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 > The moral mess of "Christian values".

The moral mess of "Christian values".

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
John Howard and Kevin Rudd are both appealing to Christian values in an effort to enhance their status as worthy leaders. But what are these Christian values we’re supposed to admire? As neither Howard nor Rudd are keen to spell them out, the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc decided to take a look. We discovered it’s easier to gain an understanding of Christian values by looking at the things they oppose rather than the things they reckon they support.

See the 10 key points: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/mediarelease.htm

The AFA has sent a Questionnaire on a number of these matters to all federal politicians. It is alarming how few have responded! Are our representatives with no ‘faith’ frightened to be honest because of a possible religious backlash? Or are they merely the lap-dogs of political power-brokers, fearful of repercussions for non-compliance?

Whatever their reasons, it is inexcusable that those touting for votes by pushing Christian values are so contemptuous of the electorate that they refuse to state them in the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc survey. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/survey.htm

Our parliamentarians enact laws binding on all Australians. If they are using Christian values to determine what makes a good law, then it is high time these values were written down clearly, and published for everyone to see. How else can we learn to trust political decisions? By concealing their values and motives, politicians undermine our fragile democracy. More than half the voting population has no interest in religion, so to continue pretending that Christian values are somehow better than, or different from the universal ethical guidelines that have kept humanity going for a couple of hundred thousand years, is stupid and unrepresentative.

If the citizens of Australia want to keep their society democratic, secular and pluralist, then they should demand answers from would-be politicians, whether they represent a political party or are ‘Independents’ – far too many of whom are merely front men and women for religious organisations. This is the only way to make your vote count.
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 13 August 2007 2:55:56 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
Good points, Atheist Foundation, and a very interesting link.

However, I hope you've got both a thick skin and a raincoat - this forum is infested with hard core religious (mostly Christian) zealots and fundies.

Good luck, and keep your head down!
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 13 August 2007 6:35:42 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
Nooooww CJ.. don't let it out of the bag :)

Atheist. There are some values that Christians are more likely to vote for in this democracy than others.

For example. I and I'm sure most of us would vote to 'BAN' all XXX rated videos coming from Canberra to the rest of the country. Unfortunately that is one 'Christian' Value which Mr Ruddock does not subscribe to.(I have the letter to confirm this)

We would also (if possible) have some kind of 'minimum standard' for the types of literature available at service stations.. yep.. NO PORN...wham bam thankyou maam.. no porn at servo's..

There are a host of such things I'm sure, which usually put us into the 'wowser' category which is just a small step short of the 'How dare you impose your values on us' thing.

Then there are various usual 'left wing/Socialist' values which include
-Same sex marriage
-Gay adoption
-Abortion.

So.. don't expect us to be jumping up and down with joy each time an aborted human life is flushed down the toilet or shredded though the garbage disposal of the clinic kitchen.

So.. if you call holding high ideals on these issues a moral mess, then so be it. We don't.

But the most funamental 'Christian' values on which ALL our laws should be based are simple.

1/ Love God with all your heart
2/Love your neighbour as yourself.

Now..I can hear the howwwwwl already. 'WHAT DO YOU MEAN' making laws about loving God? you say.... true.. I was not serious on that one, just getting your passions going there :) but I will point out though, that without "1" you are left with 'MIUAUG' which regular BOAZ bashers know to mean 'make it up as u go'
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 13 August 2007 7:12:30 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
Of course the atheist foundation support the 'right' of all Australians to be fed porn which assists the paedophiles as clearly seen in our indigeneous and white communities, they support murdering unborn children in the name of 'women's rights' the promotion of depravity in schools (even though many of them refuse to send their own kids to listen to the rubbish)and then complain when their man Mr Rudd opposes these things. The atheist foundation supports all as equal as long as you don't oppose their hopelessly flawed humanistic thinking.
Posted by runner, Monday, 13 August 2007 8:25:26 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
just wondering...if the people who oppose abortion would still oppose it if they had been raped and an unwanted pregnancy resulted from that rape? What if they were a good "christian" but decided on an abortion? Does whatever god you believe in say that you must have an unwanted baby due to a rape, or you are not a christian?
Just wondering...because once a "christian" friend of mine said to me" you would make a good 'christian'" I said why and she stated because I help people. Why do I have to believe in someone else's god in order to help people? Can't I just be me and have no god to run my life? Why does everything have to revolve around religion and not just revolve around each individual?
Posted by CALLIE, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 7:56:12 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
Dear Callie
you have raised probably 'THE' most difficult ethical challenge to the santity of life.
I cannot imagine even a fraction of the trauma a woman may feel at the thought of a child growing inside her caused by the violent rape of her person.
This kind of thing happened in Bosnia, and many Muslim women were raped and impregnated by Serbs, and I'll bet that many Serb women were also impregnated by Muslim men and Croatian.
Some had the child and others committed suicide, some who had the child gave them up immediately, others kept them.

We should consider firstly though, that a life has been conceived.
That life had nothing to do with the crime which brought him or her into being.

Is it right to kill that life which though no fault of its own came to be ?

Would it not be better to take a positive stance on this, and take the child to term, and offer it for adoption to infertile couples?

These are just questions, I cannot in general, make any judgement on how the individual copes with such an event. If the woman is Christian, I feel I can say it would be better to allow the child to be born and adopt it out. Out of tragedy, good things can still happen.

I used to raise many hyperthetical situations such as this one, when God was knocking on the door of my own heart in my early 20s. I knew deep down, that I was just making excuses not to committ my life to Him.

EUTHENASIA is an issue we don't talk about much as Christians. Personally, I think if a persons heart is settled under God, and they have no fear of death, and it is inevitable, they should be free to simply request pain relief, and refuse some artificial life supports.
I don't think there is much 'mercy' in actively killing someone, but we could conjour up any number of heart wrenching hypertheticals.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 8:28:47 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
Hi Boaz,
I agree with your PoV in instances where abortion is sought by a woman for vanity or financial hardship reasons given the ready availability of preventative measures.

The issue of rape is altogether different for a woman, any woman even a woman who is a 'christian'. I do not believe that in those circumstances it is appropriate for 'lawmakers' to foist their personal values on all and sundry.

Here is another scenario for reflection: what if the rape victim is a 12, 13 or 14 yo child? Would you, in keeping with your religious, ethical or personal values allow the pregnancy to carry to full term? What if the rapist was infected with any one of those sexually transmitted diseases?

It is one thing to make laws which bind society to inflexible values of any origin whether religious or ethical. But the reality is that the unpredictability of future events and the variety of possible reactions vary from the person to person. Inflexible laws only perpetuate an every increasing burden on the one's they seek to protect, particularly the most disadvantaged or voiceless.

That does not however mean that I advocate the total abolition of 'laws'. Society does need to function smoothly with minimum disruption/disadvantage for 'all' citizens not just a few. The onus then is on our lawmakers to take their responsibilities seriously enacting laws without preference, prejudice or favour. A hard ask by any standard but that is what they get paid so handsomely to accomplish.
Posted by Ninja, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 10:56:22 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
AFOAI,

If hypothetically in both cases the Christian value thing is flaunted for political gain and they aren't particularly devout that would explain their lack of forthcomingness. In that possibility they wouldn't want to commit to any Christian value as it would make it harder for them to avoid the value. I haven't yet looked at your link but I am aware that they gave a talk for some Christian group and didn't hit on any key substantive issue just a sugar coated gloss that you would expect from politicians. At least they are consistent (ly avoidant).

You might consider other possibilities for a failure of the politicians to respond. You obviously have some knowledge of some survey that indicates that more than half the population are atheists. However I am aware of the reverse result and I suspect that the research contrary to yours is better known. On this basis the politicians probably view you as an extreme example of a minority and don't consider it politically expedient to pin down their beliefs when the repercussions for silence are minimal and any written response could be used against them at any time in their career.

If you want to know what Christian values BOAZY has listed a few. Loving God is the main rule with loving other people as a second biggy. Thus anything that disrespects or harms the human being is a no no. As BOAZY typed gay marriage/adoption (I don't know why BOAZY separates them) and abortion are not something promoted by Christian values.

Having said that someone labelling themselves as Christian - particularly a politician cannot be guaranteed to subscribe to even the most basic widely known Christian values. The threat is not as great as you assume. Compare existing laws with the Christian values and you will see what I mean.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 12:13:49 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
Callie,

"Just wondering...because once a "christian" friend of mine said to me" you would make a good 'christian'" I said why and she stated because I help people. Why do I have to believe in someone else's god in order to help people? Can't I just be me and have no god to run my life? Why does everything have to revolve around religion and not just revolve around each individual?"

In spite of the way it made you feel your friend was actually trying to pay you a compliment based on an observation they had made. They were just talking from a different perspective and a misunderstanding has occurred. Internalising Christian values means being a type of person. You are already voluntarily and for the right reasons being that type of person. Your friend interprets this as displaying Christian values in your life. Some people need a bit of work to get there. Your friend is noticing the positive attribute and probably thinking that it would be easy for you to be a Christian because you have a lot of it wrapped up already.

Helping people is a good thing and you don't need to believe in anything more than you believe in now. What you believe in and what you don't believe in is your choice. You have just been involved in a kind of cultural misunderstanding which hopefully I have explained above.

Further, from the Christian perspective God isn't someone else's God He is already your God. Christians believe that some people believe it and others don't but nevertheless consider it fact. In other words Christian believe that God is everyone's. You will invariably be you whether you are religious or non-religious. You have no choice. However for a Christian everything does revolve around religion because the belief is that God is ... God whether we believe or not.

Please don't be offended and just realize that a compliment was intended.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 12:33:22 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
A few observations so far:

(1) The 2006 Census figures stated that 64% of the population of Australia is Christian. Less than half of a percent recorded other than Christian.

20% of the population are children under the age of 14. They are not of voting age and parrot their parent’s religion. As one third of these have been recorded as having no religion or not stated, it leaves two thirds, or about 13% counted in the overall 64%. If that number is removed, the voting religious adherent is about 51% (Excluding playing around with the small ‘other than Christian’ number.)

Considering the question is loaded in asking premeditatedly: “What is the religion of the person?” and knowing that robotic human behaviour leaves it open to be answered by religion of baptism and not necessarily that of present status, the figure for religious numbers is overstated by an unknown amount. A parent answering for the rest of the family may not also answer correctly as others in the family may not wish to rock the boat and upset parents.

The question needs refining to a large degree and until it is, the educated guess of the AFA is as good as, if not better than, those of a religious persuasion. As only a small percentage of religious adherents, statistically actually frequent a church on a regular basis, ads weight to our case.

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australi
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 4:02:33 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
Further observations.

(2) The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc has existed for 37 years and is a world respected body. It is the largest secular organisation in Australia and possibly the Southern hemisphere with members in all states and territories and overseas.

(3) The AFA is not attempting to make women have abortions. It is simply stating that female fertility control should not be in the hands of any one ideology as none are universally accepted as being valid, but should remain a choice of the pregnant female. Prohibition on abortion has a disastrous history. One hundred thousand alive, sentient women die each year because of it. It is not helped by religious insistence that sex education of children be extremely limited. Children, according to age, women and the population make better choices when fully informed.

(4) Similarly with legal voluntary euthanasia. The choice should be one of those in need and not of a single ideology that is not universally accepted. On both these last two points, if you are religious and do not want an abortion or LVE, then do not choose them. But do not involve yourselves with choosing for other people.

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australi
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 4:06:35 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
Christians are taught that all life in all stages is sacred. That includes the unborn child. If we recognise a person is destroying the life of an innocent, especially human, we have a conscience to recognise that person is guilty of causing death equivalent to murder.

All men are equal, was one of the values mentioned by both John Howard and Kevin Rudd. Anyone who demeans another to destroy them is in violation of that value.

William Wilberforce 200 years ago convinced of this Christian value through political perseverence managed to free all men in Britain of slavery. This was one of the commissioning values of Christ "to set captives free" Luke 4:18 as slavery was practised by war victors, especially the Romans in Jesus Day.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 8:42:08 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
David
Good comments!

Philo All Man and women you mean

You have for over a year REFUSED to comment on the lack of leadership from Church Leaders about Gos most innocent- Our Animals


What do you think about the Government giving Muslims the right to perform ritual slaughters here in Australia?
That means each animal with suffer terribly while being sacrificed to allah in Australia from now on.
Does your God have any mercy for these Animals. WILL the Church Leaders speak out NOW to stop Australia being made into a Muslim Extremist Islamic country?
Dont forget KOSHA that even more cruel.
You always ignore our questions. How say you ?

WE are very impressed with the web page David.
Good Thread.
Thanks
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Thursday, 16 August 2007 7:02:01 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/ Love God with all your heart
2/Love your neighbour as yourself."

Sheesh, my heart is too busy pumping blood
as intended, then to worry about the gods.

As to loving my neighbour, well the new one
is pretty cute so that could be a great idea :)
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 August 2007 8:01:21 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 Nicholls

the points you raise are actually quite valid demographically.
The number of serious Christians in Australia, those who claim a genuine born again experience, (in contrast to those who claim this simply because the managed to babble some incoherrant words while being prompted by some enthusiastic pastor)

The more important issue than the 'real' situation of those of Christian tradition for the nation, is this:

If we acted on the demographics, and unleashed MIUAUG on the community, we would be subject to the loudest and most articulate and well funded voices.
This could lead in ANY direction, and given some of the crazy ideas that some powerful people have had in the past, this would be a great worry.

Of one thing we may be absolutely sure. The 'agenda' would NEVER be simply limited to the issues you list on your web site. They simply represent a 'victim' characterization of certain fringe sub groups, in order to achieve their immediate political objectives.

Once they are 'in'...what next ? Well, if the history of Israel is anything to go by, and that of Rome and Greece, we will end up in a condition where the people say "Even the gods are worse than us".

I suggest the following will emerge.

-Euthenasia no longer for the benefit of the suffering person,but for the benefit of the suffering SOCIETY which has to support them.
-Convenience Infanticide
-Culling the disabled and weak (Singer)
-Cloning for maximum biological advantage.
-Widespread 'gene selection' for 'preferred' characteristics among offspring, with no regard for biological heritage from parents.
-Sexual practices extending the 'age of consent' to child, and to other species.

Just to name a few.

So, if this is your vision for the future, I'd like to know this up front.

So, if you want 'moral mess' I just gave it to you.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 16 August 2007 9:02:04 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
David
Thats a good question for YOU to answer as well as Philo??

Yabby
Ah but you will break PFs heart.
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Thursday, 16 August 2007 9:22:34 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
I haven’t the time or the desire to answer posts on this thread that are self-circumventing (Destroy there own propositions) but I will mention one as an example. Philo stated: “Christians are taught that all life in all stages is sacred.” Inquisitorial Christians were taught that ‘witches’ should be tortured and burnt. Aztecs taught that cutting out the still beating heart of live humans, made crops fertile. Germans in their highly religious country were taught that ‘the Jew’, the Christ killers, were the cause of their woes. This was accomplished by the Catholic Hitler and his henchmen. Such results as these have been the hallmark of humans not thinking for themselves but accepting the word of the ‘authorities’.

Stalinist Russia was ruled for hundreds of years, both politically and religiously, by the opulent living Czar’s exercising absolute power over a peasant population which was ripe to be controlled by some type of despot or other. Stalin filled this role. He trained as a priest and therefore knew how to manipulate the population. One should read up on the history of these events before making wild assumptions that Atheism is the cause.

The point I am making is that in democracies, freely chosen Atheism cannot be compared with past societies ruled by militaristic tyrants and dictators with their own hideous agendas. It is obvious by the freedoms and equality in a very Atheistic Western Europe, that attempting to equate Atheism with 20th century atrocities is a false notion and is a nonsense used only by those out of argument.

BOAZ makes unfounded predictions. We will start to look here and then the next post.

Voluntary – Euthanasia - has been operating in The Netherlands for decades and in other countries as well

David Nicholls
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 3:39:30 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
Extending voluntary euthanasia to kill on a non-voluntary basis has not happened any more than the 100kph speed limit has been extended to 200kph and for the same reasons. Society rightly sees it as unethical.

Convenience Infanticide - is just rubbish and does not need an answer and for the same reasons as above.

Culling the disabled and weak (Singer) – Peter Singer does not advocate that at all. The closest he comes is that he suggests it is not an act worthy of humans to starve encephalitic babies (Ostensibly born with no brain) to death, and he asks; is that a good thing. Please supply references for Peter Singer advocating “culling the disabled and weak”.

Cloning for maximum biological advantage. – Cloning of humans is something that needs full information so people can make an informed decision with proper scientific and ethical considerations taken into account. This should not be hampered by pre-set religious answers.

Widespread 'gene selection' for 'preferred' characteristics among offspring, with no regard for biological heritage from parents. – “Biological heritage” means nothing to adopted children, a point always pushed by the fanatical religious right in preference to abortion. I think you should be consistent. “Widespread gene selection” is a meaningless phrase. Again, a fully informed public with proper ethical and scientific input will set the pace. Absolutist religion will do nothing but obscure any benefits.

Sexual practices extending the 'age of consent' to child, and to other species. – This is just plain stupid and shows contempt for humanity that is brought about by your religious indoctrination. A basic strict precept of modern democracy is that the powerless must not be utilised by the powerful and excludes both examples.

Allow me to add a prediction of my own. It will be eventually recognised by the whole of society that indoctrinating children with a singular religious view, especially with the threat of hell if not believed, is mental child abuse.

Do you ‘believe’ in hell, BOAZ?

David Nicholls
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 3:41:20 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 N said ".......that indoctrinating children with a singular religious view, especially with the threat of hell if not believed, is mental child abuse."

My sentiments exactly. It's an issue I've raised and stated on at least two occasions in my posts at OLO.

Thank you Mr. Nicholls for your well written and argued post. It's very refreshing to see someone prepared to allow logic and common sense augment a point of view rather than the spurious notions of those on the religious right.
Posted by Aime, Thursday, 16 August 2007 4:10:42 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
Denial of heaven and hell does not for one moment mean they don't exist. I would suggest teaching a child they they evolved from a blob and are actually really a little god capable of determining what is right and wrong themselves is actually child abuse. We see the results of this doctrine that has been taught for the last few decades. Many don't give a stuff about anyone but themselves and everyone does what is right in their own eyes. This includes child sexual abuse, murder, rape, stealing etc. It is foolishness to even call these things wrong if God Himself had not declared them wrong. Many adults might not want to receive forgiveness and face up to their own depravity but that should not stop them teaching their kids the way to a fulfilled life. I guess that is why so many 'atheist' pay to send their kids to schools where at least some biblical morals are taught.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 August 2007 5:18:24 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
"Denial of heaven and hell does not for one moment mean they don't exist."

Runner, denying Santa and the tooth fairy, does not mean that they
don't exist. Go on, prove to me that they don't. You cannot
prove a negative, sorry.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 August 2007 5:35:57 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
Absolutely agree Aime; and for the same reasons.

Many thanks David N.

For the record; I felt no need to tell my children anything, they were comfortable with their own being; and in particular NOT that my children had evolved 'from a blob'! Further; I would sincerely appreciate Runner, if you can provide the stats that show the majority of atheists pay to send their children to Christian schools? I am surprised at this; but would be more than happy to be enlightened upon seeing the evidence..

You see; what I am getting a tad ticked off with, is the incessant mantra that Christian=Good/Atheist=Bad.

All I've seen so far is the oppressive, obsessive need to push the Christian barrow, which in itself shows intolerance. Add to that the glaring intolerance towards other faiths/lifestyles,-(remember, you are supposed to be the 'good guys')-, and my molars start to curl.

It comes as no surprise to me that Christians spend so much time extolling their own virtues, and then defending themselves. It is the inevitable result of the criticism of other 'lesser mortals who have not discovered the one true path'. Us 'bad guys' are simply not going to wear it.
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 16 August 2007 5:48:38 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
Creation itself is proof of a Creator! Failing to acknowledge the depravity of man's heart is putting your head in the sand. Just read the posters who defend the indefensible murdering of unborn babies make that clear enough without having to go any further. The only exception to the depravity of man was the Lord Jesus Christ. Their is no other human who was ever sinless or without depravity. You are wrong GINX that Christians extol their own virtues. We extol the Lord's virtues. Most of us are but poor imitations
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 August 2007 6:08:30 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
Runner, buddy, you did not answer my question....

Yes, yes, OK. the Lords virtues. Right ho. But it IS a broken record.

Creation itself is proof of life-form! Agree to disagree or we will spend a hell of a lot of time on this...

I am NOT a Christian. I am NOT Right-Wing (yech!). I do NOT believe in abortion, unless there are really mitigating circumstances. I will never except that in this age of prevention, abortion should be as prolific as it is. So get off your high horse.
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 16 August 2007 6:37:16 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
Runner, you seem to have a misguided view of the person Jesus. I believe that someone called Jesus actually lived around 2,000 years ago. I'll even concede he was a man of good intentions with his heart in the right place for issues that concerned him in those times, but I cannot accept that he ascended into heaven after he died. Nor can I accept that he was the son of god or a god.

A recent documentary showed his grave in Israel and strong evidence that he was buried along with his family who joined him in due course. His wife Mary (Magdalene) and his small son, as well as his brother and other members of the family. Maybe you missed it?

Runner, I respect your point of view, but mine differs considerably, however I'd like to ask you one question....
If your god is the only one able to judge, why do you continue to post judgmental replies? You say Atheists support the "right of Australians to be fed porn", "murdering unborn children" and "many don't give a stuff about anyone but themselves." These are all judgmental statements and I challenge you to think about this.....

Is it right that you should take up the mantle of judge, jury and executioner? Isn't that your 'gods' job? Runner, you could really do yourself a favor by studying the principles of Buddhism. They teach non-judgment, they teach peace and harmony and they teach the true meaning of love for fellow mankind.

There's no need to reply to this post. Obviously we could go around and around in circles forever and still get nowhere. You can offer no proof that your god exists and yet you believe he/she does. I can see no proof that god exists and I follow the logic. On that we'll simply have to 'agree to disagree.'
Posted by Aime, Thursday, 16 August 2007 7:04:17 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
Thank you, Atheist Foundation,
I agree with the ten points on your interesting website. What the religious fail to understand is that atheists (at least this atheist) only oppose religious beliefs when they start to interfere with others who happen not to share their beliefs.
Such as euthanasia: if euthanasia would be legal, nobody will be forced them as euthanasia is, without saying, always voluntary. So I don’t know what their problem is.
You mentioned that euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands and Christians condemn this without even knowing the details so it seems.

Boaz David “they should be free to simply request pain relief, and refuse some artificial life supports.” If you look into euthanasia closer, you will understand it better. Here’s the Dutch brochure translated in English on the rules of euthanasia: http://www.minvws.nl/en/folders/ibe/euthanasia_the_netherlands_new_rules.asp

“Is every request for euthanasia eventually granted? No. Two-thirds of the requests for euthanasia that are put to doctors are refused. Often, treatment still offers some hope of improvement or there are ways of relieving a patient’s suffering, such as effective pain control. Patients may choose to pursue one of these alternatives.
Sometimes, they find sufficient peace of mind in the knowledge that the doctor is prepared to perform euthanasia.”
It’s also not the case that people are being euthanised because it’s convenient for society. It’s solely done to allow suffering patient, without hope for improvement, a peaceful death.
Why is it a Christian value to force a patient to die a painful, violent death if that patient would very much prefer to die a peaceful, soft death with their loving ones around them?

Speaking about death, PALE mentioned something about Halal slaughter; of course animals should not have to suffer a horrible death either. Ironic that the more secular countries treat animals (and people) more respectfully and humane than the countries with so-called religious values; that should tell us something about values!

Runner, what did God shape Adam out of again- a clump of dirt or something?
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 16 August 2007 8:13:07 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
Dave,

"Philo stated: “Christians are taught that all life in all stages is sacred.” ...

Wow. I have never seen that take on things before. Normally I have seen atheists pointing to the inquisition and such like and Christians pointing out that they pale by comparison to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin etc.

Can I clarify with regard to the things that are within a century ago that you mentioned. Was Hitler baptized as a Catholic? Is that the primary way in which you relate Christianity to his atrocities or are you mainly pointing the finger at Christianity as forming some type of basis for accepting the word of "authorities"?

Stalinist Russia you distinguish from other atheist regimes because it was formerly Christian and you are saying that this Christian heritage meant that an atheist dictator who committed atrocities was able to get his way because of the residue of the formerly Christian culture and his leadership skills developed due to his training in a failed attempt to pursue priesthood? Did I get that right?

In other words the fact that most atrocities were committed at times and in places which pioneered a large scale rejection of religion does not weigh against atheism because the atrocities were actually an artififact of the religious history?
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 17 August 2007 11:06:47 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
Hello mjpb,

I was pointing out that to be “taught” to believe any given proposition, differs from working out for oneself, if the proposition is correct. I was also alluding to the fact that the conscience that religious people ‘believe’ comes from a god can be manipulated if thinking for oneself is not applied. The burning of witches etc was all done in good conscience. We would not burn witches today for the most obvious reason that witches, as friends of Satan with supernatural powers, do not exist in reality. They did not exist in reality in the burning days either. One would think that religious people could have worked that out. But no, they were “taught” that Exodus 22:18 was correct.

Other teaching now takes its place, such as discrimination against women seeking an abortion, discrimination against lesbian and gay people or discrimination against those in need of legal voluntary euthanasia etc. Those who accept their “teaching” and refuse to think for themselves do not suffer pangs of conscience over such matters. This makes them very dangerous humans indeed and the type that would have been standing at the pyre cheering as the witches burnt.

All informed people, are opposed to the idea of tyrants and despotic dictators whether they are Atheist or religious. A society of non-thinkers makes it easier for such persons to gain power.

My point about Germany is that it being a very religious nation did not stop the carnage. Russia was not a democracy and the people were already oppressed by religion and the Czars. One dictatorship was replaced by another, which just happened to be worse.

It is often stated Hitler was an Atheist. Untrue, Hitler was a baptised Catholic and was never excommunicated by the Vatican. In fact, the RC Church was heavily involved in helping Nazi war criminals escape to other countries such as South America. You may have heard of the ‘Rat Lines’. (Look it up)

My main point is, if people accept without question, the un-evidenced words of others, then it leaves them open to be mislead.

David Nicholls
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 17 August 2007 1:47:18 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
mjpb, I've posted previously regarding claims by Hitler about his "faith". http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4183#32655

A half hour with Google can turn up plenty to show that Hitler at least for some of his time at the top claimed to be doing gods work.

Personally I think it would be unfair to lumber evangelical christains with Hitler, they only deserve those quotes when they start trying to point to Hitler as an example of an athiest or agnostic (which some do from time to time). On the other hand Hitlers claims to faith and doing gods work fits fairly well with the subject of this thread.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 17 August 2007 8:16:58 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
Religion, values and morality seem to become increasingly grouped together in public debate, however I argue that they are in fact entirely separate issues. I do not believe in a god of any kind, personally, it just does not make sense and secondly I believe that this world matters, what we do now too make the world a better place matters and it is not all some sort of Devine test, despite how comforting the idea of heaven might actually be.

But more on the subject, to be religious is purely to have blind faith in a human institution (including the rules and practices) that proclaims to represent some kind of spiritual purity or Devine being. Values are merely something that an individual or group holds to be important. Finally, morality is the fun one, it seems as some religious people feel they hold a monopoly on what is right, on what is moral. I think this is a difficult case to make.

Often abortion is used to try to shame the left into the same conclusion. Whilst I will not argue about this particular issue, I do feel that the self - riotous need to be a little more open minded. There are not to many people in this world advocating the slaughter of babies, however many, including myself argue for a persons right to make their own moral judgements. This is not the place of the State. This same concept applies to almost every other ‘religious value’ including pornography, euthanasia and prostitution. If only we could all agree to live by our own moral codes, then politicians, sorry, legislators, could focus on issues that can make this world a better place.
Posted by Mark2685, Friday, 17 August 2007 9:57:24 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
There is an interesting programme coming on CNN next week, for
those who are interested.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/gods.warriors/

It runs over three nights, dealing with "God's Warriors".

Christian, Muslim and Jewish warriors are all dealt with,
so it should be interesting and address the core of the
problem.

ie. whilst we have fanatics of any faith, determined to
change the world to their little patch of belief, we have
a problem. Only a small part of any population seem to be
fanatics, but they are enough to be a major problem for
the rest of us.

Anyhow, for those interested, I thought I would mention
it, as religion is a common topic on OLO. We have our
share of various warriors too :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 August 2007 10:21:03 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
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread, even those with opposing opinions. I would especially like to thank, in order of appearance; C J Morgan – CALLIE – Ninja - People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming – Yabby – Aime – Ginx – Celivia – Mark2685.

Issues such as these need airing, discussing and thinking about. More importantly, both sides of such dilemmas must be investigated to the fullest extent possible by individuals making public comment. If this is not done, it creates a situation where parroting someone else’s notions replaces informed opinion. Anyone with a television set and who watches the news, can vouch for the fact, that disaster follows ignorance.

By for now,

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 18 August 2007 4:23:01 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're most welcome David. Thank you for an interesting topic of conversation.
Posted by Aime, Saturday, 18 August 2007 8:34:37 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
Thank you, David, for highlighting that with so many active Christians in our parliament, who are obsessed with focussing on our “sins”, the Australian public isn’t represented in a balanced way.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22221340-601,00.htm
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 18 August 2007 11:17:05 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 Kenny the station manager of Fraziers Radio Station said...after Frazier had come up with a huge symphonic orchestral approach to a simple 'jingle'... "wow"....

It does not cease to amaze me how much ignorance is 'out there' regarding Christians attitudes.

"They (in parliament) spend their time focusing on our SINS"... :) c'mon.. it ain't like that.

"Teaching Children one religion is 'Child abuse'"

David... even though you might not be present, something you raised needs to be answered.

1/ The central core and focus point of "Christianity" is not 'Turn or Burn'.. telling children that 'If you don't comply, God is going to send you to helllllllllllllllllll' is surely not my view of child rearing. Though,I did hear a rather passionate speaker speaking with exactly that emphasis at a large gathering one time, when referring to some corrupt practices in a Church.
2/ The central core and focus IS...."Sheep without a shepherd.. leave the 99 safe sheep, go and find the lost ones, search, look, struggle.. at all costs, find them if possible"

Yes, I absolutely believe in Hell, as much as I believe in Heaven.
Yes, (as Ginx will testify) I do spend time seeking to reach the largest number of people possible with the message of salvation in Christ.. here, Youtube, personally, other places.
The rest..and the result..I leave in the Almighty's hands. I gave up ages ago trying to carry the world on 'my' shoulders.

Christian values are about 'Proclaiming the Promise' of eternal life, and abundant life in the here and now. It is not "run from that eternal fire", no matter how real that may be.

Its the same as 'Follow the rule of law' for a happy and peaceful life in society, rather than "IF you DON'T follow the law we will lock you up in 'the hole' for a year"
"The Hole" is an ever present reality, but to make that the focus is very negative.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 19 August 2007 8:41:33 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
BOAZ_David,

There really is little point in continuing discussion with you. In this thread you have vilified Peter Singer on a falsehood and not produced a reference when asked and in the Dawkins thread you have misrepresented him by supposedly quoting RD as stating: “I hate…all religions.” The link you supplied as evidence was not a “debate” but rather a religious diatribe, so full of holes; it would not float on solid lead. There was no mention by Richard Dawkins of the words you attribute to him.

I think your trouble is that you are really convinced you are correct about a supernatural realm but find you have an inability to show others why it is all true. This then tends to have you grasping at any straw, no matter how weak, to ‘prove’ your point.

I suggest you look deeper into why you ‘believe’ in the un-evidenced concepts of souls, gods and the supernatural etc. Your acceptance that a hell exists is quite an incentive to ‘believe’. You display desperation in attempting to convince others you have a valid case. Thinking humans cannot be convinced by misrepresentation and if there was a god, I am reasonably sure it would not be impressed with your methods.

David Nicholls
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 19 August 2007 1:54:59 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: "BOAZ_David,

There really is little point in continuing discussion with you. In this thread you have vilified Peter Singer on a falsehood and not produced a reference when asked and in the Dawkins thread you have misrepresented him by supposedly quoting RD as stating: “I hate…all religions.” The link you supplied as evidence was not a “debate” but rather a religious diatribe, so full of holes; it would not float on solid lead. There was no mention by Richard Dawkins of the words you attribute to him."

Indeed. Boazy is well known in this forum for making unsubstantiated claims, stretching the truth and telling outright porkies in order to promote his various agendas.

However, we should trust him nonetheless, because he's a good Christian, and is therefore much purer morally than us heathens.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 19 August 2007 2:02:52 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
The moral mess of "Christian values"? What about the callous chasm of atheism? What are atheist values? Nihilism? Social Darwinism?

David Nicholls asserts "that in democracies, freely chosen Atheism cannot be compared with past societies ruled by militaristic tyrants and dictators with their own hideous agendas." How convenient. In that case, one could also claim that freely chosen Christianity or Islam cannot be compared with past societies ruled by militaristic tyrants and dictators with their own hideous agendas.

Employing such logically fallacious double standards hardly provides a compelling argument for your Dawkinist "religion-is-responsible-for-all-the-world's-woes" worldview. Either your earlier attacks on religion are null and void, or you have no choice to admit that the most brutal, oppressive and mass-murdering regimes of the 20th Century were, in fact, militantly atheistic.
Posted by Dresdener, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 6:05:20 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
Dresdener, you make the same mistake time and time again.

>>... you have no choice to admit that the most brutal, oppressive and mass-murdering regimes of the 20th Century were, in fact, militantly atheistic<<

Many wars have been waged in the name of religion.

No war at all has ever been waged in the name of atheism.

Religion is identifiable by its presence. Atheism is identifiable by the absence of religion.

You cannot wage war in the cause of a negative. It is almost exclusively (and feel free to fill in if there is a gap) waged in the name of religion, or in the name of earthly power.

Earthly power may also use religion as a motivating factor. Atheism, per se, cannot.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 5:22:01 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.... my connection of Singer with 'cull' was not a particularly tight one.. I did hear an interview with him some time ago... so perhaps I misunderstood the scope of what I heard.

DAWKINs.. I refer you to the comments of Pericles on that other thread where he specifically mentions the quote in question, and I'm gathering you listened to it.. ? but it is there...

It was not a 'diatribe' any more than your 'landslide of hate' against religion was that :)... now.. I detected much more 'hate for religion' in your posts than I detected 'hate' for non religion in the 'diatribe' you so describe. I found it quite devoid of such emotions entirely.. I found it even warm hearted.

But on not discussing with me ? that is always your perogative.

But lets be fair..you have describe "Christian values" as a 'moral mess' so..don't be surprised if people pop up to disagree with that or offer different perspectives. The level to which you engage them is up to you.

As long as we have had our 'right of reply' I'm ok with that.

If I wrote a piece on "The Moral Disaster of Atheism and MIUAUG" I'd expect you to offer your twopence worth also.

cheers.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 23 August 2007 8:47:19 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
Pericles said:

"No war at all has ever been waged in the name of atheism."

Now Pericles..I hold you personally responsible for the mess that is now on my keyboard after I almost choked on my 'MayoTwist/roll' thing which was half chewed ! when I looked at that unnnnnbelievable comment!x1000

I don't know what you call the 'Cultural Revolution' but I'll bet the 30million corpses would say "It was a war" if they could speak.
Or look at the invasion of South Korea etc etc.

Your credibility is currently in absolute tatters... The Soviet Union never waged war in the name of Atheism ?

Dresdener made excellent well argued points, not mistakes.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 23 August 2007 8:53:46 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
Glad the choking wasn't terminal, Boaz.

>>I don't know what you call the 'Cultural Revolution' but I'll bet the 30million corpses would say "It was a war" if they could speak<<

The Cultural Revolution was many things, Boaz, but it was not a war waged in the name of atheism. Infoplease describes it thus:

"[I]n an attempt to prevent the development of a bureaucratized Soviet style of Communism, Mao closed schools and encouraged students to join Red Guard units, which denunciated and persecuted Chinese teachers and intellectuals, engaged in widespread book burnings, facilitated mass relocations, and enforced Mao's cult of personality."

Neither religion nor atheism is named as the driving force behind this. Your argument seems to be "Mao was an atheist, therefore the purge was in the name of atheism". No, it was in the name of Mao. An individual. He did not mobilize forces behind the banner of atheism, as the Crusaders rallied behind the flag of Christendom. He said "do as I say, or else."

And as for:

>>Or look at the invasion of South Korea etc etc.<<

...here's what Factmonster says:

"Hoping to unify the Koreas under a single Communist government, the North launched a surprise invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950. In the following days, the UN Security Council condemned the attack and demanded an immediate withdrawal."

Just because the protagonists were communists doesn't mean they were fighting the cause of atheism. If they were, wouldn't they check first whether the people they were fighting were also atheists - and if so, spare them?

Nope. They didn't. They were fighting a political battle, for political superiority, not for the "cause" of atheism.

>>Your credibility is currently in absolute tatters... <<

My credibility increases each time you challenge me, Boaz, so keep right on arguing.

Your problem, as I have said many many times, is that you see everything through the coke-bottle lenses of Christianity. Unfortunately, the distortion they cause prevents you from seeing that not everything in the world is explicable in terms of "Christians good, atheists dumb, Muslims evil"
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 23 August 2007 11:34:18 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
"you see everything through the coke-bottle lenses of Christianity. Unfortunately, the distortion they cause prevents you from seeing that not everything in the world is explicable in terms of "Christians good, atheists dumb, Muslims evil""

ROFL, classics like that make OLO worth reading, they really
do :)

BD, you are surely a harmless fellow who means well, but
perhaps you should think about quitting some of these arguments whilst
you are well behind, for things can only get worse for you.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 23 August 2007 2:53:03 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
I don't have a great deal of time to fully take part in this debate but I follow it with interest and have to agree with Pericles on the "atheist" war point.

I like and therefore quote what Sam Harris says about this:

"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."

One must love that last sentence!
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 23 August 2007 3:59:05 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
David I am in support of your claim State murders were performed and still are performed in the cause of atheism - Russia, China, North Korea have millions of murders on their hands, because they believed "Religion was the opiate of the people" that must be eradicated. A belief in god they believed gave individual freedom of conscience and therefore to unify a nation all must conform to one doctrine.

Thus the communist manifesto, the litle Red Book etc was the indoctrination given to all children, any parent teaching differently had their children tortured and murdered in their presence unless they denounced their faith. This was done in the cause of atheism, perhaps not a war but a cultural cleansing of society.

Sergi Kordokoff of the KGB secret police investigating such crimes against the State tells graphic details of children being tortured and murdered in front of their parents in an attempt to have them denounce their faith in God. After years of witnessing Christians being tortured and murdered he himself converts and flees to the USA.

Atheism is the teaching today in North Korea and we can witness the mess that doctrine has made to the Nation. Compare South Korea now 65% Christian - with its prosperity and open world view. The largest single Christian Church in the World is in South Korea with over a million members. Christianity brings freedom, atheism brings opression.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 23 August 2007 9:21:03 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

"The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church.

An intense ideological anti-Christian and anti-religious campaign was carried out throughout the history of the Soviet Union. An extensive education and propaganda campaign was undertaken to convince people, especially the children and youth, not to become believers. The role of the Christian religion and the Church was painted in black colors in school textbooks."

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

Many Christian believers in the Soviet Union have told of being imprisoned for no other reason than believing in God. Many have recently been canonized as saints following their death at the hands of Soviet authorities; they are collectively referred to in the Orthodox Church as the "new martyrs". (See also Enemy of the people, Gulag, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Varlam Shalamov)
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 23 August 2007 9:45:03 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
Philo, I think it might be wise to use authorities other than Wikipedia for a while, on issues that involve value judgements... don't you?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/08/23/1187462441687.html

My point still stands. You very carefully sidestep the issue, in true Boaz fashion, by shifting the groundrules.

>>David I am in support of your claim State murders were performed and still are performed in the cause of atheism<<

State murders, i.e. the persecution of citizens by their government, are not at issue.

I said, and will say again:

"Many wars have been waged in the name of religion.

No war at all has ever been waged in the name of atheism."

The Crusades were a religious war, pure and simple. Crusaders came from many different countries, but defined themselves as being from "Christendom".

When the Nazis went on the march, it was for Lebensraum, with the concept of "pure" Teutonic race behind it. Atheism didn't get a look in. As for the Russian Revolution - here, take a look at these pages and see if you can spot the word "atheist" or "atheism" anywhere.

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/russia/revo1917.htm

I've already pointed out the Cultural Revolution fallacy, and the Korean War fallacy.

>>Atheism is the teaching today in North Korea and we can witness the mess that doctrine has made to the Nation.<<

OK. You are suggesting that the "mess" in North Korea is because they teach atheism? Nothing to do with anything else? Cult of the Great Leader? Are you sure?

Again, please don't take my word for it - take a look through the official North Korean web site, and see if you can spot the word "atheism" anywhere.

Atheism is an absence, not a presence. And while this may upset Christians, you cannot blame bad stuff on something that isn't there.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 August 2007 10:05:11 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
Hi Pericles,

"My point still stands."

The point relates to the reason provided by those involved for wars I believe. You are saying that people say they are starting a war in the name of religion but never claim to start a war in the name of atheism. That is clearly important to you in the context of the discussion as you consider Philo's post on non-war atrocities sidetracking. Accordingly, in context, are you also saying that head count and atrocities are not a legitimate measure of whether a belief system is better than another belief system (or absence thereof if you like) but whether or not participants cite religion or atheism as a cause of war is a legitimate measure? Alternatively are you simply saying that you raised the point and it stands irrespective of the implications for Philo's comments in the overall comparison between atheism and religion and, as Philo's comment responded to yours, you conclude that he can't prove you wrong.

">>Atheism is the teaching today in North Korea and we can witness the mess that doctrine has made to the Nation.<<

OK. You are suggesting that the "mess" in North Korea is because they teach atheism? Nothing to do with anything else? Cult of the Great Leader? Are you sure?"

Can you please explain what you mean by "Cult of the Great Leader". I don't want to jump to literal conclusions just in case. Thanks.

"Atheism is an absence, not a presence. And while this may upset Christians, you cannot blame bad stuff on something that isn't there."

: ) Is that a deliberate attempt to invoke the Christian saying "Satan's best trick was to convince people he doesn't exist".
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 24 August 2007 11:53:57 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
What a lot of questions mjbp.

>>The point relates to the reason provided by those involved for wars I believe.<<

Or indeed, the reasons attributed to them by historians.

>>You are saying that people say they are starting a war in the name of religion but never claim to start a war in the name of atheism.<<

Yep.

>>you consider Philo's post on non-war atrocities sidetracking<<

Yep. He changed the groundrules from "war" to "State murder".

>>are you also saying that head count and atrocities are not a legitimate measure of whether a belief system is better than another belief system<<

Nope. I'm not judging one belief system as being "better" than any other. I'm simply pointing out that while wars may be conducted by atheists, atheism isn't the reason, rationale or motivating factor for that war. I did leave a space for Boaz to identify one, but he didn't. Nor did Philo. Nor, now I think about it, did Dresdener, whose post generated my observation in the first place.

>>as Philo's comment responded to yours, you conclude that he can't prove you wrong<<

Nope. I concluded that he hadn't, not that he couldn't. "Couldn't" calls for speculation, as they say on all the American courtroom dramas.

>>explain what you mean by "Cult of the Great Leader"<<

Re: North Korea, this is shorthand for the veneration of both the late Kim Il Sung and his son, Kim Jong Il. Check out that web site, it makes interesting reading. Particularly the stuff about Juche.

And just to underline the point a little, my observation on Philo's comment "Atheism is the teaching today in North Korea and we can witness the mess that doctrine has made to the Nation" is primarily related to that hoary old logical fallacy, post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 August 2007 2:05:12 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
As we know atheism is the negative of a belief in God and by atheists is not considered a religion. However a religion is a world view and I believe atheism equaly equates to a world view.

The Civil wars involving the eradication of dissidents to the Socialist agenda of Russia, China and North Korea were deliberately killed because tf their beliefs. This involved mostly Christians in those nations because of their belief in God. Atheism upheld a belief that Marx held that faith in God was the opiate of the people.

Atheism does not have to be identified as a negative belief system; its positive attitudes negate a belief in God. The systems they uphold had no place for God and anyone who believed in God must be indoctrinated or put to death. A time in their indoctrination camps would suffice to recognise they clearly ridiculed and taught a negative view of God. The murders of their Civil war were against people who would not denounce their belief in God and other belief systems other than was taught by the State.

Atheists as lone rangers denying the existence of God prefer to be ignorant of the facts of suffering caused in the last 100 years by anti-god systems, because they were not a part of the organised eradication of faith in God.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 26 August 2007 8:38:54 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
Philo, you owe it to yourself to brush up on your logic.

I trust you understood the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" issue with atheism being to blame for North Korea's woes? You can add this one to the list:

>>atheism is the negative of a belief in God and by atheists is not considered a religion. However a religion is a world view and I believe atheism equaly equates to a world view.<<

Doesn't work like that.

You say "religion is a world view; atheism is a world view; therefore atheism is a religion." This is like saying "Tiddles is a cat; Snuggles is a cat; therefore Snuggles is Tiddles".

What your logic actually tells us is that religion and atheism are world views, but nothing at all about the relationship between them.

>>The Civil wars involving the eradication of dissidents to the Socialist agenda of Russia, China and North Korea were deliberately killed because tf their beliefs.<<

Civil Wars, Philo? Now you are simply inventing stuff. Show me where any of these actions of the State against their own people has been described as a Civil War?

Civil Wars have, of course, often been based in differences of religious belief - Cromwell's vs Charles', for example - but there have always been two sides pitted against each other, with the winner gaining the power. The actions of a State, using violence against its own people (and it wasn't ever merely believers that they went after - check it out if you don't believe me) are simply the means to exert political control.

>>Atheism does not have to be identified as a negative belief system; its positive attitudes negate a belief in God. The systems they uphold had no place for God and anyone who believed in God must be indoctrinated or put to death.<<

Now you are being ridiculous. Nobody is trying to indoctrinate you or to put you to death, least of all atheists. If there were a category that had these ambitions, don't you think that it is highly more likely to be another religion?
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 26 August 2007 3:52:50 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
Pericles,
The revolution was civil war against unnarmed Christians both in China and Russia and against any who dissagred with the world views of the State. Children were removed from parents who taught faith in God. They were also slain in the presence of parents to have them denounce their faith. Atheism like Christiaqnity is a view about the reality of the universe, both from different points of view. I had personal contact with persons persecuted both in Russia and China. Their life was threatened for no other reason than they believed in God
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 26 August 2007 8:39:59 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
Philo, I presume this is your way of saying "I guess you're right, Pericles".

>>The revolution was civil war against unnarmed Christians both in China and Russia and against any who dissagred with the world views of the State<<

Since the "any who disagreed with the State" category could have included, but certainly was not limited to, the first category, the statement is reasonable. And the latter were probably unarmed as well, wouldn't you think?

>>Children were removed from parents who taught faith in God<<

That rings a bell, doesn't it? Wasn't there another country, relatively recently, where children were removed from parents by people who taught faith in God? Thought so. What was your point again?

>>Atheism like Christiaqnity is a view about the reality of the universe, both from different points of view.<<

Not quite. The sole qualification for being an atheist is having a view that there isn't a God. That attribute does not in any way define any other aspect of their world view. I know that it is a favourite theory of Christians that all atheists share the same values, but frankly it isn't the case. So it cannot be said that atheism is "a" view.

My point still stands, Boaz' choking notwithstanding.

"No war at all has ever been waged in the name of atheism."
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 26 August 2007 10:45:41 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
Pericles,

Thanks for answering.

David,

"In fact, the RC Church was heavily involved in helping Nazi war criminals escape to other countries such as South America. You may have heard of the ‘Rat Lines’. (Look it up)

I invite you reconsider the above quote.

I googled Rat Lines and it didn't substantiate your comment. From what I found a Bishop who ministered to German speaking prisoners of war and a separate small group of Croat priests were involved in the Rat Running.

This doesn't substantiate an allegation that the RC was heavily involved. Perhaps you don't realize that the Catholic Church is fairly large. I think it comprises about one and a half billion people with a fair few priests. You would need bigger numbers or official sanctioning to charge it with being heavily involved.

By comparison you may be aware that a former Queensland politician from the ALP got in strife for child molesting. I presume you would appreciate that an allegation that the ALP were heavily involved in child molesting would not be a reasonable conclusion. Likewise doing something similar with a much larger organisation is not reasonable.

It is also widely reported that a rat line investigator usurped his authority by searching church buildings and was subject to a complaint to his superiors from the Vatican's Secretariat of State. Apparently his response to getting in strife for doing the wrong thing was an unsubstantiated allegation about the complainant: "The aim of the complaint was to interfere with the investigation." Presumably as an investigator he would have provided a factual basis for his mind reading if he had any. I can only assume that there is none. Although that doesn't seem to add anything it is widely reported as if significant, and involves a Catholic, so I note it.

I appreciate that I have focussed on one sentence in your post. I wasn't attempting to be pedantic. Would you agree that in your position you should be careful about the accuracy of what you say when referring to an organisation with one and a half billion people?
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 27 August 2007 10:22:56 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
Most of the accusations made about a moral mess of Christian values are not Christian morals or Christian values. For the truth of what are Christian morals and values read the teachings of Jesus.

The opinions or values referred to are not Christian but behaviour by some who have called themselves "Christian". Those following the positive teachings of Christ adhere to a pure morality and values that he taught that enhance a persons life and bring peace and well being to a community.

This is not within the nature of most atheists who prefer to flout the moral tenets of society and allow unrestricted immoral behaviour to flourish, and whose value systems is "if it feels good then do it". Most atheists claim such because it absolves their moral conscience. They are not accountable for anything in their life that they can get away with.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 9:49:39 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
Philo, the jails are full of Christians that did something immoral; other Christians state that these Christians are not ‘good’ Christians or that these people shouldn't call themselves “Christians”. You can’t pick and choose who you want in your religion.

There is nothing more moral about being a Christian than about being an atheist.
In fact, Christians have more reasons for immoral behaviour because their book is full of it.

Christians pick and choose from the Bible those things they agree with and ignore the rest. They are ignoring God’s word, the laws of the Bible, when they seem immoral.

Jesus shouldn’t have bothered to come and fulfill these laws; Christians are ignoring them no matter what Jesus said.

And these Christians are doing the right thing because they realise that going around stoning people to death would be extremely immoral.

Who would be more moral, a Christian who obeys every law in the Bible without exception, or the atheist who innately judges whether something would be moral or not in this day and age?
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:35:58 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
"or the atheist who innately judges whether something would be moral or not in this day and age?"

Well that is a key point! How moral is it only to not do something,
because one fears judgement day or hell etc? Fear and hope are
alot of the driving factors behind religion, not moral judgements.

Give me thinking humanists any day :)
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:59:36 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
In fact the RC Church was heavily involved in helping Allied servicemen and escaped PsOW and others to remain out of Germany's clutches.

Just thought I'd throw that alternative view in, purely in the interest of balance.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 3 September 2007 7:20:53 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
Essentially acting as a Christian is not defined by adhering to a set of rules, but living in relationship with others that promotes honesty, credibility, peace, joy and selflessness in community.

Jesus constantly was in trouble with the Pharisees because he ignored the Jewish set of rules. He promoted neighbourliness, healing and self sacrifice as the values of living Gods way. The Jews ultimately plotted his death because he failed to follow their set of rules. Christianity is not a set of rules it is relationship. Reconciliation is its key message.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 3 September 2007 9:59:26 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
The accusation is made that Christ revealed incarnate in the life of his followers is in a moral mess. No analysis is made of how the behaviour of humans reflects the nature of Christ as he lived his life.

Most of the accusations made about human moral behaviour rather reflect the attitude of Christ's opponents. It does not mean every action of those who make the claim to follow Christ actualy reflect the glory of God. Christ constanly reminded his disciples of attitudes and actions that failed to reveal the glory and wisdom of God. The case is made however that sinners follow Jesus Christ, and they need to abandon the evil practises that reflect former atitudes and actions not submitted to Christ and adopted the righteousness of God.

Take the words, the attitude, the behaviour and wisdom of Christ and evaluate their human behaviour displayed in the light of this criterion and then if agreead it actually reflects the revelation of Christ - then one may have a case of Christ being incarnate in their life is in a moral mess. As yet I find no fault in Christ and on this forum there has not been presented a case that Christ incarnate in the life of his followers is in a moral mess.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 6 September 2007 4:06:59 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy