Recent information, put out in the media shows that "the number of people who are non believers in Australia has overtaken Catholics" for the first time, with people providing census details in terms of 'no religion' rising 22.6% to 29.6%.

Christianity still was at 52% of the population, but in 1966 the figure was at 88% and 74% in 1991. It is said that 1.8m people attended a church service each week, but this is only one in seven Australian people who selected Christianity on their census form.

The only religions that have increased in numbers have been Islam, churches such as the well known Hillsong Church and 'other religions'.

There are many who question a lot of elements of society and only strive for facts. Alongside that, I would argue, some of these people are looking for a lot of detail, in fact perhaps too much detail, leaving a lot of Australians 'starved' of time in life for themselves, coming out tired and exhausted, with an addiction for more, (such as money), some sort of fact, evidence or truth.

Is this something individuals and the community need to assess and could such assessment lead to an improved society, if the number of non believers continues to increase?

Nathan, it may be a question of relevance. 50 years ago the values of mainstream Christianity in Australia was very much the values of mainstream society. Today among Christians the position of the dominant churches, Catholic, Anglican etc and their influence on society is questionable. If they are not a source of influence in your moral thinking, why would you bother attending.
I don't think the 30% who profess no religion, are necessarily atheists, many may well have a belief in a god of some sorts.

Religion killed itself. How it survived after the witch burning rubbish, then a womanising english monarch making up his own version so he could get rid of a wife every time he tired of her is beyond me.

Then there were the church run orphanges, I know a man bought up in a salvation army orphanage and there was nothing kind, caring or godly about any of it. I was raised Catholic but I had it figured by aged 10 when Abraham was told by 'god' to sleep with his wife's handmaiden because she couldn't fall pregnant. This was in scripture and I stood up and said what a load of cobblers and was smacked by the nun for my troubles. I was also chastised by my father for even daring to speak like that to a nun. And never mind the priests, pastors, brothers and vicars that thought kids were fair game for their sick sexual rot.

Aside from that, religion and any sort of god is absolute fairy tale, pie in the sky man made rubbish from start to finish and the sooner it's done away with altogether the better. These days they're money making rackets that pay no taxes, which is just wrong on every level.

Of course it's dying, and so it should. It's caused nothing but misery throughout the ages.

Yes, it's very encouraging news indeed.

In fact, we can be be sure that the number is even higher than what showed, too, for three reasons:

1. Ten percent of people didn't answer the question, and it's pretty safe to assume that most of these were non-believers.
2. Non-believers automatically checking off the religion they were baptised into is bound to still be a factor.
3. There was a dishonest scare campaign from the far-Right telling people that we'd become a Muslim country if we checked 'No religion' (which was quite successful, going by some of the comments here on OLO at the time and the number of bogans I saw sharing it on Facebook).

What I found interesting about the statistics was that religiosity drops off after the person is old enough to start speaking for themselves (age 18). I'm guessing it's a combination of the critical thinking skills kicking in and parents just checking their childrens' religion off as the same as their own.

Are we non-believers?

I certainly hope so.

It is high time we Australians put this superstitious nonsense behind us and focused on real problems in the real world without stressing about the possible wishes of a fictitious superior entity.

It sickens me to see our leaders in parliament still bending the knee to these farcical fairy tales before getting down to business. I want to be governed by clear-headed men and women who use logic and intelligence to approach problems, not weak-minded individuals whose thoughts are influenced by the self-interested clergy.

madmick,
Instead of attacking belief from ignorance get informed. Most of the institutions and welfare we have today benefiting society were developed by people of faith. Even our Westminster system of Government is based on Church based Government, including term "Ministers" a Christian identity.
Atheists prefer Dictator forms of Government, as is evident in recent and current Atheist States

Religion has been responsible for the odd war over the years. Besides that i think religion has run its course. not to mention the activities of the priests and associated persons that would have you believe they are community leaders.
Religious persons are fearful of what archaeologists find out about our past.
Some people have affiliation to the rhesus monkey, and other people have been subject to genetic manipulation. What ever the outcome life will go on.

yep the gullible continue to sign up for the gw faith based on the evolution myth. Sadly they call it science. Any rational person could not swallow such garbage.

I attended our granddaughters 'Conformation' into the Catholic Church only a week ago. The church was full, about 50 or 60 children were receiving the sacrament. Around the alter were seven men, average age about 50, dressed in their religious garb, One was the Bishop, I could tell that as he was wearing the Bishops miter (conical shaped hat) and he was better dressed than the others. I assume the rest were priests and acolytes. The service was totally contrived, and filled with ritual and incantations. The Bishop led the parade, and delivered a sermon for about 20 minutes, on the wonders of receiving the 'Holy Sprite' formally the 'Holy Ghost' (In this day of enlightenment sprites are good, ghosts are bad. I suppose the Holy what ever he is told them that). For a bunch of 11 and 12 year old's he would have been better off lecturing them on quantum physics, it would have made more sense.

The highlight of the evening was dinner down at the local pagan restaurant (Chinese). I asked XXXX what she got out of the whole thing. She said I got the "Holy Sprite', I said what is that? She said; "He is a kind of god!"

p/s Traditionally it is custom, to give the recipient a gift, normally something religious like a bible. I bought the gift, a book on 'The Universe' from big bang to today.My partner said to me; "Why that book" I said; "Well its good if our girl gets something worthwhile out of it." She said "Typical of you!"
In my book there is not one mention of the 'Holy Ghost' in 100 odd pages. Seen her Sunday, and told told me how much she loves the book, and is learning so much from it. Good, you can even learn from religion. BTW not long back the Catholic Church would have burnt me and the book as heresy!

p/p/s At least the children didn't have to kiss the Bishops ring like I did in my day. Which can be quite offputting if he hasn't wiped his ring lately.

Dear Nathan,

I think that many people today may no longer believe deeply
in traditional religion, but at the same time they may
not have found a satisfying substitute. Of course, others
have found a satisfying substitute.

Lets take a look at religion and why it still exists today
for many people.

The rituals enacted in any religion enhance the solidarity
of the community as well as its faith. Religious rituals
such as babtism, bar mitzvah, weddings, Sabbath services,
Christmas mass, and funerals - they serve to bring people
together; to remind them of their common group membership;
to reaffirm their traditional values; to maintain prohibitions
and taboos; to offer comfort in times of crisis; and in
general, to help transmit the cultural heritage from one
generation to the next.

Shared religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them
have been so important in most people's lives that if they
don't have religious beliefs then at least most people need
some belief system that serves the same functions. Otherwise
lacking commitment in a shared belief system they tend to
pursue their private interests without regard for their
fellows.

We also need to remember that there are still gaps in our
understanding on the ultimate important questions - of the
meaning and purpose of life and the nature of morality.
I think that few people 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.

I'm surprised that people here have ignored the larger picture.
It's not only Christians who believe in a higher power. All religions do.
Which, based on census figures means that 70% of Australians still believe in some form of religion.
Added to this, perhaps it would be interesting to see a comparison between the reduced number of people who have some form of faith and the increased numbers of people with mental health disorders and addiction problems.
Regardless of whether that faith in a higher power is based on a truth, no one can ever deny that religion has provided a form of support for people in crisis or traumatic situations,or even just to help them through a difficult time.
Didn't religion used to be known as " opium for the masses?"
Quite frankly, if it's a choice between drugs and religion I know what I would prefer.

Hi Foxy, my Father use to say "Religion, is the work of the Devil." Given what has gone on, and still goes on, I think I should agree.

Dear Paul,

Ah, but don't forget the Devil is
a fallen angel. (smiley face).

Let's not get too carried away. The majority of Australians – 60% according to the census – do still call themselves Christians. Another 10%, roughly, adhere other religions. So, it is drawing a very long bow indeed to suggest that we are a nation of “non-believers”, when at least 70% believe in something.

Paul makes an interesting comment that 30% of Australians not necessarily atheists. Many people don't call themselves Christians because they don't attend churches, but that doesn't mean that they are not living a Christian way of life, which is far more important than labelling. I would hazard a guess that 80% or white Westerners are living Christian-influenced lives because Christianity is the basis for living their lives. Democracy, the rule of law and all our values didn't come from thin air.

For instance, I believe in Christianity, but I haven't been in a church to worship for nearly 60 years, and I don't like organised religion or its priests very much at all. I always put 'Christian' on the census paper.

For all the fools 'celebrating' what they think is a good sign (fewer Christians … perhaps; who: knows what people are thinking when they fill in a census), just think about this: at the moment, we live in a secular country where the private religion of most people is still Christian. There is no compulsion to have a religion, you can believe or not as you wish. But, try to imagine what it will be like when everyone has given up Christianity, and Islam is increasing. You won't be getting too many choices about what you are or what you think then. Islam thrives in a vacuum, which is what the disappearance of the religion you hate will provide. The first to go will be the atheists, because Islam despises atheists much more than it does Christians. Christians and others will be given the opportunity to convert or die. But, atheists, your gooses are well and truly cooked.

You’re a glass-half-empty kinda gal, aren’t you Big Nana?

<<It's not only Christians who believe in a higher power. All religions do.
Which, based on census figures means that 70% of Australians still believe in some form of religion.>>

My listed reasons as to why the figure is almost certainly smaller than that aside, I don’t think anyone here has missed that at all. The point is that the number of those professing a religious belief has dropped quite dramatically.

<<... perhaps it would be interesting to see a comparison between the reduced number of people who have some form of faith and the increased numbers of people with mental health disorders and addiction problems.>>

There is inevitably a correlation, given the increase in mental health issues (or increased awareness of them, at least). There is also a correlation between murder rates and ice cream sales. But correlation does not imply causation. Do you know what else shares a reliable (inverse) correlation with religiosity? Most measures of societal health and education:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://tyisnotahero.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/kpb5a1.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

<<Regardless of whether that faith in a higher power is based on a truth, no one can ever deny that religion has provided a form of support for people in crisis or traumatic situations,or even just to help them through a difficult time.>>

Sure, so do drugs and alcohol, but that doesn’t mean they're healthy or ideal.

<<Didn't religion used to be known as " opium for the masses?">>

Yes. Why? Has this been discredit now, or something?

<<Quite frankly, if it's a choice between drugs and religion I know what I would prefer.>>

This is a False Dilemma fallacy.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

Dear Nathan,

First, I protest the naming of all people who happen to live in this continent as "nation". This census was forced upon us all regardless of our affiliation with such foolish groupings of people.

I did not answer that question, primarily because I don't want to volunteer information to the government of your "nation" and I could afford to not answer it because I would not have to pay ongoing hefty fines like I would for the other questions.

The other reason I did not answer this question, was that if I were to answer correctly, "Hindu", then your government would give tainted stolen money to Hindu temples and organisations to corrupt them - unfortunately it already does so, but I didn't want it to give even more "on my behalf".

Finally, belief [in deities] is something quite different from religion. There could perhaps be some correlation since believing in deities can be used as a religious technique, but people who do not use this particular technique can be quite as religious as others who do, if not more. Similarly, belonging to and identifying with organisations that call themselves "religious" is no guarantee at all for actually being religious.

ttbn,

They didn’t come from Christianity either.

<<Democracy, the rule of law and all our values didn't come from thin air.>>

They came from ancient Greece. Christianity was later interpreted in a way such that the two could be justified (e.g. Locke). At best, Christianity proved not to be too much of a hindrance, but there is plenty in the Goat-Herder's Guide to the Galaxy to argue against democracy and the rule of law, too.

<<… I believe in Christianity, but I haven't been in a church to worship for nearly 60 years, and I don't like organised religion or its priests very much at all. I always put 'Christian' on the census paper.>>

But you used to call yourself an atheist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3878#21132). So, was I right after all? Have you since found Jesus?

If not, then you are one of those to whom I referred when I listed reasons as to why the number of non-believers is a lot higher than what the statistics suggest.

<<For all the fools 'celebrating' what they think is a good sign … just think about this … try to imagine what it will be like when everyone has given up Christianity, and Islam is increasing. You won't be getting too many choices about what you are or what you think then. Islam thrives in a vacuum …>>

Yeah, this was the argument from the far-Right with regards to putting ‘No religion’ on the census form. The problem with your assumption here is that 'no faith' does not mean 'indifferent'. To claim otherwise is a non sequitur.

Is this the only reason you've accepted Jesus into your heart? That would have to be one of the worst reasons I've ever heard. You could have at least hit rock bottom, or something like that.

<<But, atheists, your gooses are well and truly cooked.>>

This falsely assumes (among many other things) that the number of Muslims won’t decline. It is declining (albeit at a slower rate). Young Muslims are abandoning religion in droves.

Not really, this country is just having its 'communist moment' to see if works as badly as it has in russia, east europe, cuba and venezuela.

But ultimately, christianity is always the same, from byzantium to western europe...it arrives, creates enormous wealth and happiness, but also, producers a slothful and lethargic population that loses touch with itself over time.

Part of my post, was in relation to many wanting to find out facts. In fact a lot of facts that many want. A lot of time is consumed, and can achieve nothing.

At present I have a lot of leaves which have covered the front yard of my small house this year from an old Oak tree which is about 100 years old. In reality I don't care how the whole process works. It is something that works out naturally and by itself.

But for many, there is a deep desire to want to constantly know more or try and prove something. It could be about climate change, scientific and medical research (which many want to lead to an outcome), improved technology and other advancements in general.

For myself a focus away from this movement can be healthier, whether it be personal rest, walking and exercise, laying on the lawn in a park, swimming or times when I make my own bread at home. These can be an enthralling experience, and I am not always seeking facts, I am simplistically looking at the ability to live, and the enjoyment that comes from that.

I am not here to question religion, as this can also be a passive form of activity for many, but I am concerned many Australians may be moving towards materialism and wanting more, at the expense of a simple and more holistic lifestyle.

NathanJ,

You have presented a false dichotomy. Discovery and personal pleasure are not mutually exclusive. Some people derive pleasure from discovery, and it is these people whom we can thank for all the medical and technological advances that we benefit from. You even mention this in your third paragraph:

<<But for many, there is a deep desire to want to constantly know more or try and prove something.>>

Yet, here, you assume that such a drive is unhealthy. Speaking from personal experience, my drive to learn more has been immensely beneficial and satisfying. When I was deeply religious, I did and said many stupid things (some of which I still pay the price for even today) because I was only interested in what made me feel comfortable, and I see many others make the same mistakes.

The argument that religion brings comfort to many is overly simplistic and ignores the damage that believing in nonsense could be doing to the individual (and likely is, to at least some extent). The more we perpetuate this over-simplification, the less likely we are to find real solutions.

<<For myself a focus away from this movement can be healthier, …>>

Yes, with the key words there being “for myself”.

<<… I am concerned many Australians may be moving towards materialism and wanting more, at the expense of a simple and more holistic lifestyle.>>

How is a lack of religious belief indicative of this? What if a lack of religious belief is merely a result of higher levels of education? This also somewhat contradicts Progressive Pat’s nonsense claim regarding and Christianity and wealth.

What if some don’t want a simple lifestyle? What if some people care about having their beliefs align as closely as possible with reality? I know I do. Personally, I prefer uncomfortable truths to reassuring lies. Despite the discomfort reality may bring, I think I’m happier overall accepting it for what it is, and I don’t think that’s a co-incidence. I don't just say this in the context of religion, either.

I think you’re worried about nothing.

" I want to be governed by clear-headed men and women who use logic and intelligence to approach problems, not weak-minded individuals whose thoughts are influenced by the self-interested clergy."

Right on. I've often opined that the world would have been a much better place if it wasn't for those weak-minded leaders of the Christian faith. You know, people like Rudd, Beazley, Blair, Clinton, Obama.

" I bought the gift, a book on 'The Universe' from big bang to today."

Should be an interesting read. I wonder if it explained what happened before the big bang and what caused that event. Quite the mystery. Perhaps the universe just said "Let there be light".

________________________________________________________________

The issue isn't whether the masses profess to or follow the Christian faith. The issue is whether the majority continue to follow the Christian values that made the West what is is (or was). Its possible to conceive (just) of a society with little adherence to the church but strong adherence to Christian values and so long as that holds we and our form of civilisation remains viable. Otherwise we'll be living in interesting times...and we all know what the Chinese say about interesting times.

" but I am concerned many Australians may be moving towards materialism and wanting more, at the expense of a simple and more holistic lifestyle."

I fear NathanJ that that horse has long since bolted and is already in the next county.

NathanJ,

I take you as inferring transcendence, especially as in going beyond reliance on material things for one's sense of worth and of being. Gaze at the Oak and feel a sense of awe. Start first with compassion and kindness towards others I believe. But that must be in the doing.

Be of real, practical, reliable and sustained service to your own community is where it is all at, and possible.

Who cares from whence the motivation springs as long as the good is there and being done? Or that some choose religion to tie it together and to find a community of like-minded souls to support them? We need our social interaction. Particularly where people grow older and children have their own family to care for.

I see no valid reason to constantly chide people for their religious beliefs as some do. Different folks need different strokes and where they are not causing harm to others and very likely being good citizens, who should be nagging at them?

Oh, you’re going to hate me for this, mhaze.

<< I've often opined that the world would have been a much better place if it wasn't for those weak-minded leaders of the Christian faith. You know, people like Rudd, Beazley, Blair, Clinton, Obama.>>

That’s the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, as you have interpreted a pattern where one does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

Forgetting for a moment that you may actually be wrong about some of those leaders (and likely are given that your opinion appears to be based solely on your politics), what about all the Christian leaders who were strong? There are plenty Christian right-wing leaders who I’m sure you would consider to be strong, yet you have ignored these to take an off-topic swipe at leaders who you consider to be on the ‘wrong’ side of the political spectrum.

<<I wonder if it explained what happened before the big bang and what caused that event. Quite the mystery.>>

Why would it if it’s a mystery? You’re not fallaciously appealing to a god of the gaps now, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

<<Perhaps the universe just said "Let there be light".>>

Or perhaps it was Russell’s Teapot?

<< The issue is whether the majority continue to follow the Christian values that made the West what is is (or was).>>

To which values do you refer, and how did they do that?

I’m sure you’re not referring to the values that Christianity begrudgingly adopted after it was dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages, after all.

--

Well said, leoj.

<<I see no valid reason to constantly chide people for their religious beliefs as some do. Different folks need different strokes and where they are not causing harm to others and very likely being good citizens, who should be nagging at them?>>

No-one should be. But I don't see too many atheists going around door-knocking or approaching theists and asking if they still believe in Jesus. Publicly stated claims, however, are fair game. Furthermore, no idea should be beyond scrutiny or protected from criticism.

"..but I am concerned many Australians may be moving towards materialism and wanting more, at the expense of a simple and more holistic lifestyle".

You got that right, Nathan; and those people need to start changing their attitudes and doing without some of the materials things. They won't have the choice for much longer. They are living in a fool's paradise.

AJ Phillips,

It's important that humans do not need to know everything and we are likely to never find out everything some may want. For those who wish to exhaust themselves down the pathway of constant discovery of finding more..... well that is their choice, but these people have no right to push this principle onto others.

<<I think you’re worried about nothing>>

Yes! But only in terms of myself. In terms of others, that is different, and I am allowed to be concerned in that context.

For example, I am a member of a refugee support group. Refugees locally are put through very harsh government policies in Australia.

<<Speaking from personal experience, my drive to learn more has been immensely beneficial and satisfying.>>

That sounds somewhat self gratifying. Who was paying for that? Yourself? Government? Taxpayers? If such learning came from personal experience though I would take a different viewpoint.

You also ignored (or left out) my word 'constantly'. So learning (by itself) is not the issue. The matter is about something that can be taken on constantly, continually, frequently or by the hour.

These examples are relevant but depend on individual situations and can be questionable or overstated in terms of value, as it depends on the interpretations of individuals and their desire to want more, particularly if it's at the expense of ones personal health or life, compared to an overall balanced lifestyle or impacts on others.

For example I have five medical conditions. In no way would I put myself put through excessive treatments or medical testing simply to find "real solutions". I even refused to take one medication, as it went against positions I personally take, being vegetarian.

<<The argument that religion brings comfort to many is overly simplistic>>

Yes! And if one doesn't like what a religion provides today they can leave. It won't cost a lot of money, compared to a new television set (materialism) and if one doesn't want what is perceived as a simple lifestyle, this isn't enforceable, despite many experts now stating simpler lifestyles are inevitable, to reduce living costs.

Are we a nation of non believers?

No.

NathanJ,

Sure, humans don’t need to know everything, but evidently the pros of striving for that outweigh the cons.

<<… [Constant discovery] is their choice, but these people have no right to push this principle onto others.>>

Of course not. I’ve never seen anyone do that, either.

<<… and I am allowed to be concerned in that context.>>

Of course you are. Who’s said otherwise?

<<That sounds somewhat self gratifying.>>

In a sense, yes. Immensely beneficial, too, and not just for myself, either.

Most of what we do is self-gratifying to some extent. Your support for refugees included. After all, the good feeling we get from being charitable is one of the reasons we behave charitably. It’s an evolved trait which promotes altruism.

<<Who was paying for that? Yourself? Government? Taxpayers?>>

All of the above. The government funds education for a reason, too, by the way.

<<You also ignored ... my word 'constantly' ... The matter is about something that can be taken on constantly, continually, frequently or by the hour.>>

No, I didn’t ignore that. I just gave you enough credit to not assume that you would set up such an absurd straw man. I don’t think anyone indulges in discovery and learning every waking moment of their lives. This is a fallacious appeal to extremes:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

<<… In no way would I put myself put through excessive treatments or medical testing simply to find "real solutions".>>

Of course not. Just as I’m sure most wouldn’t spend every waking moment of their lives learning and discovering, to the detriment of their health.

<<Yes! And if one doesn't like what a religion provides today they can leave.>>

I’m not sure what this has to do with the condescending view, that some poor dears just need religion, being an over-simplification; but, no, it’s not always that simple. Some stop believing yet still live in perpetual fear of what might happen if they stop at least faking it. I, personally, remember starting to hate some of the injustice in religious doctrine, but that didn’t mean I felt free to just leave.

I've just picked up again, the book by Dr Paul Collins,
"Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have A Future?"
And in the Foreword by Geraldine Doogue I found a paragraph
that I think might be appropriate to this discussion:
Geraldine Doogue writes:

"In all the copious debates about religion and society,
one of the key questions is never properly canvassed:
what would Australia feel like WITHOUT an active, vaguely
relevant Catholic Church? Correctly, there's interest in
some of its poor legacies like sexual abuse. But consider the
vacuum caused by the surrender of a hopeful Church, together
with its ritual life, its routine generosity, its largeness
of spirit, its road map for a soul's journey through life
as opposed to Economic or Intellectual Man or Woman's Progress?
Imagine the profound gap that would leave."

"Dr Paul Collins' central challenge is not to broader society
but to Catholics. Does any of this still matter seriously to
us? See how these Christians love each other, was the Romans'
awestruck observation of the earliest Church people. Maybe our
version should be about hope. See how these 21st Century
Catholics' hope and how it revives them. And then how it
encourages them to act as though there is more to life than
meets the eye."

"As one Canadian churchman put it recently - those who don't
recognise the Church as a source of hope will instead perceive
it as a burden - one more burden they don't need in their
overburdened lives. This is the call that many of us can hardly
bear to hear. We can but live in hope that some of us do."

AJ Philips,

As you understand and I hope I am not misunderstanding you by saying that, I place very high value on having a secular State, a democracy with secular government and secular law.

General comment
At present the religions are tame and the flocks have the upper hand in Australia (I must exclude Islam from that). However it is forever a fight by those flocks to get what they want and need from one another, where priests always seem to seeking a directing and then a controlling role. Next minute, they will have the boot on the back of the neck again. Censorship is the very first target.

I am fearful that the welcoming of Islam by certain churchmen of Islam could be more motivated by a desire to regain the power over people that they have lost and they see it being exercised so effortlessly where the Koran is concerned.

It will always be a fight against fundamentalism and totalitarianism. Australians should never be lulled into a stats of false security. But they already are, through the insidious political correctness that is so deeply embedded that people self-censor without even realising.

Freedom of speech is the key to real freedom and ultimately the only defence against tyranny. It is lost by increments, as it was with political correctness.

Should be, "I am fearful that the welcoming of Islam by certain churchmen could be more motivated by a desire to regain the power over people that they have lost and they see it being exercised so effortlessly where the Koran is concerned."

Redundant words deleted.

Are we a nation of non believers?

No!

moonshine,
You have quite a poor understanding both of scripture and of history.

No king made up his own version, but King Henry VIII's desire to divorce his first wife and the subsequent split with the Pope over that issue did enable Protestantism to come to England.

And according to the Bible, God promised Abraham many descendants, but it was his wife, not God, who told him to shag her handmaiden.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

runner,

I wonder how many thinking people are deterred from Christianity because the absurd and insulting lies you spread make Christians look stupid?

A few centuries ago, many Christians believed (based on a prevailing interpretation of the story of Noah) that God would not let any species go extinct.

Today of course, I think any rational person can see that's rubbish.
But do you think "the gullible continue to sign up for the extinction faith based on the evolution myth"?
If not, what's the difference?

leoj,

Yes, I’m aware of that. Feel free to use the term ‘atheist’, though. In taking the word back, by using it ourselves, we can help to dispel the myth that non-believers are all communists and eat babies.

--

Aidan writes: “I wonder how many thinking people are deterred from Christianity because the absurd and insulting lies you spread make Christians look stupid?”

Yeah, well, it certainly didn’t make my de-conversion any harder.

When I was a Christian (and probably still today), Christians like runner were a dime a dozen, not the rarity they’re sometimes assumed by atheists to be. Although, from memory, most weren’t so hateful or vitriolic.

Unfortunately, though, telling Christians like runner how wrong they are only strengthens their belief. In psychology, this is known as the ‘Backfire Effect’, and Christian doctrine is set up in a way such that it can contribute to this phenomenon on two levels:

Firstly, a move by Christians away from a literal interpretation of Genesis is often brushed off as the devil gaining a foothold on mankind, signalling the end times prophesised in the Bible. Secondly, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus (unintentionally?) encourages people like runner to act like jerks by telling Christians that the more persecuted they are, the more right they are with God (Matthew 5:10-12).

--

NathanJ,

I’ve been thinking about this claim of yours (that there are all these people out their learning and discovering to the detriment of themselves and others, while insisting that everyone else do the same) and the only people I could think of, who might engage in learning and discovery to such an extent, are severely autistic people. But they’re hardly going to be concerned with whether religious people are doing the same as them.

No, I don’t think these people you speak of exist at all. I think they are a caricature straw man you’ve set up to make education sound just as potentially-harmful as religion. In fact, it sounds specifically devised as a response to the harm of religious belief that we’ve discussed in the past.

"you’re going to hate me for this, mhaze"

I don't hate you AJ and I don't hate the way you (mis)use the fallacy table. I find it mildly amusing.

The fallacy meme is a tool. Its a way for the observer of an argument to analysis and/or deconstruct an argument. It has its limits but it can be useful when correctly applied. But too often, you don't use it as a tool - you use it as a weapon. As I pointed out in a previous thread, just asserting that an argument using tradition is wrong because there's a 'Tradition Fallacy' completely misses the point and purpose of the Fallacy List. Correctly used, it should merely indicate to the user that an argument using tradition MIGHT be invalid if that's the sole basis for the argument. Its the start-point for analysis, not the end-point.

A hammer is a useful tool when used as a tool. Its a sub-optimal weapon.

"That’s the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,"
QED

"you have interpreted a pattern where one does not exist."
I wasn't proposing a pattern. I was just having a little fun pointing out that those bending the knee come from both both sides of the ideological divide. I suspect you (mis)interpreted that so as to allow the, again, misuse of the fallacy meme.

"Why would it if it’s a mystery? You’re not fallaciously appealing to a god of the gaps now, are you?"

I wasn't appealing to any God..and I don't find any God appealing. I was just having a little dig at the notion that we 'know' about the universe, that we can give a kid a book that'll set them straight on how things work. Its a conceit of this generation (probably all generations) that we've now got it worked out. So give a kid a book that offers an alternate view but don't pretend that we KNOW which view is correct, or that another view might arise that is more correct.

/tbc

/cont

"To which values do you refer, and how did they do that?"

Perhaps you could ask yourself some difficult questions. Why did modern democracy grow out of Christian countries? Why did the notion of human rights, personal liberty, freedom of speech arise first in Christian countries? Why were Christian countries the first in history to actively work to end slavery? Why did the industrial revolution and all the good that entails commence in the Christian west? Honestly answer that and you'll start to understand why our inherited value systems needs to salvaged.

" that Christianity begrudgingly adopted..."

There's no question that Christianity's history is not exemplary. But the changes were adopted. There used to be a consensus (where have I heard that word before?) that the continents were fixed. (And let's not even go down the sewer-hole of eugenics). When science begrudgingly adopts a new understanding based on new facts we laud its flexibility and tend to ignore its previous failings. But when Christians adopt new understandings based upon new data they are told that they must continue to be saddled with the old failings of their like from 20 generations ago. Today's Christians aren't yesterday's Christians.

By non believers you speak of spiritual or institutional?
Spiritual is a personal sense of perception within an individual that is only discussed, or revealed, to those close to that individual.
Institutional as regards to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and so on is a set of beliefs passed on in family, and re-assessed at a later stage in life as to the spiritual course to embrace.
The problems occur when politics uses these sensitive areas of belief to instigate a movement for and or against one another. A means of social deunification, divide and confuse, then proclaim to have the solution.

None of these social religious institutions have clean hands...so for any to lay claim to the moral high ground is hypocritical.
Social interaction can only proceed if respect for each other is present, and that goes for the beliefs, spiritual or otherwise, of any and all individuals.

You don't have to agree with the beliefs of each other to share life's experiences.
Yes, it is easier to relax with like minded but even there, respect is essential.
Respect is a social sense of recognition that no one is subservient to another and entitled to the same conditions as benefit each and all.
A sense of 'entitlement' arises when 'respect' is cast aside.
If societies are able to acquire that degree of awareness then political divide is not possible.
The spiritual beliefs of individuals can never be used against them.

It is certainly not intelligence that leads a person to dismiss God. More often than not it is moral corruption. The psalmist summed it up thousands of years ago. ' The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.' Psalm 14:1

Yes, mhaze, I’m sure you’re very amused.

<<… I don't hate the way you (mis)use the fallacy table. I find it mildly amusing.>>

You are yet to provide an example of myself misidentifying a fallacy.

<<The fallacy meme is a tool.>>

It’s more a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fallacy

<<As I pointed out in a previous thread, just asserting that an argument using tradition is wrong because there's a 'Tradition Fallacy' completely misses the point and purpose of the Fallacy List.>>

Absolutely. However, you were wrong to claim that that is what I do, and I pointed out why you were wrong.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340176

And what is this "Fallacy List" (capitals)?

<<Correctly used, it should merely indicate to the user that an argument using tradition MIGHT be invalid if that's the sole basis for the argument.>>

Correct. I made the same point in the comment linked to above. It also highlights the fact that the reasoning, used to arrive at a given conclusion, is flawed.

<<Its the start-point for analysis, not the end-point.>>

Correct.

Don’t get too upset over my pointing out of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I was more having fun there with an off-topic swipe you took because you so frequently accuse me of misidentifying fallacies (and then slink off when it’s shown that I hadn’t misapplied any fallacies).

<<I wasn't proposing a pattern.>>

Maybe not, but you suggested that one existed. You suggested that Christian leaders have proven to be failures because of a carefully selected set of people. That’s an alleged pattern right there.

<<I suspect you (mis)interpreted that so as to allow the, again, isuse of the fallacy meme.>>

No, I knew what you were doing. I was being just as cheeky. But the fallacy was still there. And you don’t get to say “again” when you have not yet provided an example of myself misidentifying a fallacy.

You have invented this “meme tool” line to suggest that I am abusing something, presumably because you now realise that you cannot pin me on the misidentification of fallacies.

Continued…

…Continued

<<I was just having a little dig at the notion that we 'know' about the universe, that we can give a kid a book that'll set them straight on how things work.>>

Okay, but, firstly, my assumption was reasonable given that you used to use that silly ‘dark matter’ analogy to suggest the possibility of a god’s existence. Secondly, I don’t think anyone has suggested that we can do that. Not when it comes to the origins of the universe, at least.

<<Its a conceit of this generation (probably all generations) that we've now got it worked out.>>

Got what worked out, and who thinks this?

<<So give a kid a book that offers an alternate view but don't pretend that we KNOW which view is correct, or that another view might arise that is more correct.>>

Oh, are you talking about the question of the existence of a god? Well, sure, the universe could have been created by the Great Juju up the mountain, too. But why waste time entertaining the possibility any more than we should waste time considering Russell’s Teapot? You seemed to have missed my point when I mentioned the teapot.

<<Perhaps you could ask yourself some difficult questions.>>

Yes, and they’re interesting questions you’ve raised. But I asked you what specifically you were referring to. Throwing questions back at me is a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof, bordering on an argument from ignorance:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Your questions possibly mistake correlation for causation, so my second question would be: how have you accounted for, and ruled out, all the other possible environmental and sociological factors ? (You do know what they are, don’t you?)

<<There used to be a consensus (where have I heard that word before?) …>>

“Science has been wrong before” is another fallacious argument used by science deniers to dismiss consensus:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

<<Today's Christians aren't yesterday's Christians.>>

At no point have I suggested they were, nor did what I say rely on such an assumption.

--

runner,

Thanks for sharing that Psalm with us. My favourite is Psalm 137:9.

Words of wisdom from runner. George pell has to face court. That is enough for another deluge of religious believers to quit.

One other niggle, mhaze.

<<When science begrudgingly adopts a new understanding based on new facts we laud its flexibility and tend to ignore its previous failings. But when Christians adopt new understandings based upon new data they are told that they must continue to be saddled with the old failings of their like from 20 generations ago.>>

This is a false comparison (there’s another fallacy to add to your list (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/97/Faulty-Comparison)).

Science, by its very nature, is self-correcting. The scientific method helps to ensure this. Religion, on the other hand, is dogmatic and resists change until continuing to do so would mean the end of it.

Science asks questions so that they may be answered; religion provides answers that may never be questioned.

Here’s a little flowchart to help you understand the difference between science and faith:

http://i.imgur.com/t0tycry.jpg

Runner,

Thanks for sharing that Psalm with us. My favourite is Psalm 137:9.

Not surprising AJ. I would imagine you are not alone. Certainly secular/femimist doctrine see it as blessed tearing apart the unborn in womb. Your denial of God helps to ease your conscience on this one.

@ Aidan..."No king made up his own version, but King Henry VIII's desire to divorce his first wife and the subsequent split with the Pope over that issue did enable Protestantism to come to England."

Oh yes he did! in one breath you say he didn't then in the next breath you admit he did! Talk about chewing the stick at both ends.

"And according to the Bible, God promised Abraham many descendants, but it was his wife, not God, who told him to shag her handmaiden."

I did say I was 10 , ..whatever..he shagged the handmaiden which gave him a son. Let's not split hairs over fairy tale rubbish. The whole story was totally sick to my 10yr old mind, and still is. God changed his mind about shagging handmaidens later on and called it adultery.
It's all just too stupid and Harry Potter is far more believable than the bible

Are we non-believers?

I certainly hope so.

It is high time we Australians put this superstitious nonsense behind us and focused on real problems in the real world without stressing about the possible wishes of a fictitious superior entity.

It sickens me to see our leaders in parliament still bending the knee to these farcical fairy tales before getting down to business. I want to be governed by clear-headed men and women who use logic and intelligence to approach problems, not weak-minded individuals whose thoughts are influenced by the self-interested clergy.
Posted by madmick, Wednesday, 28 June 2017 10:07:58 AM

Absolutely

yep I am sure Moonshine you luv the secular system that now teaches if you are born with a penis you can be a girl if you wake up feeling that way. I think I would rather be taught of the origins of the Arab race than the foul nonsense justified by the idiotic irrational big bang fantasy. Whatever it is that damaged your ability to be rational I doubt it was the Scriptures.

Genuine Christians recognise they have a responsibility to people and the creation as is reality. I have a niece whose husband a devout Christian a researcher scientist in Australia's leading human genetic field. More sincere and respectful about life, people and reality than many of the detractors of Christians here.

Stop comparing failed humans as a reason to abandon belief. Shows immaturity about reality.

runner,

I thought you’d like that verse, too.

However, quoting the Bible is about as effective and meaningful as quoting Harry Potter. But since you take every word of the Bible so seriously, here’s a little verse which is I think is very relevant to you, given how frequently you like to quote Psalm 14:1:

“... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22)

I sincerely hope you don’t go to hell though, runner. After all, I’ll be there, and in the company of some of the greatest minds, too. Heck, with so many scientists, they’ve probably got the place air conditioned by now.

Meanwhile, you’ll be up there in heaven with the likes of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Cardinal Pell, and all the murderers and rapists who converted on their death beds, doing nothing but worshipping a megalomaniac for eternity.

Sounds pretty boring, actually.

<<Your denial of God helps to ease your conscience ...>>

Denial is only possible when there is something to deny, and you are yet to present any evidence for your god beyond, ‘It’s obvious’.

--

Josephus,

No-one is claiming that theists cannot be scientists.

<<I have a niece whose husband a devout Christian a researcher scientist in Australia's leading human genetic field.>>

There is a psychological technique known as ‘compartmentalisation’, which makes holding conflicting views or standards of evidence quite easy:

http://goo.gl/7qJWE2

I would note, however, that the vast majority of scientists are atheists. A far higher percentage than what is found in the general public, unsurprisingly.

<<More sincere and respectful about life, people and reality than many of the detractors of Christians here.>>

Who here has been disrespectful in any of those ways, and how?

<<Stop comparing failed humans as a reason to abandon belief.>>

No, the actions of people are not the best reason to abandon belief. Reason and evidence (or the lack thereof) are.

' Heck, with so many scientists, they’ve probably got the place air conditioned by now.'

come on AJ most of the scientist you follow would think that a wind farm could do the job.

moonshine,
Chewing the stick at both ends? If I encounter your errors in future, should I refrain from explaining to you why they're wrong?

Henry VIII didn't invent protestantism. The schism with Rome over whether he could divorce his first wife merely enabled it to take hold in England sooner than it otherwise would have.

What seemed sick to your ten year old mind seems quite reasonable to many adults today. People go to extraordinary lengths to have children. But f you misunderstand what God wanted Abraham to do, you completely miss the point of the story. They tried to do things the human way: Abraham's wife set him up with another woman in order to have a child, but later regretted it and got jealous. Then God did things His own way, and enabled Abraham to have a son by his wife, despite her old age.

God did not change His mind about shagging handmaidens. Adultery was prohibited but not very clearly defined.

AJ

I say (mis)use, you 'refute' by saying misidentify.

Is there a fallacy for trying to subtly move the goal posts?

Look, I'm getting bored with this. You either don't get or get it but can't bring yourself to admit it. So one last time:

You regularly seek to refute a point by simply applying a 'fallacy' label to it. You seem to think that if a point can be interpreted to fit one of the myriad fallacies that makes it invalid. We saw in the earlier thread when you sought to invalidate a point by just declaring it a fallacy...

"2. Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition"

No other argument, it seems, was required. Its lazy and the opposite of intelligent debate.

But since most of your posting relies on it, you keep doing it.

OK so be it.

"...you used to use that silly ‘dark matter’ analogy to suggest the possibility of a god’s existence."

I know that you never understood my point there. I wasn't and don't try to suggest the possibility of God. I'm agnostic on that. I was simply drawing attention to the fact that rationale for belief in DM wasn't a million miles from the rationale for belief in a deity. I'm agnostic on both.

"Yes, and they’re interesting questions you’ve raised. But I asked you what specifically you were referring to." and then you run off on one of your silly fallacy memes.

I was both answering your question and posing my own. The values that made the west the west. The primacy of the family unit. The worth of the individual. Rule of law. Respect for private property. Love of the other. Charity. Skepticism of authority.

These led to democracy, the rejection of slavery, the rise of lawful state, recognition and respect for human rights, property rights and from that the industrial revolution.

Christianity wasn't the only factor. Many different things came together. But to pretend that the reason all these things arose in the Christian west had nowt to do with Christian values is to elevate anti-Christian bigotry over clear analysis.

Not quite, mhaze.

<<I say (mis)use, you 'refute' by saying misidentify.>>

I mentioned your talk of “misuse”, too:

“You have invented this “meme tool” line to suggest that I am abusing something, presumably because you now realise that you cannot pin me on the misidentification of fallacies.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241945)

You were the one who originally accused me of misidentifying fallacies. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340173

<<Is there a fallacy for trying to subtly move the goal posts?>>

Yes, there is. It's called the Moving the Goalposts fallacy:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts

However, if you check that link (for once), you'll see that I never committed it. You are the one who moved the goalposts by initially (in every other discussion) falsely claiming that I had misidentified logical fallacies, and then, now, in a sleight-of-hand, switching to the more vague claim that I had misused something.

You see, some arguments are logically flawed to the point where they are invalid. We generally call these “fallacies”. Some fallacies are so frequently used that they have earned themselves a common name. All I do is point these fallacies out to demonstrate to others that their argument is invalid. But, for some reason, you don't like me doing this, so you limit the definition of ‘fallacy’ to this official- and formal-sounding “meme tool”, with an official-sounding “Fallacy List” (capitalised), to make it appear as though I'm abusing something.

Continued…

...Continued

The closest you came to justifying this claim, however, was to point out that I use fallacies as a weapon, and you're damn right I use them as a weapon. I use them as a weapon against irrational arguments, and I would challenge you to demonstrate how that is a misuse of fallacies.

<<You either don't get or get it but can't bring yourself to admit it.>>

You haven't yet demonstrated that I've done anything wrong. In fact, you've even shifted your own goalposts in a desperate attempt to pin me on something (which I guess isn't too fallacious since it doesn't make things harder for your opponent in this instance and is only a concession on your behalf).

<<You regularly seek to refute a point by simply applying a 'fallacy' label to it.>>

No, that would be the Fallacy fallacy. I merely point out that an argument has not yet been justified when a fallacious argument had been used to support it. You tried this one on the last time. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340163

<<You seem to think that if a point can be interpreted to fit one of the myriad fallacies that makes it invalid.>>

The reasoning behind it is, yes. Those with whom I converse can easily remedy the situation by finding another line of reasoning. Yet, funnily enough, they rarely ever seem to.

<<We saw in the earlier thread when you sought to invalidate a point by just declaring it a fallacy…>>

No, again, I simply pointed out that such an argument was fallacious. You, and others appealing to it, were free to find another justification for your belief and send me packing. Yet, unsurprisingly, none of you could.

<<No other argument, it seems, was required.>>

Correct. Because that was all that was needed at that point.

<<Its lazy and the opposite of intelligent debate.>>

No, it's an invitation to further discussion on a forum that has word limits. Furthermore, I will not bombard everyone with inevitable copy-and-pastes of arguments on a topic which I frequently comment on.

...Continued

...Continued

<<But since most of your posting relies on it, you keep doing it.>>

No, it doesn't rely on it. I have often extended beyond pointing out fallacies in the instances where someone challenged my claim. I even did so with you.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340176

So, your scurrilous claim here is demonstrably dishonest.

<<I know that you never understood my point there.>>

Yes, I understood what your point was, and it was dumb.

<<I was simply drawing attention to the fact that rationale for belief in DM wasn't a million miles from the rationale for belief in a deity. I'm agnostic on both.>>

Well, that's a softening of your position as stated previously. Either way, I had still discredited the comparison at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336036
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#152488

<<I was both answering your question and posing my own.>>

No, you didn't answer my question at all. You fallaciously shifted the burden of proof by expecting me to answer your questions.

<<The values that made the west the west. The primacy of the family unit. The worth of the individual. Rule of law. Respect for private property. Love of the other. Charity. Skepticism of authority.>>

Okay, so, again, how did Christianity achieve this? You can't seem to answer this without appealing to spurious correlations.

Try again, mhaze.

AJ,
We are talking about Australia, it was established by an English Culture and laws, except for the indigenous who have their own culture and laws. England was based on Christian culture and values at the time of settlement. The Greeks did not establish Australian laws and culture as you claim of our culture.

Are we, Josephus?

<<We are talking about Australia, it was established by an English Culture and laws, …>>

I’m pretty sure mhaze was talking about Western civilization:

“The issue is whether the majority continue to follow the Christian values that made the West what is is (or was).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241896)

<<England was based on Christian culture and values at the time of settlement.>>

Oh, so, it’s just at the time of settlement now, is it?

Now THIS is what they call fallaciously "Moving the goalposts".

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts

(Are you reading this, mhaze?)

Okay, so in what ways was England based on “Christian culture and values", and how exactly was Christian culture necessary for these values?

Having a law degree, I’m aware of a couple of ways in which the former is at least true, but, you see, not only is there enough in the Bible to contradict those interpretations, but often when I ask people making such claims to get specific, I get this tap dance that mhaze is currently engaging in.

Furthermore, and most importantly in my view, is the fact that (despite the implications) no-one ever seems able to explain how it was Christianity, specifically, that was required for the rise of Western civilization. I have often challenged people to come up with a benefit, which was derived from Christianity (however indirectly), that could not have possibly been achieved though secular means, and (unsurprisingly) no-one ever seems to be able to list anything.

There is this assumption that Christianity, specifically, was required; and there are two apparent motivations for such a claim:

1. That Christianity is, therefore, true (personally, this was my motivation as a Christian), or;
2. For nationalistic purposes, in order to make us appear more superior to, or symbolically separate us further from, those evil Muslims.

Both reasons are fallacious.

<<The Greeks did not establish Australian laws and culture as you claim of our culture.>>

At no point did I claim that. Read what I said again.

You have fallaciously limited what has been discussed to Australia in order to discredit what I have said.

' yep I am sure Moonshine you luv the secular system that now teaches if you are born with a penis you can be a girl if you wake up feeling that way. I think I would rather be taught of the origins of the Arab race than the foul nonsense justified by the idiotic irrational big bang fantasy. Whatever it is that damaged your ability to be rational I doubt it was the Scriptures.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 29 June 2017 3:14:52 PM

Now how on earth did you get that nonsense from my believing the bible to be a load of rubbish!

Believing fairy tale nonsense to be fact is what I would call irrational...

Penis's and big bangs? good grief man!

If one could really tap into the beliefs of those that think they are non believers, you would find many are consulting clairvoyance, and star signs and fortune tellers for direction in their life. They are believers in the interpretations of those that think they have special guru powers. Among my many unsolicited messages in my inbox each day there are those that want to tell my future, so they must be popular sources of belief.

I believe the Universe is rationally created and can be understood, and the human mind has been created with the capacity to create and understand the Universe, from what exists. We are made in the image of the mind behind the Creation.

I’m sure you would, Josephus.

<<If one could really tap into the beliefs of those that think they are non believers, you would find many are consulting clairvoyance, and star signs and fortune tellers for direction in their life.>>

Atheism isn’t an inoculation against stupidity. It’s merely a position on a single issue, which is why your continual attempts to portray communism as the inevitable result of atheism are so absurd.

<<Among my many unsolicited messages in my inbox each day there are those that want to tell my future, so they must be popular sources of belief.>>

Or you’ve been subscribing to dubious websites. I’ve never seen spam like that.

<<I believe the Universe is rationally created and can be understood …>>

So do I. Except for the “created” part. I see no evidence for that.