Dear Yuyutsu,

I think God is a construction of the human mind with no more reality than a unicorn or other fantasy. Getting closer to God is like getting closer to a unicorn.

I don't think we have anything more to say to each other.

Dear David,

Whatever you happen to think of God, this discussion is about religion, not about God.

That God does not exist does not imply that religion does not exist - I believe it does.

Think of it like the number i, the square-root of -1: we all know that no number squared produces -1, but that concept of 'i' is useful in many scientific and engineering fields and its use helps us to solve many mathematical theorems that we otherwise cannot.

.

Dear david f., Dear ttbn,

.

According to the latest census, the number of Australians who selected “no religion” has risen to 38.9% - up from 30.1% in 2016. It won’t be long before those with “no religion” exceed the total Christian population (43.9%) of taxpayers.

That being the case, it would seem unreasonable to continue to subsidies religious organisations with the taxpayers’ money of those with “no religion”.

Subsidies and tax exemptions of religious institutions should be financed exclusively by those taxpayers affiliated with a religion.

No doubt, the tax contributions of the “no religion” taxpayers should be phased out over a period of three or four years to allow time for the religious affiliated population to adjust to the new tax arrangements.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Firstly, the number of Australians who selected "no religion" in the census has nothing to do with the actual number of those without religion (which I claim to be 0%). I for one did not answer that question. The people who selected "no religion" could have done so because they do not belong to an so-called-"religious" organisation - then what? they have their personal religion just the same.

In any case, even if that number was 99%, 100% even, there is no moral justification for robbing the tax-payer and giving their hard-earned money to others, including to institutionalised "religion".

Thirdly, what relevance is it whether it's natural or not?
Aidan,
If it were natural it wouldn't be a topic !
As to your other questions, they're not answerable without some freak of questionable sexuality making a big fuss about it & wasting good OLO time & space !

It is true we all have a set of personal principles which we use as a guide for decision making.
Sometimes these principles are based on the teachings of an organised religion.
Frequently not.
But keep in mind that although we can think as we like about our life's principles, we cannot always apply them as we like.
We have laws.
And it should be clear to all that when a personal view clashes with the law, the law comes first.
A personal view, be it religious or otherwise, must take second place.
My impression is that some persons think that their personal view allows them to ignore the law.
They think their own ideas are more important.
They are quite wrong.
For completeness here, I should add that when a law is unreasonable or unworkable, and a significant percentage of the population says so forcefully, then that law should be examined, and withdrawn or at least modified.