Hi Foxy,

"God is on our side," only when we go to war, then we can legally, and with God's grace kill women and children.

As my Old Man would say; "Son, a bloke that believes God is on his side is a very dangerous bloke, because he believes he can do no wrong." True.

Up to no good this morning, boiling a few salted Mutton Birds, Te Aroha gets them this time of the year from the Aboriginal fellas down in Bass Strait, who harvest them, a big thanks to Mutton Bird Mick down south. Not to everyone's taste, but sure beats the hell out of Rotten Corn, another on of God's gifts to the Maori people. Ah well the puha will go in shortly.

Paul,
I thought that you were joking but then I Googled and came up with the fact that you were absolutely serious. I would opt for “c”.

Back to generalities, I see mocking a persons religious beliefs as a form of intolerance. '

I see Banjo's view of god is small is the reason he failed in his search, I believe in the God of the DNA creation and the complexity of natural organic chemistry and the redemption of the human spirit.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

Naturally, I fully respect your right to believe in “the God of the DNA creation and the complexity of natural organic chemistry and the redemption of the human spirit”.

I think it is worth recalling here the general comment adopted by the Human Rights Committee of the CCPR (Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) in 1993. Paragraphs 1 & 2 stipule as follows :

[ 1. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (which includes the freedom to hold beliefs) in article 18 is far-reaching and profound; it encompasses freedom of thoughts on all matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or belief, whether manifested individually or in community with others. The Committee draws the attention of States parties to the fact that the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience are protected equally with the freedom of religion and belief. The fundamental character of these freedoms is also reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant.

2. Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reasons, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility by a predominant religious community. ]

http://undocs.org/CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4

As it seems a bit silly to define myself by reference to belief in something that does not exist, I prefer to consider myself an ordinary person (rather than an “atheist”).

“Freethinker” might also be an acceptable term were it not for its somewhat pretentious connotations.

However, my mind remains open to any new evidence that may be forthcoming sometime in the future, Josephus.

.

Dear Banjo,

How easy it is and seemingly noble to protect thoughts and beliefs, but this is only a lip-service into the protection of religion, because religion is so much more than just thoughts and beliefs - it manifests in actions (e.g. worship and rituals) and perhaps even more importantly in the abstinence from other proscribed actions.

Now understanding this, how is it possible to truly protect religion?

Since it is very difficult, perhaps even impossible to discern which actions and abstentions are religious in nature and which are not, the only way I can see, is for the powers of the land (presently states and their governments) to err on the side of caution and never forcibly interfere in the actions of people, lest they accidentally interfere with their religion.

«it seems a bit silly to define myself by reference to belief in something that does not exist»

I would find it silly to define oneself by reference to any belief, regardless whether its object(s) exist or otherwise: beliefs can come and go as indeed occurred in your own personal history, but you (initially the believer then the unbeliever) have not changed, you are still exactly the same you!

[continued...]

[...continued]

Please allow me to present an analogous example where believing in something which does not exist is not silly at all:

Suppose you go to the cinema for the first time in your life and arrive a bit late, so when you arrive the movie is already showing. Someone once told you that the movie is being shown over a screen, but all you can see are people and houses and animals and trees and mountains, etc. etc. - there's lots of action but you cannot see a screen!

You nudge your neighbour and ask:
"where is the screen? is it in this man?"
- No.
"is it in this woman then?"
- No.
"Is it in what they wear?"
- No.
"Is it inside the house, in the furniture perhaps?"
- No.
"Is it out in the fields?"
- No.
"Perhaps it is in the mountains beyond?"
- No.
"Then it must be in the sky"
- No.
"Well, I already mentioned all possibilities, there is nothing else which means that the screen does not exist!"

Yet when the movie ends and the lights turn on, the screen's presence becomes undeniable. Even while the movie was screening, everyone saw the screen: some spectators believed in it while others did not, yet the screen was there all along and for all to see. Many movies were screened over that one screen, some comedies, some tragedies, some thrillers, some documentaries, yet without the screen none of them could be presented.

This is only an analogy of course, but the best one I know that tries to explain God.