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.'

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?

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?

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

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

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.