It is your way to affiliate yourself with various Christian organisations, but it is not our way. I applaud you for the effort but the power to make change is in the general population. Awareness is a big part of the answer. Therefore I am here.

If atheism was causing the concerns I have mentioned or others similar, I would give away being president and pro-actively work against it.

I'm not after an argument about this.

David

Dear David (AFA),

I am more concerned with what people do than with what they believe. If someone is going in the direction I want to go I will go with them. That is working for change. We have priorities for what is most important. I make no secret of my lack of religious belief.

You mentioned mental child abuse. As far as I am concerned preparing a child to accept later going to war when he or she becomes an adult is mental child abuse. That is done in our society by exalting what is called the Anzac spirit. Advertising which makes possession of particular objects a matter of self esteem and status is another form of child abuse. Where a religious group is concerned with those forms of mental child abuse I will support them.

In many areas religion is a problem. I support separation of religion and state, oppose chaplains in the schools and subsidising of religious schools and the intrusion of religious indoctrination where it is not wanted. I left the Humanist society of Queensland when some members supported the oppression of Christians in China by the current Chinese government. They have since left, and I have rejoined the society.

david f,

I agree with the sentiments expressed in your post although I consider the minor differences between us revolves around child abuse that goes beyond the grave by creating terror in the mind of a child. Naturally there is no actual terror beyond the grave but a child is incapable of the maturity of thought to recognise that.

This indoctrination process expresses itself with the adult portraying actions and supporting a system that is expressly against the well-being and happiness of other citizens because of choosing first and foremost what its religion demands.

I hope I haven’t portrayed atheism as being the inoculation of all things idiotic because it is not, but in my opinion the general consensus of rational thought is that society would be a lot better off if more of it was utilised.

You will notice on these forums now that people are willing to stand up against religious ideas that don’t hold water. It has taken many decades for that situation to now exist. When I first started involving myself publicly with the idea there is probably no god, the reaction was horrendous against such thinking. Change is slow in a lifetime but as for the arrow of history, there is a swift alteration going on that we all have to accommodate.

There is no point in denying this as the phenomena is historically unprecedented as it is also unstoppable as statistics worldwide are showing.

I have a deep sadness for those trapped socially and some financially who cannot make the change away from religion. Others feel they are right but are not willing to look at the evidence supporting the no god hypothesis. As I said, if it were atheism causing strife, I would drop it. That is the big difference between atheism and religion. Atheists are capable of changing with new information but many religious people would rather hang on grimly no matter what the evidence demonstrates.

In all societies when religion becomes more than a personal experience which is no-one’s business, it creates strife for others and the planet.

Pax

David