God I’m sick of comedians laughing at religion

Vigilant says:

05:45am | 29/02/12

Oil is the new God.

Joan says:

06:27am | 29/02/12

Congratuations you`re First cab of the sky fairy rank - you just had to show the world that your spiritual development stunted at 5 year old fairy book level . Grow up, get a life,  find your spirit. - start by looking into your soul.

Emma says:

06:32am | 29/02/12

Joan

You just mentioned two things that are quite questionable to me already. Soul and spirit. If you tell me where exactly my soul is located and what it looks like then I happily take a look at it.

Joan says:

07:04am | 29/02/12

Dear Emma- sad to read that all you think you are is a bag of bones covered by flesh- you have a long way to go in you spiriti\ual journey and the begining is with the realisation that you more than just a bag of bones and flesh.

Ron says:

07:05am | 29/02/12

Yeah right Joan, you believe in some sky fairy and you have the nerve to tell him to grow up and get a life?  Good grief talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Emma says:

07:18am | 29/02/12

Joan

I love that argument. Why should we believe we are “more” than flesh and bones? Why do Christians want to make us so special?

Economic Refugee in Germany says:

07:22am | 29/02/12

Thanks Joan for your comment. its sad that you have to wake up every morning and tell the sky fairy how wonderful you are and try and convince yourself that you are not just a slightly more evolved version of the monkey. this denial is the scariest part of it. and then ridiculing me, pathetic.

this denial or guilt is probably what makes so many kiddie fiddlers want to become pastors…

CBR says:

07:24am | 29/02/12

@Joan

And people like you are the reason people like me laugh at religion.

Smithy says:

07:27am | 29/02/12

OMG is this the same Joan who does scones for TonyA at morning tea? Well knock me down with a feather, I would never have picked you for a god botherer.

Joan says:

07:27am | 29/02/12

Poor Ron , go back to your fairy book , when you grow up maybe you can discuss spiritual matters without resorting to your fairy books

Gratuitous Adviser says:

07:33am | 29/02/12

E.R.I.G
I like the “my sky fairy is better than your sky fairy” analogy especially with regard to the current furore in Afghanistan, where a copy of the Koran was burnt, so the offended went off and killed someone.  Tell me, who will go to heaven / paradise?

It’s not just a Muslim thing because it’s only a matter of time before some nutter Christian does same thing.

For me, the more mocking of religion the better.  A wealthy and educated country is measured by the size of its middle class and its degree of secularism.

Gratuitous Adviser says:

07:33am | 29/02/12

E.R.I.G
I like the “my sky fairy is better than your sky fairy” analogy especially with regard to the current furore in Afghanistan, where a copy of the Koran was burnt, so the offended went off and killed someone.  Tell me, who will go to heaven / paradise?

It’s not just a Muslim thing because it’s only a matter of time before some nutter Christian does same thing.

For me, the more mocking of religion the better.  A wealthy and educated country is measured by the size of its middle class and its degree of secularism.

TheMan says:

07:35am | 29/02/12

You would do well to remember that even Dawkins admits he is only 6/7 sure that there is no god. As much as we can’t prove there is a god, we also can’t prove there isn’t so knocking someone for believing is something which is not unproven is pretty stupid in itself

Tom says:

07:49am | 29/02/12

None of you seems to want to take on the Muslims? Funny that? Keep it to the Christians? Methinks you are all pretty spineless.

Budz says:

07:53am | 29/02/12

@TheMan: you can’t prove there isn’t a unicorn on Pluto, does it make it reasonable to believe that?

Phil says:

07:54am | 29/02/12

Sure you weren’t meant to be posting in the troll thread from yesterday?

Joan says:

07:57am | 29/02/12

Emma - I leave you to walk through life just a bag of fleshed bones - the original bag lady,  and the boys to their fairy tale story books . Bye Bye.

Zac says:

08:00am | 29/02/12

Economic Refugee in Germany.

Even your Atheist archbishop Dawkins thinks he is an agnostic. In a nutshell he has no idea. So you should really work hard and back up your sky fairy claims. Now here is a challenge for you, can you tell me which sky fairy caused Finnish Atheist and Darwihadist (darwinian jihadist) Pekka to kill 7 students for his Atheistic Faith? In his own words:

“a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like ATHEIST. “I am prepared to fight and die for my cause,” he wrote. “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.” Pekka Eric Auvinen

Zac says:

08:13am | 29/02/12

Economic Refugee in Germany,

“not to mention most wars on the planets were caused because my sky fairy is better than your sky fairy type beginnings.”

Dinesh D’Souza (an author and public speaker & currently the President of The King’s College in New York City. He has debated all the high profile Atheists like late Hitchens, Dennet, Shermer etc.) has already put that to test and here is what he thinks:

“In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler (Was Hitler a Christian? - check out the link on the “Atheistic Violence” website - link below), Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people. Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It’s time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.”

http://atheisticviolence.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/atheism-not-religion-is-the-force-behind-the-mass-murders-of-history/

acotrel says:

08:21am | 29/02/12

‘God I’m sick of comedians laughing at religion’

It’s the source of so much poison and negativity, if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry !

James1 says:

08:24am | 29/02/12

TheMan, very few people actually mock the act of belief itself.  It is more the nature of those beliefs that lend themselves to humour.  For instance, have a listen to Ricky Gervais talking about how ridiculous the Ten Commandments are - its hilarious.  He simply examines the order in which they are given, and goes on the look at an American Baptist preacher’s reordering of the Ten Commandments in what he thinks is the correct order.

He doesn’t mock so much the fact that they believe in something he doesn’t - he mocks their beliefs, because when you look at them objectively, without faith, they are quite funny.  Reminds me of a scene from American Dad where the alien is talking about the Christmas story:

“I hope I haven’t missed the part where the three Chinese guys give perfume to the star baby.”

Or this one:

“Ah, I love your religion - for the crazy! Virgin birth, water into wine; it’s like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.”

acotrel says:

08:25am | 29/02/12

George Pell said ‘islam is the communism of the 21st century’ !  Looking good for the next crusade !

AdamC says:

08:27am | 29/02/12

Zac, if one really did susbscribe to the ‘body count’ argument against religion, they would kill the state before the ‘sky fairy’. Rivalries between states has been the greatest cause of war and strife in human history.

Budz says:

08:28am | 29/02/12

@Joan: do you have any evidence of this “spirit” or “soul”? And is it onl humans that have these? Not any other animals like chimps?
Because if you have any evidence of this, you would be the first.

David Thomas Devine says:

08:33am | 29/02/12

@ Zac ... Zac, Zac, Zac, Zac, Zac.  Dear oh dear where do we start, sir.

First off ... I don’t believe anyone in the Atheist community would agree with your annointing Richard Dawkins as an Archbishop.  Atheism is not a Religion, as much as you may want it to be.  From Wikipedia: “Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.” ... so what are the symbols that Atheists relate humanity to spirituality, when I would think that most Atheists reject the idea of spirits?  A non-belief is not, in and of itself, a belief system.

The reason you and other Theists want Atheism to be a Religion is then you know how to fight it.  You’ve been fighting other Religions for ages, so it’s a known quantity.  You can straw man then as much as you would like, but realize that you are straw manning.

As has been said, Atheism is a Religion as much as bald is a hair colour ... as much as space (as in that stuff outside of our atmosphere) is a kind of weather (it does have it’s own kind of weather, but if you think that clouds of charged particles are equivalent to precipitation, then we have more to discuss).

Rick of the Dustbowl says:

08:42am | 29/02/12

“Christians are respectful of those with opposing beliefs”, they just believe they will spend an eternity in hell

Bertrand says:

08:53am | 29/02/12

@Zac - “Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history”

Why is that every discussion on religion v atheism comes down to which causes more murders?

The causes of great acts of violence, like the holocaust, the Crusades, etc is extremism. Sometimes this is ideological extremism, sometimes it is religious extremism. Religious extremism is simply ideological extremism with a supernatural element thrown in.

James1 says:

09:08am | 29/02/12

Indeed Adam.  One would be hard pressed to find a war or genocide motivated by either religion or atheism.  Only a few small wars have resulted from religion, such as the crusades (although politics, land and resources were far more central than was religion).  Even Al Qaeda’s list of demands are almost completely political in nature.  I can’t think of anyone who killed large numbers of people in the name of atheism, despite the unevidenced assertions of the preachers and nutjobs that Zac raises every single time this is discussed. 

One possible exception is open to interpretation, though.  Christians must necessarily believe that wars have been fought for their god, especially if they believe the Bible is literally true.  This is because their Bible records their god telling the Jews to wipe out entire tribes, including their livestock.  I don’t believe in the Bible, so I think these stories are just how ancient Jewish leaders dressed up their thirst for land, but I would be interested to hear a Christian’s perspective on this.  A similar thing goes for Muslims and the Qu’ran, but I somehow doubt anyone here would be equipped to debate me on that matter.

Clausewitz was right: war is the pursuit of politics with the addition of other means.  Geopolitics is central to war, albeit often dressed up as a righteous cause.  In that sense, religion only acts as an excuse used to pursue state interests.

John L says:

09:25am | 29/02/12

I feel a bit sorry for Joan, she’s the kind of person who can’t see to the strength of her spirit by herself, she needs help with it.

As for religion, that’s easy. Religion is all about that feeling, deep down, that you are better than everyone else, including so called loved ones (you can’t love people as much as God). This is because they believe that they will be blessed by their God, He will see them praying and Be Pleased, He will reach down and Touch them and they will become a better brand of person, a kind of Enlightenment for Dummies.

What I’ve never understood about religion is how can they KNOW, they believe plenty yes, but without any assurance, just bland words from so called experts based upon historical information from credulous people. It’s like believing the sun will come up tomorrow. This belief worked for centuries, in fact many religions were based on it. We now know that this is false and that the Earth spins to face the Sun.

BTW Joan, it’s pretty typical that you have turtled here, it’s what the religious tend to do when the going get tough

Ando says:

09:28am | 29/02/12

I think it is less about mocking god an more about mocking organized religion.Even if I was was convinced god existed I could never be convinced such a powerful being would demand worship.

Zac says:

09:44am | 29/02/12

David Thomas Devine,

” I don’t believe anyone in the Atheist community would agree with your annointing Richard Dawkins as an Archbishop.” >>>

Well, this intolerant Athiest is a leading guy who has sold millions of his books, speaks in most of Atheist conventions and is an authority on everything about Atheism. Even blind freddy would tell you he is seen as the head mullah of organised Atheism.

Atheism is not a Religion,>>>

Ok let me put that to the test (bit of googling will pull up all the following facts): Here is why Atheism is a religion….

1. Atheism meets 6 out of the seven dimensions of religion by Smart. However point no:5 would tell you Atheism meets 7 out of 7 dimension of religion by Smart.

2. When Atheist advertisements on buses against Christians in Australia were banned Atheist Foundation of Australia appealed it under religious discrimination.

3. Atheism is legally a religion in Australia

4. Courts in U.S has ruled Atheism is a religion.

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

“Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.”

5. Atheists conduct debaptism services.

6. Atheists have online and brick and motor Churches

7. Atheists run sunday school and camps for their kids.

8. Atheists have their own clergy and Reverends.

9. Atheists have their own darwihadists like Pekka. In short suicide killers/bombers.

The reason you and other Theists want Atheism to be a Religion is then you know how to fight it.>>>

Wrong, it’s not that we Christians want Atheists to be a religion. We just expose them for what they are. check out the facts I have listed above. It should be damn easy to answer the following questions to get things even more clear…

Can you tell me who organises Atheist conventions?

Can you tell me who writes book mocking religion and make millions of dollars out of it?.

Can you tell me the ones who launches court cases against theists at the drop of a hat?

Do you realise it’s late Hitchens and Harris who declared Atheist fatwas - call to kill millions of Muslims - on the religious?

The more the Atheists are organised the better for theists especially Christians. I am loving it…..

Kevin says:

09:49am | 29/02/12

Do we think it benefits us? I don’t really think it matters. Whenever someone tells you a joke do you bother considering whether or not it benefits you to laugh? Do you not enjoy mocking things you find incredibly stupid? This is a stupid loaded question.

When you ask “Is this what atheists believe?” it makes it very clear you are not aware that atheism is not a system of beliefs full of arbitrary rules. Atheists don’t go around wagging their fingers at each other saying “That’s not very atheist of you.” I don’t think you even understand what you’re asking.

Atheism is a lack of belief of gods, nothing more. Anything more than that is moving on to other philosophical territories.

Tubesteak says:

09:49am | 29/02/12

Joan
ERIG is right. All you’ve got is a self-delusional belief that you are something special because you desperately want to believe in something because you can’t handle the fact that you are mortal. Therefore, you invent sky-fairies to believe in.

The Man
You can’t prove a negative. It’s impossible. It’s up to the religious to prove the existence of god by bringing god out for all to see, feel, hear and touch. Then to prove that this god is exactly as described in the bible and also wants us to do exactly what is in the bible.

Tom
I’ll take on anyone of any faith. My scorn is not just reserved for the Christians.

Harvey Danger says:

10:09am | 29/02/12

Disabled people are east to mock too. Do you take some perverted delight in that. I hate describing myself as an Atheist lest people confuse me with one of you hateful type.

Jeremy says:

10:37am | 29/02/12

@Economic - I think your belief that wars have occurred on more than one planet is the strangest thing.

Chris L says:

10:54am | 29/02/12

@Zac - Regarding Pekka… out of “a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like ATHEIST” you took just the word “atheist”? Sounds like selective comprehension to me.

The guy lists each descriptive with its opposite (such as “anti-human humanist” and “realistic idealist”) and couples the word “atheist” with “god-like” (which would be a contradiction for anyone who doesn’t believe in gods) and you take this to mean he committed his actions due to being atheist?

I guess wishful thinking should be expected.

Kid Handsome says:

10:58am | 29/02/12

@Zac: The difference here is that the atrocities enacted by Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not done in the name of athiesm. Instead, they were part of a warped type of utopian social engineering. Particularly in the instances of Stalin and Mao, religion was viewed as something that prevented the ‘progression’ of a true Communist society as it placed loyalty in god/gods rather than loyalty to the State. These mass killings were done so in the name of Socialism, not in the name of athiesm (something that distinguishes these killings against those enacted in the name(s) of deities).

AdamC says:

11:08am | 29/02/12

James1, I do not discount the possibility of genuinely holy wars, that is, wars primarily motivated by religion. For example, I would argue that Al Qaeda’s political objectives are motivated by islamic fanaticism, not the other way around.

But many conflicts are complicated, with a number of drivers. For example, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has become something of a holy war, at least on the Palestinian side. But this was not always the case. When it started, it was a reasonably plain vanilla ethnic/territorial affair.

I think a lot of atheists like this notion that people need things like religion to inspire them to be mean and nasty to each other. As you and I know, however, people and their institutions can behave awfully without the encouragement of ‘sky fairies’.

Chris L says:

11:09am | 29/02/12

@Zac - Well someone went to an awfull lot of trouble in a desperate attempt to make atheism out to look like a religion. So much simpler when you just look at English language convention.

When an existing word is preceeded by the letter A it then denotes an absence (for example, the definition of atypical is to not be typical. The definition of atheist is simply to not be a theist).

Nice try, but a lot of wasted effort there Zac.

Bruno says:

11:41am | 29/02/12

From someone whose mum tried to raise him as religious but in the end inherited dad’s scepticism - I’m talking about me.

No, most wars were not fought over religion, they were fought over the same issues they are fought over today, land, resources and subordination. Religion was used by leaders to get the people to support the war. Much like ‘we are there to bring them freedom and democracy’. I just read some of your replies also. It is sad that you wake up in the morning believing in nothing except for perhaps the loyalty of your pet dog. It is sad you have to be so harsh on people who believe in something greater than themselves, something that brings happiness and meaning to their lives. Something that gives them a sense of community. You should go to church you might find some fullfilment there. If you are against religion because you are a Gomorran then whatever makes you happy. Are you saying you have no belief in the concept of god? yes that invisible fairy spaghetti creature in the sky. no belief whatsoever? like none? not even in a spiritual sense? now thats sad. I will pray for you in my non-denominational neutral religious kind of way.

Zac says:

11:43am | 29/02/12

Chris L,

@Zac - Well someone went to an awfull lot of trouble in a desperate attempt to make atheism out to look like a religion.>>>

I just listed 9 verifiable proofs, that is not desperation. I have backed up what I have got to say. Why don’t you address the facts I have listed? All you have done is just post your opinion. Like I have asked in the past, I ask again what have you got to fear?. Let the readers make up there mind.

When an existing word is preceeded by the letter A it then denotes an absence (for example, the definition of atypical is to not be typical. The definition of atheist is simply to not be a theist).>>

The courts agree with you. Have a look.  But this time make sure you read it really slow…

“Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.”

Scotchfinger says:

12:13pm | 29/02/12

@Chris L,

My main problem with Atheists (with a capital A) is that I have not met a single one who has actually asked of a religious person, ‘what are you about? What informs your belief in a secular society?’ Further, I think you will find that the tired old debate about superstition vs science is as old as western civilisation. Faith - as opposed to dogma - is neither compatible nor incompatible with scientific enquiry. Just as I will not ask a biologist if man has a soul, I would not ask a priest to explain what chromatin is. Religion seeks for a type of integrity whereby man can place himself in the scheme the cosmos; science is a form of enquiry about the physical nature of the universe. Using one to mock the other is like using mathematics to analyse a poem.

PS Atheism can be a form of dogma, with Darwin at its helm. To this end, evolutionary theory has as many rabid adherents as any cult, ready to shout down challengers from fellow scientists.

John L says:

01:02pm | 29/02/12

@scotchfinger, the moment that science doesn’t try to invalidate a theory, including evolution it ceases to do its job. Science is based on contention. it is fundamental to the process. If there existed a group as you describe that shouts down theories for no valid reason other than being in opposition to the accepted norm then that group should put away its pocket protector, so to speak. There is not one scientist worth their salt that would love nothing better than to rewrite the theory of evolution, the simple truth is that you can’t, it can be improved upon and it has been, countless times, but it can’t be invalidated.

The problem I face with this definition of Atheism as a religion is that it kind of goes against the idea of it. A child is born without a concept of faith, religion and God: it could be said that that child is atheist, it’s the way it should be. Atheism should be defined as the default state of being, with religion etc. as an artificial structure built on top of this.

To answer Zac, The Smart system tries to identify ideologies that have religious tendencies, not religions per se, according to him Marxism should be a religion. I would discount any ruling the US courts have in this area, I mean if they decide Scientology is a religion then I’m not buying anything from them. As for the rest, well you get loons everywhere, atheism is no exception.

Zac says:

01:15pm | 29/02/12

Scotchfinger,

PS Atheism can be a form of dogma, with Darwin at its helm. To this end, evolutionary theory has as many rabid adherents as any cult, ready to shout down challengers from fellow scientists.>>>

You nailed it on the head. In the documentary “The Trouble with Atheism” on channel 4 (U.K), Rod Liddle has explored this issue in detail. I’ll post it for the benifit of the readers.

“The Trouble with Atheism”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7760032578363901913#

“The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with American Atheists president Ellen Johnson.”

gobsmack says:

01:30pm | 29/02/12

@Zac
“3.  Atheism is legally a religion in Australia.”
No.  You are wrong.
The legal test for what constitutes a religion is still the test set out in the 1983 High Court “Scientology Case”:
“We would therefore hold that, for the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief..”
Note the word “supernatural”.
The rest of your points are either wrong, irrelevant or plain silly.

Scotchfinger says:

01:37pm | 29/02/12

@Chris L,

I disagree with you on atheism being an absence of ontological belief; it is in fact a disbelief or non-belief in a supernatural god or deity. And as to your faith that the evolutionary synthesis is akin to some sort of axiom, can I urge you to read some well-known dissenters such as Steven J Gould. Scientists agree with more than what they disagree over, but it is pretty well accepted among scientific philosophers that science follows dominant paradigms that are taught in text-books, and eventually revised. The same can not be said for monotheism, which constructs a central set of tenets that will always hold true (such as the Holy Trinity or creation of the world), no matter how theologists argue around the edges.

Chris L says:

01:54pm | 29/02/12

@Zac - So you say that atheism is a religion because the American Supreme Court says so? The same Supreme Court which ruled that ex-slaves and their decendants could never be US citizens? The same Supreme Court which ruled that kidnapping foregners in their own countries is legal? You want to know how I would discredit this fine, upstanding and always-correct body? Hmmmm, give me a few minutes to think about that (you could while away the time by doing a bit of thinking for yourself).

@Scotchfinger - Many of us atheists come from a religious background. In fact surveys have found that atheists (on average) tend to know more about Christianity (the survey specified this, not me) than followers.

Chris L says:

02:01pm | 29/02/12

I think Scotchfingers most recent contribution was probably meant to be directed at John L rather than me (no relation).

Economist says:

02:24pm | 29/02/12

Geez with all this talk of what is and what isn’t a religion, I’m convinced to start up my own called Econometricianism. Like most good religions its based on existing theocracies. So the following is our prayer:

Our Econometrician who art in the market
Hallowed be thy predictions
Thy numbers come
Thy will be done
On SAS as it is in TSP

Give us this day our daily predictions
and forgive us our scepticism
as we forgive those sceptical against us
And lead us not into poor speculation,
but deliver us from subjectivism.

For thine is the numbers,
and the Classical, and the Bayesian
for ever and ever (assuming rationality).

Click run.

I’ll allow the religion to have three denominations:
The Keyneist - Believe they speak on behalf of the Econometrician, intervene and know what’s best
The Klassical (sic) - purest form the markets are always right and should be free from interference
The Keenist - those that predict the end is near and are willing to bet their homes on it.

Sabbath from Monday to Friday.

But here’s the beauty of it. We can now claim some activity as tax exempt. You simply donate to the church which is invested in property and markets and we’d return it to you the people, with a fee to support our priests who provide advise and sermons. We’d lobby government on your behalf to support your beliefs and the right to earn free from inteference. We’d lobby to get exemptions from minimum wage because of your belief. Anyone want to join?

Scotchfinger says:

02:30pm | 29/02/12

@John L, yes sorry that last reply was for you.

@Chris L, yes good point. I am actually the opposite, I formed a belief in christianity after growing up an atheist, and yes I know all the arguments (I have a BSc). My main point is my belief in God does not preclude an acceptance of natural selection or the idea that the world is five billion years old. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method; I can’t find out what type of bacteria I have by consulting the Bible. So I think religion should be disputed on its own terms, not superstition vs science.

Mattb says:

02:38pm | 29/02/12

“Smithy says: 08:27am | 29/02/12
OMG is this the same Joan who does scones for TonyA at morning tea? Well knock me down with a feather, I would never have picked you for a god botherer.”

Yep, smithy, that’s her. It’s both amazing and confusing. For so long now nearly everyone of Joan’s posts has been about “Juliar”, “gillard the Discusting liar”, “carbon tax lie”. And yes, Joan might be right about feeling lied to over this issue. But how is it that Joan not only turns a blind eye to Abbott’s lies but accepts the biggest lie in the history of humanity and thus bases her entire existence on a lie. Its the ultimate hypocrisy.

I’ve come to the conclusion she isnt well educated and may actually be one card short..

Ps: Not all of them, but a good chunk of the TA followers on here are also the god- botherers. And, just like the justification for their religious belief, they have no real rational arguement as to why they blindly follow Tony.

Jay says:

02:57pm | 29/02/12

“but on the whole, Christians are respectful of those with opposing beliefs.”  While this may be so in Melbourne… nothing is further from the truth in North America. The christians have always cast the first stone… Atheist’s just aren’t taking it anymore and are speaking out, LOUDLY.

Scotchfinger says:

03:14pm | 29/02/12

@Mattb,

Your premiss is: religious people believe in a fundamental lie; therefore they are politically naive and easily deceived. Your conclusion is: Joan is religious; therefore she is naive and easily deceived by religious politicians. However I find your premiss questionable. Kevin Rudd is also a christian, yet she does not support him. Does this not suggest that, like most people, she freely chooses which political party to follow? I understand atheists and agnostics do this also, and many of them are not right in the head either. So where does this leave your argument?

james says:

03:39pm | 29/02/12

You do not have to watch this. it is a conference for atheists. We are not putting anything in your face. we respect your right to believe as you do. but we find what you believe funny. And no, it does not benefit us, but this is private,and not for you to judge. Nor do we all love our neighbours, we do various things. I myself find unconditional love for others to be invalid, but I respect your rights. And I do not feel it is your right not to be offended.

Kipling says:

06:01pm | 29/02/12

Personally I don’t doubt the possibility of their being gods. Of course, being a mere mortal, I am well aware of the idea that it would not be appropriate for me to “know god” given Gods would by definition be Omnipotent, consequently as a mere mortal i seriously lack the wiring to Know a God.

It strikes me generally that this is the overall problem with this whole “belief” stuff. Other mere mortals actually have the arrogance to suggest they “know a Gods will”... I am unsure though if it is irony or something far more devious or dangerous that these same arrogan mortals suggest they are somehow “special” in their Gods eyes….This concept seems genrally inconguous with the idea that Gods created everything….Not to mention entirely disrespectful of the many gifts the various Gods have given us mere mortals, not the least of which is life.

In short, it seems to me that having religions bares absolutely no relation to being “spiritual”. In my expereince it has more consitently meant the exact opposite and no posts so far have challenged that view.

tony says:

07:57pm | 29/02/12

When we say that religion causes war it is like saying a group of hawaiian shirt mob fight with group of tuxedo mob and belief that the clothes are the source of evil rather than realizing the problem is the actual people who wear the clothes not the clothes.

Also when we say it is fairy tale, perhaps our limited experience and perspective have limited our capacity to absorb more and beyond. I have been to other countries and seen a lot of things which are fairy tales but really do happen. Perhaps if we have the opportunity to expand our horizon, we may want to consider that it is possible God exist. Or we can take the easy way and just say can’t see, then doesn’t exist. No one can see love, but it does exist. Can you point where love is in your body? No??? Can you feel the love?

I like to say, religion does not always bring hate and wars, we can see Mother Theresa with her total commitment to help the others, she can do that not only because she is a humanitarian, but she has very strong support not from this world. We can also see the gentle Dalai Lama with his kindness.

See, not all religion is bad, religion does not kill people, same as knife does not kill people. It is People who kill People.

Scotchfinger says:

08:08pm | 29/02/12

@ Kipling you have a point. The psychologist William James distinguished between transcendant religious experience - which is personal - and religious institutions, which exist to uphold a god-centric theology. How to meet somewhere in the middle is not simple or easy.

Kagehi says:

04:03am | 01/03/12

I’ve never attended a single conference where those of other beliefs (atheists or otherwise) were the subject of ridicule.

Yes, because, “We are right, and *real* serious about how you are going to all burn in hell for not wearing the right underwear, or having the right hair style, or following the exact specific ‘correct’ ideas and rituals.”, is so much better than going, “We are not supposed to say that you are all nuts, but at least we can laugh at the latest absurd thing someone claims you have to do to get into the cosmic Six Flags theme park.”

Chris L says:

08:27am | 01/03/12

“Can you point where love is in your body?” - It’s in the endorphins.

Zac says:

08:34am | 01/03/12

gobsmack,

@Zac
“3.  Atheism is legally a religion in Australia.”
No.  You are wrong >>>>

Really.  Here is the fact. I am more concerned about genuine readers not die hard Atheists, who is only interested in facts, reason and opinion when it suit their AGENDA. So what does the LAW (not a persons opinion) say about Atheism? Read it for yourself:

“Legally atheism counts as a religion…” Dr Perkins, spokesperson, Atheist Foundation of Australia (AFA)

Here is “Atheist Religion” in action…....

“THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart after being refused permission to put atheist advertising on buses.” Ref: The Age

Thats right “RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION”.

“The rest of your points are either wrong, irrelevant or plain silly.”>>>

Atheists, when cornered take the easy way out. No substantiation, no back, no reasoning, just assumptions. It’s like “omnipotent chance”.  LOL!!!!!

Zac says:

09:00am | 01/03/12

John L

I would discount any ruling the US courts have in this area,>>>

So you (John L’s opinion) want to discount courts declaration that Atheism and humanism is a religion. But Atheists wouldn’t discount ruling on abortion, anything that will bash up Christians or religious freedom. Why this selective discount? It’s clear to me Atheists only like to discount ruling when it suits them. The dishonesty of Atheists is very clear here.

As for the rest, well you get loons everywhere, atheism is no exception.>>>

Would you consider Atheist mullahs like Harris and late Hitchens who placed fatwas to kill millions of muslims as loons? Recently Dawkins had to censor his own blog due to intolerance from his fellow Atheists against the religious. The tragedy here is, it’s Dawkins who instigated this intolerance in the first place by encouraging fellow Atheists not to tolerate religion or respect religion. Mind you no god is involved here or responsible for this. Do you think - scientists - Dawkins, Harris and author late Hitchens are loons?

To answer Zac, The Smart system tries to identify ideologies that have religious tendencies, not religions per se>>>

Wrong!. Here are facts for the benefit of the readers…..

“Smart’s Seven Dimensions of Religion

Ninian Smart (1927 - 2001), Professor of Comparative Religions at the University of California and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at the University of Lancaster, England, suggested that there are certain aspects or dimensions of religion. In ‘The World’s Religions’ (Cambridge 1989), Smart suggested that there were seven dimensions:

•The Practical and Ritual Dimension
•The Experiential and Emotional Dimension
•The Narrative or Mythic Dimension
•The Doctrinal and Philosophical Dimension
•The Ethical and Legal Dimension
•The Social and Institutional Dimension
•The Material Dimension”

Zac says:

09:32am | 01/03/12

Let me substantiate further why Atheism is a religion. If I find the time I’ll post further proofs that will blow away the readers mind.  It will expose the rotteness and hypocrisy of Atheism and Atheists.

“Atheism had no such pretensions. Its aim was to rid us of the need for religion. Yet in its move to remodel itself as a civil religion it has become what it claims to reject. The disdain of a Marx or Freud for religion has given way to the shrill competitiveness of the “New Athiests.”

The sense in which religion and by implication atheism was simply a passing stage on the way to a new rationalistic outlook freed from religious baggage seems to have dissipated. Instead, a new confessional atheism has emerged, one ready to hawk its wares in the religious marketplace and compete for the souls of children.

Rather than a critique of religion from which the religious can learn, we find a “wannabe civil religion” that depends for its appeal on the continuance of the very thing it claims to replace. It has become an alternative rather than a critique.

Rather than a prophetic witness, disabusing humans of our illusions and idolatries, atheism has become Pepsi to the Coke of religion. To paraphrase the New Testament: what does it profit atheism to gain the whole world and lose its own soul?”

Ref: Luke Bretherton is Reader in Theology and Politics, and convenor of the Faith and Public Policy Forum at King’s College, London

James1 says:

10:39am | 01/03/12

Those are nothing more than the views of individuals, Zac.  They do not even represent the views of most atheists.

I could quote an American Christian saying that adulterers should be stoned to death.  Does this mean that all American Christians believe that adulterers should be stoned to death?  By the standard you apply to atheism, the answer must be yes.  Thus, either you are wrong about atheists, or all American Christians believe in the death penalty for adultery.

Zac says:

12:17pm | 01/03/12

James1,

Those are nothing more than the views of individuals, Zac.  They do not even represent the views of most atheists.>>>

Well, Christians are held accountable for crimes that happened hundreds of years ago. So why can’t we hold Atheists who claim to be rationalists and highly educated but perpeterate crime, intolerance, bigotry and declare fatwas on the religious in our lifetime accountable?

Do you think Dr. Perkins and Nicholls of Atheist Foundation Australia (AFA) are just individuals? Did you some how missed reading “Atheist Foundation of Australia”? Do you think all the Atheist advertisement against Christians are funded from their pockets?

Do you think Dawkins, Harris, late Hitchens, Shermer, Dennett, Peter Singer etc are just individuals?

These guys are scientists, philosophers, authors who represent scientific authority, head of university departments, author of books, that helped them to make millions of - “In God we trust” - $$$$$, Chair of universities etc. They are NOT your average resident Atheists. These fundies hold and represent influential and public positions in society. I have debated Atheists and researched long enough to know the impact of these people on larger society.

Chris L says:

02:06pm | 01/03/12

That’s the point, Zac, these crimes did not happen. Hitchens and Harris calling a fatwa?! Do you have a link to some evidence for that (not the fiction you usually post but an actual video clip or soundbite or at least a verifiable quote)?

You talk about the times gone past when atheists had to disguise themselves as an organisation to avoid persecution and claim that is a problem with atheism? Strange progression of logic there.

Also, what’s this about having ceremonies? Are you talking about the group that held some sort of reverse-baptism as a therapeutic technique to overcome their anxieties caused by their religious backgrounds? Hardly sporting of you, old chap.

You need to sort your ramblings into some sort of coherent format. It’s getting more difficult to find a point amid the ramblings.

Leah says:

10:19am | 02/03/12

Rick - ““Christians are respectful of those with opposing beliefs”, they just believe they will spend an eternity in hell”

Nearly every other religion believes that too (that if you don’t believe their religion you’ll spend an eternity in their version of ‘hell’) so what makes Christians special in that regard? Besides, believing someone will go to hell has nothing to do with loving or respecting them. Otherwise no Christian would be able to have a non-Christian friend.

And Zac is spot on. Yes, religion has caused a lot of civil and international conflict. But it is nowhere near the number one reason. As Zac correctly points out, many of history’s worst offenders were atheists, and land is also a very common reason. Even in the middle east now, the main cause of the conflict is not religion but land. The Palestinians and Israelis are not fighting each other because they don’t like the other side’s religion, they’re fighting each other because they think the other side has their land.

Zac says:

11:05am | 02/03/12

Chris L ,

That’s the point, Zac, these crimes did not happen. Hitchens and Harris calling a fatwa?!>>>

You should be ashamed of yourself. You guys claim to be rationalists and justify call to violence. In 20th century Atheists had power and weapons and we know the end result. Once Atheists again power and weapons they will be no different. The following excerpt will tell you why.

The recent calls (just below)  from Atheist Philosopher and medical ethicist to kill new born babies didn’t happen as well. What do you think of this? Well, anything goes in darwinian jungle.

“KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.

Monash University’s Alberto Giubilini and the University of Melbourne’s Francesca Minerva say that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

They argue this justifies “after-birth abortion’’ on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

The doctors of philosophy argue that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child’s life after, as well as before, birth.

However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant’s right to life.” Ref: March 02, 2012, Daily Telegraph.

Do you have a link to some evidence for that (not the fiction you usually post but an actual video clip or soundbite or at least a verifiable quote)?>>>

Can you let the readers know what that “fiction” is? Most of my posts are backed up. How about you back up your posts and answer to all my questions and comments? That’s a bit of hard work and you will come out exposed. How about you do your own home work next time? In the interest of the readers I’ll post some material that will expose Atheistic fatwa. Here we go:

“Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now — Rudy Giuliani — and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.” Ref: The dark side of Hitchens, Atheist Paul Z. Meyers, associate professor of biology at University of Minnesota, Morris

You talk about the times gone past when atheists had to disguise themselves as an organisation to avoid persecution and claim that is a problem with atheism? Strange progression of logic there.>>>

Show me from my post where I talk about this?

You need to sort your ramblings into some sort of coherent format. It’s getting more difficult to find a point amid the ramblings.>>>

After 3 paragraph of stuff that you understood. Well, it’s understandable. When Atheists are knocked out of their pedestal, they wouldn’t fall with out a whinge. Selective reasoning is not helping you, is it?

PhilD says:

11:06am | 03/03/12

@Emma “If you tell me where exactly my soul is located and what it looks like then I happily take a look at it. “
Can you see your mind?
Can you see your will?
Can you see your emotions?
You can’t see your soul but you can feel it in your mind, will and emotions.

PhilD says:

11:07am | 03/03/12

@Vigilant “Oil is the new god”
Close but no banana for you. Oil is the new gold.

PhilD says:

11:09am | 03/03/12

@Vigilant “Oil is the new god”
Close but no banana for you. Oil is the new gold.

A Dose of Reality says:

12:01am | 05/03/12

ZAC ….

After much laughter, I MUST thank you for your (many) posts.

Please relate to the article - and then to your posts.

If ever there was a cause for ridicule!

You prove the very point for which the article is so dismayed, the ‘comedians’ are laughing at you.

By the way, quoting a ‘conclusion’ and pointing to it as ‘proof’ is an absurdity (one of the many forms of comedy).

None of your ‘arguments’ are logically valid.  An absence of one does not prove the other.  Chaplin, Groucho and the other masters would be proud!

To file ‘religious discrimination’ does not require the plaintive to be superstitious - just that he/she has been discriminated against because of another’s superstitious actions.

And by the way, The US Supreme Court has also decreed that the tomato is legally a vegetable, in spite of it botanically being a fruit. (Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 304) - see that, it’s called a ‘reference’).

Zac says:

07:23am | 05/03/12

A Dose of Reality .

And who filed under “religious discrimination”?  Atheist Foundation of Australia (AFA). End of story. You don’t have to believe in a god to be religious or a religion. Even AFA and courts agree Atheism is a religion. You talk about superstition, as if French Jacobine revolution and the 20th century Atheistic utopia was rational. BTW, Buddhism doesn’t believe in a god but is still counted as a religion.

And by the way, The US Supreme Court has also decreed that the tomato is legally a vegetable,>>>

When was the last time “tomato” blew up people or burn Churches or kill millions of people to establish Atheistic utopia around the world or wanted to a start a study group which was religious in nature or place advertisements attacking Christians or place Atheistic fatwa’s?

A Dose of Reality says:

08:19am | 05/03/12

Zac, Zac, Zac,

LOL.

“And who filed under “religious discrimination”?  Atheist Foundation of Australia (AFA). “

Read the post - here it is for you again:

“To file ‘religious discrimination’ does not require the plaintive to be superstitious - just that he/she has been discriminated against because of another’s superstitious actions”

Do you know what a ‘plaintiff’ is?

And the reference to the US supreme Court’s ruling - that the tomato is a vegetable - was to (I would have thought obviously) show that body to be less than an authority on definition (outside of a strictly legal interpretation on points of US Law).  Tomato is a vegetable - atheism is a religion, both rather absurd, and stupid statements!

It would seem that all of your posts are the result of the same inability to either read - or comprehend.

But please, keep going, your rumblings are so much fun.  You generate more material for the ‘comedians’ with every word you write.

Each of your posts is an illustration of why people become atheists - you just don’t make any sense.

Zac says:

09:43am | 05/03/12

A Dose of Reality

Each of your posts is an illustration of why people become atheists - you just don’t make any sense.>>>

But our resident Atheist blogger David Penberthy thinks otherwise:

“My faith in atheism is being tested by born-agains. Not of the Christian variety, but the obnoxious, pushy, ram-it-down-your-throat, born-again atheist variety.

This new breed of Godless souls has adopted one of the most irritating features of religion. They have become belligerent evangelists for their non-cause.

Anyone who saw Dawkin’s bullying effort on the ABC’s Q and A last year would recall the manner in which he interrupted and shouted down other panellists who disputed his view.”

And on:

“Australia’s own book-burning atheist Alex Stewart.

Stewart’s little stunt did nothing to advance the noble cause of atheism. If anything, it made non-believers appear intellectually flippant and superficial, reducing their position to the lame schoolyard assertion…”

Please God spare us the born-again atheists

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/please-god-spare-us-the-born-again-atheists/

A Dose of Reality says:

12:25pm | 05/03/12

Oh Zac - stop it, my sides hurt!

And again you prove the point!

I must draw one of 3 possible conclusions:

1) You are underage or a student
2) You are actually ‘cracking jokes’, or
3) You are ‘in care’

In any case you could make a fortune selling this stuff to the networks as material for a new comedy program.

I hope it goes well for you!

Sniper says:

05:47am | 29/02/12

Moral code?

What like the stoners here bitching for the legalisation of drugs?

Isn’t that pushing ‘their’ moral code?

Bertrand says:

06:05am | 29/02/12

To continue what @Nathan said:

(From the article) “I’ve been to more than my fair share of Christian conferences. I’ve never attended a single conference where those of other beliefs (atheists or otherwise) were the subject of ridicule.

Funny that. I went along to a Hillsong type church once to actually see what goes on in them. The preacher gave a sermon based on the exodus from Egypt, in which he spent a good amount of his time mocking the belief systems of the Ancient Egyptians. Oh how the crowd laughed at those crazy Egyptians, with their cat worship and idolatry. It made God’s slaughter of all the first born sons all that much funnier.

Not to mention Dane Cook, who may be the unfunniest comedian in the world, and has made is fame by mocking atheists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWZ59qIwXGY

Comedians use religion because it offers plenty of fodder. Yet somehow it should remain off limits because it is… um…. why should it remain off limits?

Dan says:

06:41am | 29/02/12

We mock you because you believe in an invisible thing in the sky.

If i believed in a rock, and lived my life by a rocks teachings, sat inside a bulding in my suit on a sunday, and gave money to the rock, wouldnt you call me a little crazy?...

Faith is defined in believing in something that cannot be observed, if you are going to believe such things, prepared to be laughed at.

Trust science. Its a little bit more up to date than your ancient book.

Well, i wouldnt be that crazy, at least you can observe a rock, its actually there.

Religion is a joke, religion is created BY men FOR men. Religion is the cause of hundereds of millions of deaths since its inception, its dangerous, its childish.

You say : Christians follow Jesus. His instruction to “love your neighbour as yourself” -  Well the bible also tells us it is ok to kill someone for working on the sabbath, or that, if i use pig skin i can be killed, or slavery is ok.

Bertrand says:

06:42am | 29/02/12

@Sniper - please explain why the private consumption of a plant is immoral.

Also, you may find that people advocating changes to prohibition laws are able to use evidence regarding the negative impacts of prohibition and the exaggerated nature of the arguments against prohibition. And it isn’t simply ‘stoners’ making these arguments. There are many current and former law enforcement officers, as well as world leaders including former presidents, who have all argued that the social cost of prohibition far outweighs the social costs of cannabis use.

Anyone who uses a religious text to argue for or against a policy proposal is not using evidence or reason to support their arguments.

Trevor says:

06:49am | 29/02/12

Sniper

“What like the stoners here bitching for the legalisation of drugs?

Isn’t that pushing ‘their’ moral code?”

No, that’s a natural resistance to others imposing their moral code on us ‘stoners’. Drugs have nothing to do with morals anyway.

Jesus was a pisshead too remember.

sproket says:

07:06am | 29/02/12

sniper no, they are not seeking to restrict anyone from doing anything, the same cannot be said for the bible-bashers

Sniper says:

07:16am | 29/02/12

@sproket

Endangering others, through there own selfish action is a risk.

M says:

07:31am | 29/02/12

@ Sniper, no, it’s about the right to choose what we do with our own bodies/lives. We aren’t pushing it on anyone. You are free to not do it if you wish.  We should be free to do it if we wish. I’m puzzled as to how you can corrolate the legalisation of Cannabis with Christians pushing their moral code on others, but then again, rational thought has never been a strong point of the self righteous has it?

Re the article, we’ll stop mocking the cannibal cult of teh zombie jew when it’s followers come to their senses.

Miles Heffernan says:

07:31am | 29/02/12

To quote Joan:
Joan says: 07:27am | 29/02/12
Congratuations you`re First cab of the sky fairy rank - you just had to show the world that your spiritual development stunted at 5 year old fairy book level . Grow up, get a life,  find your spirit. - start by looking into your soul.

There’s that Christian love.

What I struggle with is that the Christian faith is the basis of our laws, it is the principal faith taught in public schools, it is all pervasive.

Yet you bemoan when some get together and mock it. It is very easy for the majority to say “look we don’t talk about them”. How’s about accepting that some, but not all think your faith is a joke. And demonstrate tolerance for the “rebellious” minority?

M says:

08:04am | 29/02/12

By the by Sniper, Jesus was a cannabis user.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/06/science.religion

I always thought the long hair was a clue.

Kika says:

08:55am | 29/02/12

“Christians are respectful of those with opposing beliefs”

Yeah, not really. My husband’s Christian friend (attends a rock show on Friday nights otherwise called Hillsong) wanted to throw my husband’s murti off our balcony. 

That’s not really respect, is it?

Whilst I am not hindu and don’t believe that a porcelain figure IS God I am respectful enough not to do that, nor disrespect my otherwise atheist (he calls himself an atheist yet still hangs on to his murti and doesn’t like me flipping the bird at Shiva if I am angry… hahaha) husband’s superstitions!

Toady says:

08:58am | 29/02/12

So Nathan, when are you going to start posting comments ridiculing and mocking Islam?  You are a prolific poster on this site - obviously you enjoy lots of free time - so how about a few hilarious comments from you mocking muslims and the way some of them cheerily call for the beheading and slaying of non-believers, pushing their moral code on others.

M says:

09:23am | 29/02/12

Because mocking muslims generally results in some public outrage and backlash about the person expressing the view being racist, xenophobic, or intollerant.

Even if what the person is saying is true.

Ando says:

09:38am | 29/02/12

Toady,
We are constantly told we live in a christian country. It is hardly surprising Christianity is mentioned more. The author only mentions Christianity and all posters hear seem to Christians . Islam is barely relevant in this country. Besides most comments relate to the existence of god or organized religion and obviously relate equally to Islam

Toady says:

09:50am | 29/02/12

M, it seems as though there is a degree of cowardice among those who will mock and insult Christians, but won’t do the same to Muslims.  Taking advantage of a situation, or just cowardly scum with no moral compass? For the record, I don’t believe you should mock or insult someone for their religious beliefs, as it really is just a personal attack on them, but I guess that is what gutless bullies are good at doing.

M says:

11:00am | 29/02/12

Toady, I’ll mock and insult anyone who believes in the following:

Religion
Homeopathy
Tarrots
Psychics
Ghosts
An Afterlife
Spirit
Soul
Creationism
Intelligent design
Speed kills
Cannabis is a gateway drug.
Democracy works
Tony Abbott isn’t a religious nutter

Chris L says:

11:46am | 29/02/12

@Toady - Oddly enough most of the comedians and speakers mentioned in the article have subjected Islam to scrutiny. Perhaps you missed it because you only pay attention when Christianity is mentioned?

Also, as others have pointed out, most of the comments are directed at religion or at belief in gods. This may surprise you, but such comments are not being directed solely at Christianity.

marley says:

03:03pm | 29/02/12

@M - hey man, you can’t mock my belief in soul. Nobody mocks Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin and walks out alive.

M says:

04:00pm | 29/02/12

Marley, not that kind of Soul. I believe in that kind of soul the same way i believe in sex, drugs and rock n roll.

Tom says:

04:47pm | 29/02/12

Well said Toady. These spineless creeps love to have a go at Christians but stay well clear of Islam. How could anyone sleep at night with such obvious cowardice?

Go on Nathan, prove you are not spineless or slink away like all cowards cos that’s exactly what you are.

Chris L says:

05:14pm | 29/02/12

For some reason when I read Tom’s post I get a mental picture of a brick wall.

RMW says:

09:46am | 01/03/12

Dan said
“Faith is defined in believing in something that cannot be observed, if you are going to believe such things, prepared to be laughed at.”
Let’s see. I’ve never observed apes/“common ancestor” evolve into mankind, therefore we should laugh at evolutionists.
I’ve also never actually seen Julius Caesar, Socrates, Emperor Chin Shih Huang, the Greek-Persian wars etc, therefore we should also laugh at historians.

“Trust science. Its a little bit more up to date than your ancient book.”
Let’s see. According to one scientific report, mobile phones may cause Alzheimer’s: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2728149.stm

But according to another report, mobile phones may protect against Alzheimer’s: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8443541.stm

You’re the science believer, so which is it?

Apart from that, the science populariser, sceptic and rationalist Carl Sagan, turns out to be something of an advocate of ancient alien astronauts.

Noted scientist (and self-declared “agnostic with a strong tendency towards atheism”) Francis Crick was a proponent that aliens started life on Earth.

Stephen Hawking (who’s showing hostility towards religions lately) is terrified on an alien invasion.

Science is a joke.

Tom says:

12:40pm | 01/03/12

Chris L,  The brick wall you see is that you haven’t got any real arguments against Toady’s proposition that the people who mock Christianity in these columns do so because it is the safe thing to do.

Yes, ChrisL some people once mocked islam and regretted it. However, virtually no-one from your lot have had the gonads to do it since then. The sniggering class that you obviously feel compelled to represent are too gutless to mock islam in the same way they mock Christianity. They are cowards. Therein lies your brick wall, but feel free to whine about it.

Tom says:

01:57pm | 01/03/12

ChrisL, when I read posts from people like you, Nathan, Dan, Ando and Sproket, I conjure up images of swaggering dudes with ice-creams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6BwV9T2TZQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1

bw says:

02:32pm | 01/03/12

@RMW says: 10:46am | 01/03/12

If science is a joke I sure hope you’re not using any medications, will refuse all medical treatment unless it praying to get better and reject anything in your life that science made possible.

Chris L says:

03:01pm | 01/03/12

Pure projection Tom. You complain about us not bagging Islam in an article about Christianity, and you obviously haven’t read any articles where Islam is relevant or you should have noticed we think the same way about it. (Also you seem to interpret all comments against religion or gods as being Christian centric, as if the others don’t count, that’s a problem with your perception).

Funny how you finish all this complaining and name calling by accusing me of whining. You’re funny.

James1 says:

03:25pm | 01/03/12

“The brick wall you see is that you haven’t got any real arguments against Toady’s proposition that the people who mock Christianity in these columns do so because it is the safe thing to do.”

Perhaps, if this sentence was true.  But it isn’t, for the following reasons: I personally have made fun of Islam on this thread; SimonofLakemba has posted links to people making fun of Islam; and others have given the names of comedians who make fun of Islam.  What more do you want?  It seems a touch cowardly to keep evading the various responses we have given like you and your fellow travellers here are.

RMW says:

09:31pm | 01/03/12

@bw
“If science is a joke I sure hope you’re not using any medications, will refuse all medical treatment unless it praying to get better and reject anything in your life that science made possible.”
Funny you should mention that. About two years ago, I had a rather serious bout of cold and runny nose. I went to the pharmacist to get some medication but after taking it for some time nothing seems to work. I finally decided to visit a doctor to get some more help. The doctor told me to simply get some more rest and sleep (which was a task since the blocked nose made resting and sleeping difficult). I told him about my taking some cold relief medicine and the fact that it doesn’t seem to work. To my immense surprise, the doctor told me most cold-relief medicine don’t actually work; if they do work then that’s great but if they don’t don’t be surprised.
Wow, my doctor saying medications don’t work, that’s quite a revelation.

Apart from all that, here’s something else to ponder; many Australian students are apparently losing interest in science: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3395239.htm
So much for science.

Bw says:

10:44am | 02/03/12

RMW says: 10:31pm | 01/03/12

A runny nose?! Does your position of medications not working extend further than that? Puffers for asthma etc?

And the reason students are losing interest in science is because there is little in career outlook for them to go into. Governments don’t focus on science near as much as they should. It is science which has put humans at an advanced stage so far.

Richard says:

01:25pm | 02/03/12

OK, I’ll do it. 

I think the religious beliefs of Muslims are ridiculous and amusing.  I think people who believe in that religion are deluded.

It makes me laugh that a Christian, who by definition believes Muslims are heathens going to hell has the front to denigrate atheists for not having a go at Muslims, but anyway, one more time for the dummies - Islam as a religion is daft and is worthy of the same level of respect as any other religion - none.

I think we can consider that particular argument closed.

RMW says:

11:31pm | 02/03/12

@bw
“A runny nose?! Does your position of medications not working extend further than that? Puffers for asthma etc?”
In case you seem to have missed it, it’s the doctor that said medications don’t work.

“And the reason students are losing interest in science is because there is little in career outlook for them to go into. “
Whatever the specific reason, tough luck for science.

“It is science which has put humans at an advanced stage so far. “
It also seems to bring new sorts of problems. Many people I hear are vehemently opposed to nuclear power and genetically-modified foods/crops/organisms (two great scientific and technological accomplishments).

Vigilant says:

05:53am | 29/02/12

Good point Sahara,

They don’t want to admit that their lives suck so the ridicule others.  It beats placing effort into improving themselves.

Nathan says:

06:33am | 29/02/12

@Vigilant
No i think churches can be self serving institutions that do not offer anything constructive that is my opinion and i am entitled to it. Being Christian does not mean that you are better than the rest of us and that you have a monopoly on being happy. I grew up surrounded by the Anglican church and frequently have heard condescending remarks about other religious beliefs.

Maybe those running the churches could have a go at improving themselves. They make great businessmen but horrible people.

Christians can attack whoever and whenever they like but can’t take it? When they are actually persecuted then lets have the discussion

Emma says:

06:37am | 29/02/12

But isnt the concept of faith based on ignorance? We are all ignorant when it comes to God(s) as proof is still outstanding.

Vigilant says:

07:11am | 29/02/12

@Nathan

You don’t understand Christianity then.  Your interpretation and that promoted by the media aren’t reflective of reality.  If you did real research, spoke to real Christians you might get an idea.  I know you won’t, you would prefer to remain ignorant and criticise that which you truly don’t know.

Pretty certain tens of thousands of Christians are persecuted across the world.  Another indication you have no idea.

M says:

07:36am | 29/02/12

As a former Catholic, I’d suggest that I have a better concept of faith than most other athiests.

Nathan says:

08:13am | 29/02/12

@Vigilant
I was talking about Christians being persecuted in Australia. How about the minorities the Church likes to insult?

” If you did real research, spoke to real Christians you might get an idea.  I know you won’t, you would prefer to remain ignorant and criticise that which you truly don’t know.”

I went to an Anglican School and had chapel in a Cathedral every week + Christian studies, i know several ministers most are good guys and from my time at the school i am friends with many Christians. I have been surrounded by Christianity and its customs and I have done my research i just don’t believe it.

But its ok I am sure I don’t really understand Religion and i guess i won’t unless I am true believer but I know enough to know i don’t want it. This is my right and i am sick of Christians believing they are the only ones who are happy and have a soul. Haven’t heard of a war started by Atheists yet

David Thomas Devine says:

08:40am | 29/02/12

Sahara, would you have a certain amount of respect for someone who believes that there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in their back yard?  Who spends their Sunday mornings with their family digging up their backyard trying to find it and says that a world without said diamond is meaningless to them?

Faith, as most people have it, is belief in something that has no evidentiary basis to be accepted as truth.  It is a kind of hope that maybe something is true when they have no reason to believe it is or not ... this is not the same as having ‘faith’ that your spouse is not cheating on you (with that you can say that you spend enough time with them, know them well enough to know if they might stray, etc.).

If I said that I was Elvis and should get his yearly royalties, but refused to offer any evidence that I should get them, why shouldn’t people laugh at my claim?  I should be ridiculed.

acotrel says:

09:11am | 29/02/12

I’m simply not interested in what control freaks want.

Badrinath says:

09:24am | 29/02/12

It only stifles the argument when you make religion about churches. It is much moreso about faith and moral systems/structure. Those that believe so purely in reason (who likely have never studied reason, as to so many of us philosophy is a farce - yet the headquarters of reason) fail to understand that you do not critique the taste of oranges through the taste of bananas. Yes you can show contrast and opposition in this way, but this is not the ‘proof’ against faith.

Much in the world exists outside of the bounds of reason.

Emma, being ignorant of god through not being able to conceive wholly of such a thing does not base faith in ignorance. We can’t define and understand love precisely, nor instinct but we don’t say these are based in ignorance (though some may have a case for this…..).

To each their own, for god’s sake - pun. Atheists that feel a need for everyone to see that they are correct are as foolish and annoying as those that can explain how 37000 species of spider climbed up on the ark.

No wonder racism and bigotry are rife, it seems no matter how smart people get we can’t seem to increase our overall average tolerance for one another.

Steve M says:

09:51am | 29/02/12

David, you dont need to respect the person digging for a huge diamnond in their back yard, but what gives you the right to denigrate or belittle them?
  As for your example of faith, you have no proof yourt partner wont cheat. You just hope that they wont. And as for claiming to be Elvis, well that can be easily disproved. Sahara’s point is well made and perfectly valid. I had hoped someone would make it. But that kind of fair minded logic is wasted on the militant fools here who rant on with their “sky fairy” crap. If someone has to explain to you why it is unnecessary and judgemental to get on your high horse and insult people that do have faith then you will never understand the point. Dont get me wrong, i share your athiest views. But i dont feel it necessary to run others bdown to make myself feel better about my beliefs.

ronny jonny says:

10:15am | 29/02/12

“Much in the world exists outside of the bounds of reason” No it does not.

St. Michael says:

10:41am | 29/02/12

@ ronny jonny: ““Much in the world exists outside of the bounds of reason” No it does not.”

Sure it does.  Try asking why 4chan is, never mind the meaning of life.

djb says:

06:40am | 29/02/12

Think he does. Saying that there are a whole lot of positions that don’t represent the ACTUAL position and that they are the positions that people respond to in their arguments. Problem with using it here is that while an argument may be a straw man to one person, to another it is, in fact, their argument. Certainly a problem for us Christians. Very rarely can we say “we” with any confidence!

On another note ... should we be calling it straw “person”?

Sizzle Chest says:

09:53am | 29/02/12

@ Mahrat
Don’t talk about Islam that way please !

Mahhrat says:

11:41am | 29/02/12

@SC:  I’m referring to religion in general.  Mate, there are thousands of “gods” and most religious types believe in just one.  Atheists believe in one less.

I’m none of the above - I try to respect a person for how they treat others.

Lauren says:

12:17pm | 29/02/12

@ sizzle chest

where was the mention of Islam? I thought he was talking about the authors faith, which is Christianity

Sizzle Chest says:

12:31pm | 29/02/12

@Laura
Oh dear. See that thing flying over your head ? No, didn’t think so….

Mahhrat says:

01:13pm | 29/02/12

@Sizzle:  If that’s the case, then well played

Chris says:

04:54pm | 29/02/12

Mahhrat,

I know that you know this - but I’m going to type it anyway.  In most of your references you are talking about the institution (and, from what you said, specifically the Catholic institution).

You are also referring to the self-interested side of the institution, and one that hasn’t covered itself with honour either in recent times or its long history (well done for not mentioning the crusades, by the way).

The things that you don’t like are not all reflective of God nor of His desires about how His people should act.  Some issues are actually contentious (abortion being one of them, which I assume it what you are talking about) - but most of what you don’t like comes from people, not from God.  They might say they do things in His name but that doesn’t mean they are justified in it.

Happy1 says:

09:09am | 01/03/12

@ Chris
How do YOU know what comes from man and what comes from god? How do you know ‘god’s desires’?  Who made you pope? Is this position arrogant much? Do you see the huge problem with the no true Scotsman position?

Chris says:

01:22pm | 01/03/12

Hi Happy1,

I have no idea what the “no true Scotsman” position is…

But in answer to your question - for me, there are some things done by the Church institution which are clearly unbiblical on any reasonable interpretation of the bible.  Self interest, greed, sexual immorality being those fairly commonly mentioned in this (massive) thread.  Generally self-interested motivation is pretty obvious, and covers much of what Mahrat’s complaint was about the church.

There are other areas that are grey, even amongst those who genuinely desire to serve the Lord, and ultimately I guess it is the Almighty who will adjudicate on them.  Personally I believe that if your heart and spirit (I know - some of the debate here denies the existence of the latter) are in the right place and focussed on God then your actions will follow suit.

Cheerio,
Chris

Happy1 says:

01:35am | 02/03/12

Chris,
The “no true scotsman” position is that when the fault of a member of a collective is observed, other members of the collective are quick to disown them as not being a true part of that group.
Therefore my question is: how do you come to be in the possession of the one true understanding in a sea of literally thousands of others?
Cheers,
Happy1

thomas vesely says:

09:44am | 03/03/12

we are the gods, all 7 billion of us. because we can change everything that
makes this life less than perfect for everyone, if we choose to do so.

Happy1 says:

12:44pm | 04/03/12

All praise to you Thomas Veseley Lets make the world a better place.

Seb says:

06:54am | 29/02/12

There we go, in your first two sentences you give a perfect example of why athiests like to mock religion. “Athiests are cowards and look how bad a rival religion is”. Remember, there is a lot of nasty stuff in your bible too, it’s not all turn the other cheek. For every story of a kind and reasonable Jesus there is another of him flying off the handle because a tree wouldn’t bear fruit for him in the off season (and that is only the tame bad stuff!)

fml says:

07:16am | 29/02/12

What about that Norwegian bloke? did he turn the other cheek or try to start another crusade?

Oh yes, any “Christian” who kills is not actually christian and doesnt follow christianity, yet when nutters exist in other religions they are pristine examples of their barbarity.

Steve, to answer your question, Hypocrisy is hilarious.

M says:

07:54am | 29/02/12

Let’s examine the horrors of Christianity first.

Condoned, instituionalized child abuse and molestation.

Homophobic.

Denies it’s followers access to birth control.

Tax exempt organisation that takes money from it’s followers and give empty promises back.

Nathan says:

08:17am | 29/02/12

@ghnaga
Is this the new Christian argument, we are not as bad as Islam?

Christians turning the other cheek well history certainly supports that idea

David Thomas Devine says:

08:46am | 29/02/12

Ghnaga Darin ... “Mr Bean stopped by one vote legislation that would have made UK comedy on religious matters impossible” ... please provide a link to the legislation in question, many are posted on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom) and if not that, then it should be available through the United Kingdom’s Parlimentary page (http://www.parliament.uk/).

You have made a truth claim, please back it up.

Direct says:

12:35pm | 29/02/12

Nathan, the argument is that you’re a pussy and have a shallow grasp on atheism if you mainly criticise Christians.

Looks like your reading comprehension is pretty pissweak too.

fml says:

01:36pm | 29/02/12

Direct,

Nathan is making a comment on a Christian article, he is pointing out the absurdity of Christians making remarks about Islam when the context of this article is clearly Christianity and atheism,

I think his comment goes further and points out the nature of the Christian defence, where there is no argument for the belief in Christianity or the good that it may bring, but rather the recent emergence of the argument that Christianity is the lesser of evils therefore shut your heathen mouth.

marley says:

03:19pm | 29/02/12

@M - okay, here I’m going to take serious issue.  You aren’t describing “Christianity” there, but only one particular church.  Many branches of Christianity are perfectly comfortable with gay members, gay ministers and with gay marriages.  Most branches are perfectly at ease with birth control.  And quite a few give rather a lot back in terms of social services, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and hang-outs for kids. 

It’s no more reasonable for you to tar all branches of Christianity with a single brush than it is for Christians to link all atheists with the horrors of Mao and Stalin.

Joan says:

06:58am | 29/02/12

Why don’t you practice what you preach -  try being a free thinker- by letting believers be and believe.

...as a bird says:

11:09am | 29/02/12

Joan, Bible version 1 was written about 80 years AFTER Christ’s death.  If a dozen modern men recall an event one month after, each will give their version.  Not exactly great science is it.  How could these primitive men got it right? To be honest, Christ would never have signed off on that book, or even version 2!
You are certainly free to imagine those events all took place, be my guest.

Aaron says:

12:20pm | 29/02/12

and yet no one seems to doubt the events of Caesars Gallic wars or the events of the Trojan war. The earliest written records of these events appear to be written hundreds of years after the events took place.

There’s a big difference between telling a joke differently, or getting a number plate wrong, than saying “I was at that party,” or “There was a drive by shooting.”

The Jewish scholars of the time were incredibly intelligent and had excellent memories (as proved by the requirement to have the entirety of what is now the old testament memorised). The Apostle Paul certainly seems to have been such a scholar. Whether the events are entirely accurate is definitely something that should be questioned by both theists and atheist alike. It is perhaps best to not dismiss these works due to the (relatively) short gap

...as a bird says:

03:48pm | 29/02/12

Oh OK Aaron, I will believe that, hmmm, thanks for that wonderful insight, you must be very ver\y very old

Nyx says:

04:18pm | 29/02/12

@ Aaron…nice try, but no. The accounts of Caesar’s Gallic wars were written mostly by Caesar himself, and certainly not hundreds of years after he died. Most of what we know about his conquests in Gaul appear in the ‘Commentarii de Bello Gallico’, a series of 8 books, 7 written by Caesar, and the last by Aulus Hirtius after Caesar died. Whilst no historian doubts that Caesar cast his own bias on the events, this was clearly a primary source of information of the events that occurred.

As for the writings of the Trojan War, Homer’s works were epic poetry. He was writing about mythology. Yes there is some evidence to suggest that Troy (or Ilium) may have been an actual city and that in fact there may have been a war, but no one is trying to claim Homer was writing a historical account.

Fiction can be fun Aaron, but sometimes the facts help too.

As for the bible, there is growing evidence to suggest that the earliest books of the old testament was written at approximately 900BCE (not a thousand or so years earlier as so often cited)
And the new testament (which supposedly holds eye witness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus) perhaps we should take a lot at the ‘facts’. The earliest surviving records of the new testament date to approximately 200CE. The earliest accepted date for the earliest book of the New Testament is approximately 50CE. That’s about 20 years after the ‘death’ of Jesus. Given the average life expectancy back then, and the fact that the Apostles would already have been around Jesus’ age, the information written in 50CE would have had to have been second hand. The other 3 Gospels were written between 50CE and 125CE (approximately) and have been shown to have taken ideas from previous written gospels. And those are just the ones ‘chosen’ to be part of the Canon. Couple this with the fact that not one historian writing at the supposed time of Jesus wrote about some rebellious jew being crucified (the first historian to mention Jesus was Josephus, who wrote at about 70CE, and he isn’t considered by historians to be the most reliable of sources) and there isn’t a lot of evidence of ‘history’ in the new testament.
I’m not saying that Jesus didn’t exist, or that he may have been the son of god, and came back from the dead etc etc. I’m just looking at the facts. And when it comes to evidence of Jesus’ life and teachings, there really isn’t any.

This is all without taking into account the high rate of illiteracy at the time. Its not surprising that we have no written accounts from Jesus himself, or any of his apostles (no the gospels are NOT written by apostles). A majority of people couldn’t write. Scribes back in the day, needed only to know enough to write their own name. Mostly they simply imitated the letters on the documents they were scribing. So human error, unintentional and downright deliberate changes are rife throughout the bible. (even more when you consider multiple translations etc)

So what we have with the bible today, are a series of collected works (chosen by a council of people) that have been subjected over a thousand years of human error in the copying and translating process (this is only including the copies that still exist, and up until the invention of the printing press) This doesn’t include deliberate changes by people with their own agendas and accidental additions (the story of the adulterous woman and Jesus is a famous example)

I could go on (and on and on) but to what purpose. I personally don’t care what you, or anyone else chooses to believe (or not believe). Faith is and should be a completely personal choice. It becomes and issue when you are so convinced that you’re right that you push your faith onto others, that is a problem. (Same goes for your lack of faith or whatever)

However, passing off myths, falsehoods and uninformed opinions as facts does bother me. So maybe try google before making wild claims.

Chris says:

04:29pm | 29/02/12

Actually Bird, Aaron is a lot closer to accurate than you are.  Be dismissive if you feel like it but multiple historians confirm the accuracy of the bible time and again when it comes to events, timings, people and places.  You can choose to ignore the fantastical stuff if you want, but the bible has far more historical significance and third party justification through well accepted documentary analysis and comparison than many ancient events that people take completely for granted

Cheerio,
Chris

James1 says:

04:52pm | 29/02/12

Further to that thought Nyx, Caesar made no claims to divinity in Bello Gallico.  He simply described a long war against the various tribes of Gaul.  That is why Bello Gallico is different to the New Testament.  Caesar describes history that can be clearly documented.  The New Testament describes history that can be clearly documented, and claims that the main protagonist was the son of a god who made a woman pregnant through a supernatural third party.

A better comparison would be between the New Testament and Bello Civili.  We are pretty sure that Caesar made a lot of that one up.

I have no idea why Aaron raised The Iliad.  I didn’t think that anyone really believed that was literally true.

Chris says:

05:15pm | 29/02/12

Nyx your comments about the way in which the bible has arrived at its present form indicate that you really haven’t done any study on the topic.  I’m not sure where you info is coming from but if you find the subject interesting you should look a bit deeper into some more scholarly analysis than you currently are.

The way in which the bible has arrived involves studies of dozens upon dozens of different sources, analysis of context and repeatability (do different versions of the same document contain the same phrases, or other words, or additional paragraphs, and the like).  The primary codex/s upon which large swathes of the bible were based have similarly been analysed against individual sources which have in turn been compared to each other and third party sources.

The maintenance and repeatable accuracy of the Old Testament by jewish scholars is, in fact, remarkable in the context of documents relating to the same period.

The fact is that if the bible was not about the subject of God it would have been accepted as fact by historians in every respect.  It is more because of its subject matter than because of its accuracy, that it is rejected by people.

I’m ignoring Trojans etc because they aren’t that relevant.

Cheerio,
C

James1 says:

10:32am | 01/03/12

“The fact is that if the bible was not about the subject of God it would have been accepted as fact by historians in every respect.”

This is very much as it should be, Chris.  If historians were expected to accept claims of supernatural beings and events in otherwise historical documents, we would also have to accept the accuracy of a great many things, including the Iliad and the Qu’ran.  After all, why is the claim that a supernatural being impregnated a virgin on behalf of another all-powerful supernatural being any more ridiculous than the idea that Apollo rained arrows on the Achaeans from Olympus for eight days to vent his displeasure?  To a historian, boths claims must naturally be treated with a measure of scepticism, otherwise their craft is essentially worthless and would logically have to accept every single claim made regarding the supernatural that has been written down since humankind worked out how to do so.

The only difference is that you personally have faith in one supernatural claim, but not the others.  Any historian worth their salt is going to be highly sceptical of them all.

Chris says:

01:31pm | 01/03/12

Hi James,

My response was more specifically addressed to Nyx’s assertion that the bible in its current form was completely unrelated to anything that might have been written even close to the time of Christ.

He (she?) had also decided to lump the entire bible into one big package without considering the intricacies associated with each element of it - each book has specific considerations that require thought and study as to their accuracy and reliability in terms of being an accurate recreation of writings produced at the time. 

Otherwise - I accept that people have a healthy (sometimes unhealthy) degree of skepticism by virtue of the subject matter.

Cheerio,
C

Ron says:

06:59am | 29/02/12

Not to mention that Hitler was a follower of Jesus so the death toll is REALLY rising.

Greypower says:

07:24am | 29/02/12

Skippy I agree!  I was a deeply committed Christian for about 50 years and now I’m an exChristian.  The hypocrisy   I saw over the years was just too much - doing a Hospital Chaplain’s course was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. These people were not interested in others - all they wanted to do was convert the patient and add a scalp to their belt.

The church preaches love, but it doesn’t practice it.- in the last 20 years I have experienced more unconditional love outside the Christian church than I ever experienced inside it.

Skippy says:

07:35am | 29/02/12

This is true Ron, it’s appalling!

Skippy says:

07:45am | 29/02/12

Greypower, I couldn’t agree more! I had it drummed into me as a child and had a very sheltered upbringing and had a faith because it’s what you did, it wasn’t really acceptable not to. However as I grew up so many things just didnt wash with me, the hypocrisy I saw from those high standing in the church (Sunday Christians) was enough for me to extinguish my faith and any association with the church. I have returned recently to my home town full of ‘christian’ people I grew up with, sadly they have been very unwelcoming as I have walked away from the church. I find more love and warmth in the local community that is not affiliated with religion. The church people are in my experience clicky and the first to judge. I’m sick to death of their homophobia (and I’m not even gay), narrow minded judgemental attitudes, it makes me sick to the stomach!

Economist says:

08:15am | 29/02/12

Skippy you’ve met people then?

Sure they’re hypocrites, but that’s because they’re people not because they’re Christian. Don’t get me wrong I agree with you, but more broadly think that the fault lies with their individual personalities rather than their religious beliefs.

Steve has a problem with mockery, when I think the problem is belittlement, verging on bullying and when this occurs most reasonable people religious or even if they’re agnostic will side with religion. Which is a shame.

People fail to tackle religion for what personally it was and continues in some states to be. That being where a predominant group in society use something (in this case metaphysical) to get support of the masses for economic gain. Comparatively today in China the fast majority of millionaires are members of the CCP, those that aren’t can’t criticise the party. As it was in the days of religion.

It amuses me somewhat when the religious use the argument that without it we wouldn’t have art or science, when the simple fact is that in those days you had to be religious and certainly couldn’t criticise Christianity. Art was simply sponsored for religion to show its wealth and power, science came to being more from moderates than dry’s. Christian’s didn’t end slavery, moderate Christians did. A select group, a few.

No matter how Steve puts it as faith in God, I’ll always see religion as a means to an end to secure power for the few. But if it wasn’t Christianity   it would be Islam, or Buddhism, Scientology or Communism or some other group base. It’s a religion not faith. The faith bit should be separate from the institution.

Bev says:

08:24am | 29/02/12

Scratch a war and you will find it is in the end about resources (land, food, minerals etc). Religion or “isms” is just the excuse.

AdamC says:

08:49am | 29/02/12

Economist, but doesn’t your comment itself highlight how any idea can be used to dominate and control people? It doesn’t actually have to be a religion, as your Chinese Communist Party example shows. You could certainly make the same arguments about nationalism (see the Fascists of vary hues, as well as third-world Communists) or merely ethnicity, as in Serbia, Turkey, Iraq, etc. 

Also, the Christians who ended slavery weren’t ‘moderates’. They were the original evangelicals.

Skippy, I have always seen that Gandhi quote as somewhat silly and overrated in its wisdom. (Much like the man himself, I must say.) For one thing, I have always interpreted that ‘eye for an eye’ passage as being a call for restraint, rather than an endorsement of cruel punishments. However, I am more of a New Testament kind of non-Christian, so I tend to see many things through that lens. For another, the quotation actually doesn’t make any sense, when you think about it.

Economist says:

10:22am | 29/02/12

“but doesn’t your comment itself highlight how any idea can be used to dominate and control people?” Yep, that’s exactly what I’m saying. But I’m also saying that yes while there are Christians who use their beliefs for good, others use it for personal gain. You should judge someone for who they are rather than their label of I’m religious or I’m not religious.

But I also have a problem with what Steve’s asserting and a problem with the “institutions” of religion. Fortunately we’ve gotten to a position where we can mock the more powerful whether religious or not. Rinehart’s mocked, Gillard’s mocked, Abbott’s mocked. But personally I see Steve as wanting to re-establish or assert religions dominance, that they are beyond reproach. He and others like him are at war with atheists not because of their threat to their faith, after all their faith in God as they perceive and believe is something personal that can’t be taken away, but to the threat of their power and base as people turn away from their “institution”. Look at Rick Santorum, it’s scary how he wants to overrule previous court rulings and no longer separate state and church in the US.  Does George Pell lobby for more influence, money etc. You betcha. But yes if it wasn’t religion it would be something else.

I also hate the argument why won’t comedians mock Islam etc. Well we mock Christianity because we have a better understanding of it and in Australia it’s a far more powerful influence than Islam and Buddhism etc. I used to think Buddhism was appealing, certainly its faith elements appeal to my view of the world, but speaking to some Tibetan’s they find the Dalia Lama and this denomination of Buddhism as archaic and just as stifling to freedom.

As for slavery thanks for the clarification, but my point being that the likes of Dr Livingstone and Wilberforce were in the minority. That there were “the religious” at the time more than willing to accept slavery.

Aaron says:

12:32pm | 29/02/12

Ghandi (paraphrased): “I like your christ I just don’t see your christians being like him.”

Napoleon: “A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him”

I’d think that most wars are caused by a person in a position of power and wants more (through resources and land etc). It is easier to get an army to follow you if your cause is “righteous”, than if your cause is selfish.

I would also debate whether Hitler was a follwer of Jesus and whether religion was the cause of WWII and the Holocaust are the same thing.

marley says:

03:13pm | 29/02/12

I’m just toying with the figure, 809 million people killed in religious wars.  I can’t think of that many religious wars, to be honest - certainly not either of the World Wars (Christian Germany invading Christian Poland and France - nope, doesn’t compute), nor most of the wars of the preceding centuries.  They were about land, power, resources, tribal supremacy, naval hegemony, but scarcely ever about religion as such.  Even the Crusades were as much about carving out fiefdoms for the junior nobility as they were about fighting Islam.  So, 809 million?  I don’t believe it.

Atheist says:

09:59am | 29/02/12

So where’s all these edgy comedians making jokes about Islam then? They’re way to gutless for that. No, best to pick on the religion that won’t have them killed. Lucky for them they live in a Christian country.

SimpleSimon says:

10:43am | 29/02/12

@Atheist - plenty of comedians take the piss out of Islam. Jim Jefferies and Tim Minchin are 2 examples.

Atheist says:

12:29pm | 29/02/12

Wow ! Two whole comedians !
Yep, that’s “plenty” all right.

Chris L says:

12:31pm | 29/02/12

Billy Connelly has some funny things to say about Islam, as does Gervais.

This claim that only Christianity gets criticised is BS. Isn’t there some sort of commandment against bearing false witness you’re supposed to follow? (I know you use the name Atheist, but I find it hard to believe. Get it? )

Minger says:

01:16pm | 29/02/12

Errrm. Tim Minchin?

- 10 ft co*k and a few hundred virgins?
- A full sketch on the separation between the sacred and the secular using the Koran?

He spends just as much time knocking alternative medicine as he does Islam and Christianity. Say I was a Homeopath and I saw a comedy show by Tim Minchin. I would guess that I wouldn’t leave saying “wow, he targeted a number of different belief systems.” Chances are I would remember only that which offended me. Namely, the knocking of Homeopathy.

In summary, I think people tend to remember only that which offended them personally.

Kipling says:

06:32pm | 29/02/12

@ Athiest, the comedians are out there so by all means have a good hard search and have a good hard laugh.

I actually saw a middle eastern bloke doing a stand up gig about islam and I have to say, it was as funny as any stand up gig focussed on the other “one true faith”... Don’t recall his name or I would share it with you, but your argument is a fail cause they are out there, YOU just haven’t bothered looking…

Joan says:

07:13am | 29/02/12

The art of the pathetic comedian - use f- word and c- word when you have no real joke to tell. and listen to the dills, who think these expletives are funny, laugh.

M says:

07:51am | 29/02/12

That art of the pathetic Believers, using the S*n word and R*penta*ce words when you have no real other issue to scream about from your morally righteous soap box.

Steve Perry says:

08:22am | 29/02/12

Actually Joan - it’s the use of these words that help drive home his point. If he had said ‘Try not to be a bad person’, there would be no impact. He chose his words very carefully. He gets a laugh out that particular joke - but the odd thing is - he isn’t joking. He is saying that ultimately, it is perfectly fine for everyone to have their beliefs, but if you are going to have a belief, dont be a arsehole about it.

It’s really quite simple really. It’s amazing how many people of faith seem to miss it. There is a great quote (no idea who it’s by) -

It’s not your belief that makes you a good person, it’s your behaviour.

Aaron says:

12:40pm | 29/02/12

Joan, I agree with you to an extent. I find that many comedians have every second word as a swear, with no real point. That’s not funny at all.

That said, swearing can be used to drive home a point more efficiently. The example above is a good one, another one I like that I’ve heard from a few church pastors (during their sermons):

“At the moment there are x number of people starving and living in sh*t, and most of you are more concerned that I just said sh*t than about the x number of people”

Too much swearing defeats the point of swearing.

Kipling says:

06:27pm | 29/02/12

@Joan, you demonstrate an astonishing lack of insight into human behaviour.

I would encourage you to read “Billy” and “Bravemouth” to hopefully gain some insight into why a comedian like Billy Conolly with all of his Fs and Cs is (possibly) the funniest observational comedian alive today.

I have no real expectation that you will go and read them or that , if you do, you will have the level of insight into understanding his life experiences and how that translates to his comedy (not to mention other fairly significant good deeds for want of a better description or his successful family, etc etc).

It would seem that without much insight you have already clearly proclaimed your judgement… Is that a flaw of your beliefs, personality or thinking capacity? Or perhaps you are simply beige…

Joan says:

07:21am | 29/02/12

Who are these genius comedians? None of the names listed in article are capable of comedy beyond primary school level or beyond pure crude. .

Emma says:

07:40am | 29/02/12

Joan

As your sense of humor - especially with regards to religious humor - seems quite limited I dont think Di Pearton would have a chance of answering your question to your satisfaction.

In fact humor is an indicator of a high level of intelligence. Being able to take something, filter the basic meaning and then reshape it into something new and different does take a lot of independent thinking and a very open mind.

Joan says:

08:07am | 29/02/12

Emma-  The F word and C word hardly sign of intelligent thinking. Todays local comedians only get laughs when they use them . Watch comedian at work - no swearing, no laughs.That`s the substance. How many atheist jokes are there out and about? There should be thousands as I read comments by atheists and their weird view of who they are and religion.  I`m still waiting for that genius comedian name or two.

Steve Perry says:

08:26am | 29/02/12

Hey Joan - Ross Noble doesn’t swear in his shows and he is the funniest comedian I have ever seen. Bill Bailey is also brilliant. Neither are crude, both are brilliant. That’s 2 off the top of my head…

Ras Putin says:

09:36am | 29/02/12

Might i suggest that you grow up Joan!! You must live in a dream world..  By the way;are you the Joan that thinks T.A. is the ants pants?

Ando says:

09:50am | 29/02/12

Joan,
So if you were intelligent you could make up your own atheist jokes without swearing. You have no problems ridiculing you just lack the humor.

Danny B says:

10:06am | 29/02/12

Di,

If that’s your type of comedy, you might want to check out Bill Bailey and George Carlin - I find they’re a bit more intellectual than most.

Bev says:

07:19am | 29/02/12

Atheist comedians are well within their rights to use comedy to highlight the hypocrisy and absurdism evident in much of what passes as religious faith

Agreed however it seems to me that if they were genuine they would find the absurdities in all religions not just christianity.  Smacks of an agenda to me.

fml says:

08:03am | 29/02/12

Bev,

“it seems to me that if they were genuine they would find the absurdities in all religions not just christianity.  Smacks of an agenda to me” Not really, Christianity is the majority religion in this country, its what most people have knowledge about, making jokes about Christianity will give them the most laughs, Why is it Indian comedians make Indian jokes? Omid Djalili makes Iranian jokes, there is no agenda its just a numbers game.

Also how do you know they wont make fun of other religions? have you seen the script?

Val says:

07:51am | 29/02/12

I’m glad someone said that. Not sure atheism in general has a ‘cause’ although some atheists do….e.g. keeping religion out of schools and politics. Atheists are not on a mission to convert others, but prefer to be allowed to disbelieve in peace, and have a few laughs about having to constantly deal with delusional belief systems invading their rights and lives.

Atheist says:

10:13am | 29/02/12

@ MrOzAtheist
Yes, all gays should go and live next door to Muslims. Lets see how that works out…...

Dave M says:

12:01pm | 29/02/12

I see none of the deluded religious types are touching the gay issue raised by MrOzAtheist.

Funny that, you could really get your fingers burnt talking about that one.

What I’d like to know is if “God” created everything, animal, man and homosexual,  why do religious people have a problem with gay people? Are you questioning your God’s creations now? I thought you were never allowed to question your God.

Clearly I’m not smart enough to work out all these finer details of religion, can someone enlighten me please?

Drafnel says:

06:49pm | 29/02/12

Dave, I realise you’re trolling and you only want someone to answer you so that you can jump on them. But the simple answer to your question is that those few Christians who are extreme enough to hate gays also believe that said gays have chosen to be gay, and were in fact created straight.

You can get outraged, rant and rave as much as you like. But your little construct of them illegally questioning God doesn’t hold up. Are they bigoted, blind, wilfully ignorant? Sure. But not inconsistent.

Just callin’ it how I see it.

dave says:

10:21am | 01/03/12

Drafnel, you mispelled “vast majority” as “those few”

James1 says:

06:44am | 29/02/12

People mock Islam all the time.  I certainly do, and I regularly laugh with friends at its more ridiculous aspects.  I also mock Hindus, and Jews, and Christians, and Scientologists, and Greek religion, and Catholicism.  We do it because we think it is fun, the same way a Christian thinks Bible study is fun.

The main reason people don’t mock Islam in public, IMO, is because others will brand you a racist.

Emma says:

06:48am | 29/02/12

That annoys me too. Part of being accepted and integrated is being able to handle a joke. But to be honest, I personally cant joke about muslims the way I can about christians because I can only really joke about something that I kind of respect/tolerate. So maybe they feel that its more than a joke?

R says:

06:52am | 29/02/12

Its either because:

1. We are not a muslim country.
2. We are afraid the muslim religion will hurt us

But thats typical of religious fundies.  They cant formulate a coherent arguement so they resort to voilence instead.

Kath says:

08:43am | 29/02/12

Maybe the show was written by Catholics (including lapsed, ex and submarine) and they were mocking what they know?

I’d feel much more comfortable telling Catholic jokes because it was my heritage and culture than a joke about certain protestant christians or a non-christian faith.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:48am | 29/02/12

It happens, simple Youtube search shows that. Being friends with a lot of Muslims, we take the piss out of each other all the time in good faith.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=muslim+comedians&oq=muslim+comedians&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql;=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=194l2914l0l3146l16l16l0l2l2l0l268l2140l2.6.5l13l0

Soylent Daveage says:

10:07am | 29/02/12

I read that “Spread my lack of faith in your God” entirely the wrong way at first.  Now I’m stuck in the idea of spreading things in gods…

I think peanut butter and Loki would be a good mix…

T says:

01:06pm | 29/02/12

Could it be because most of us understand Christianity as we were brought up as such or had been to schools which taught it? Most people don’t make fun of what they don’t understand. Most will however make fun of something that has been explained to them and is completely ridiculous so they make fun.

Plus there are more Christians/Catholics etc in Australia than Muslims so we have more anecdotes to base the comdey on.

That seems more like than we are all gutless wonders, if someone is being and @rse i’ll tell them they are being an @rse, not matter what they believe.

GMD says:

09:12pm | 01/03/12

I don’t laugh at any of this, I bemoan the apparent necessity of people to align themselves with such horses**t whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc etc.  We all die it ends there and some people can accept this some can’t and some are incapable of even thinking at this level and just follow what other people who can;t accept this tell them.

fml says:

07:30am | 29/02/12

Edgar allan poe married his cousin when she was 13. That was only 100 years ago and was deemed perfectly acceptable. Do you think it might be a sign of the times?
What are the minimum marriage ages for Islamic countries now? and how is this affected by tribal tradition? I dare say it is due the lower life expectancy so there is a greater need for to marry early and procreate, so they are still alive and well to rear children.

I find logic funny. Hee Haww

M says:

08:02am | 29/02/12

I agree with FML, suicide bombings and the conflicts between shi’ites and sunni’s would lead to a dramatically reduced life expectancy.

fml says:

08:26am | 29/02/12

M,

So would be being shot by a Nordic Christian…

M says:

09:04am | 29/02/12

What a stupid statement. Being shot by anyone would reduce your life expectancy. What makes nordic christians so special?

Kika says:

09:26am | 29/02/12

Aisha was not seven… have you read the hadith?

She was betrothed at a young age, yes. She was married once she became of age - once she was ready to have children. This was very common back in the day considering most people died before 30. So if 30 was old age back then, then getting married in your teens seems practical right? You want to pass on the genes to the next generation. Doi.

Atheist says:

10:04am | 29/02/12

Nothing wrong with Muslim men having sex with the kiddies. Nup, nothing wrong there at all….....

Nick says:

09:28am | 01/03/12

Why are you lying FML?  EA Poe has been dead for over 160 years.  How could he have married “only 100 years ago”?  Try over 175 yrs ago for his actual marriage.

Emma says:

07:22am | 29/02/12

Or try to tell us our life is sad and unfulfilled without “faith”

Emma says:

07:44am | 29/02/12

Thank you.

How religion is used and twisted to suit someones argument does bother me.

I had a muslim flatmate in uni and when she liked me she would comfort me and say that allah does this to make me stronger. When she didnt like me, allah wanted to punish me.

Jebus Help Us says:

07:58am | 29/02/12

Good point Emma, this sort of fixed game hypocrisy is definitely not defined to any one group of believers.

Another example of this silliness are sports people who thank God for their successes on the field but none of their failures (whilst also missing the point that if God is helping them in sport he/she must be a right bastard for ignoring all the suffering going on in the world while he/she meddles in a game).

fml says:

07:22am | 29/02/12

And jesus stole them from the Zoroastrians. Who incidentally worshiped fire and Mazda cars. I am gonna go buy a mazda 3 and burn it (Not literally).
 
But all modern monotheistic religions are based on Zoroastrianism, which was the first of the good vs bad monotheistic religions.

All hail Ahura Mazda. There has to be a joke in that.

iansand says:

07:54am | 29/02/12

Comparing a religious congregation to belonging to a golf club?  Are you sure you are not one of them comedians?

Joan says:

08:14am | 29/02/12

`The ability to laugh at one’s self is a wonderful asset , now bring on the comedians to effect this`  To laugh at one self is to make a joke at your own`s expence and not at another. To laugh at another is ridicule.

fml says:

08:51am | 29/02/12

Joan,

We are laughing with christians, even if they dont realise it.

Kika says:

08:59am | 29/02/12

@FML - I don’t know if Jesus stole it from the Zoroastrians. Jesus was a Jew and learned monotheism from his tribe. There was a monotheistic pharoah too at one stage. Akhanaten I think.

James1 says:

09:20am | 29/02/12

Many historians say that the ancient Jews picked up monotheism during their captivity in Babylon, which was largely Zoroastrian at the time.

Akhenaten and his sun disk cult also borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism.

iansand says:

09:31am | 29/02/12

Zoroastrianism was the first major monotheistic religion.  They are still around as the Parsee in India. Zoroastrianism has many similarities to other monotheistic religions.

Jebus Help Us says:

10:56am | 29/02/12

Jebus I’m tired of this oft trotted out bullshit comment/whinge.

Jews are mocked and are self mocking all the time in comedy.

As for Muslims:

Q: Wanna hear a joke?

A: Muslim Women’s Rights.

OMG what have i done?! Stand back and wait for the riots. Sorry folks.

I guess it’s in the the nature of Christians they all want to be martyrs when they grow up.

Kika says:

09:08am | 29/02/12

Infidel = A CHRISTIAN word first used to describe MUSLIMS. So no, Muslims don’t think you are an infidel.

Shintos = GAIJIN. Foreign devil. That isn’t just a Shinto word. That’s a Japanese word. Not all Japanese are Shintos. Most are Buddhists with a Shinto heritage.

Jews = You’re also a Goy. Not many of them would call you a gentile these days.

When REAL humans stand up to god botherers it would be good if you had your facts straight first.

Seamus Hopetoune says:

02:54pm | 29/02/12

I get called a godless infidel every time i see Umar, I call him towliebanraghead, He is a mate so it’s done in good humor. It doesn’t matter where the word originated, It’s the context the word is used in today. After all 20 years ago a Poofe was a stoole or footrest, and gay meant being happy.

Seamus Hopetoune says:

02:54pm | 29/02/12

I get called a godless infidel every time i see Umar, I call him towliebanraghead, He is a mate so it’s done in good humor. It doesn’t matter where the word originated, It’s the context the word is used in today. After all 20 years ago a Poofe was a stoole or footrest, and gay meant being happy.

Atheist says:

10:22am | 29/02/12

Yeah, you don’t see atheists going around having babies, just those religious nuts.

Popp Suckett says:

04:23pm | 29/02/12

Atheist makes me want to sing the Muppet theme.

MarkS says:

07:59am | 29/02/12

“But this doesn’t explain why atheists so frequently resort to satire, mockery, ridicule and scorn”

It is not that we resort to ridicule, but that we find religion ridiculous. Satire, mockery, ridicule and scorn are not things that we decide to do to religion, but how we find religion, a bad joke. I for one am simply incapable of understanding how a rational human being could believe.

Libertarian says:

09:58am | 29/02/12

Steve is way too old for you

Happy1 says:

09:38am | 01/03/12

LMAO… tears in my eyes… and Steve asked why so many comedians!! oh god I can hardly type for laughing.

Emma says:

07:58am | 29/02/12

They are trying to find a way out of being constantly bothered by religious folk.

Jane says:

08:08am | 29/02/12

Because every time we turn around there’s another example of theocratic encroachment on free society.

Jamie says:

08:09am | 29/02/12

It’s not just a conference about “not believing” - it’s about discussing strategies with other rational minded, thinking people to erode the dangerous effects religion has throughout the world. It’s about learning ways to instill in your children a wonder for the world and for nature that doesn’t just revert to “God did it”.  It’s about understanding the scientific method for establishing the veracity of statements. It’s about learning to think creatively about the world’s problems and not make policy decision based on a fixed, Bronze-Age dogma.

It’s about opening your eyes, Lauren.

Kika says:

09:20am | 29/02/12

Because while they don’t believe in religion, they still need the organisation and solidarity that being part of a group provides. Basic human instinct. In other words, they want the religion without the religion. Atheism IS a religion.

Jane says:

09:45am | 29/02/12

Yeah Kika - like health is a disease and bald a hair colour. Basic human instinct is to belong. This precedes religion.

shinydonkey says:

10:15am | 29/02/12

@Kika - atheism is a religion, in the same way the absence of a massive dead dragon on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast is a reason to call 000.  BOLLOCKS to that tired old nonsense.

Economist says:

11:07am | 29/02/12

Kika atheism is certainly not a religion, I suggest you learn the definition. They may behave as a lobby group as do all religions but they don’t behave like religions.

In fact some atheists would love it to be a religion, they’d then get tax breaks, exemptions from fairwork etc.

Ando says:

11:29am | 29/02/12

Kika,
By that definition any conference held to discuss anything is a religion. Ridiculous statements will be ridiculed.

Jebus Help Us says:

11:54am | 29/02/12

@Kika

“Atheism IS a religion” like not collecting stamps IS a hobby.

David says:

09:48am | 29/02/12

God wants us all in the end .
One day , God was sitting on his throne musing over the death and destruction below . He then said in his booming voice ‘’ Next time I create something , NO HUMANS !!!!!!! ‘’

M says:

08:08am | 29/02/12

Tell me one good joke which involves athiesm.

Rhino says:

08:12am | 29/02/12

Eh, no Joan a real comedian is funny.

And I remember Mel Brooks had no qualms about poking fun at Jews,  Christians, Druids, Muslims and so on. From Blazing Saddles to Spaceballs to Robin Hood men in Tights.

James1 says:

08:37am | 29/02/12

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that evolution had created.

“What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!”, he said to himself. As he was walking along the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. When he turned to see what the casue was, he saw a 7-foot grizzly charging right towards him. He ran as fast as he could. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing, He ran even faster, crying in fear. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pounding and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that moment, the Atheist cried out “Oh my God!….” Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, “You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don”t exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?”

The atheist looked directly into the light “It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?” “Very well,” said the voice.

The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

And then the bear dropped his right paw ….. brought both paws together…bowed his head and spoke: “Lord, for what I am about to receive, I am truly thankful.”

M says:

09:07am | 29/02/12

Ahahahaha, that actually is a good one James1.

Rick of the Dustbowl says:

03:19pm | 01/03/12

This atheist horse goes into a bar, the bartender says “why such a long face”

Scotchfinger says:

12:39pm | 29/02/12

If you believe that faith in a particular creed is like picking out which band is your favourite, then can I suggest all your wonderful erudition has been somewhat wasted. Perhaps you should google ‘Pascal’s Wager’ for one of many replies. Can I suggest that if a person chooses to follow a particular religious doctrine based on some sort of game theory, they will not get much spiritual solace from their final choice.

Scotchfinger says:

01:04pm | 29/02/12

sorry that reply was for @ Questions…

P. Darvio says:

10:22am | 29/02/12

..well actually some of them do stick it down throats - especially the throats of young children - literally….

Andrew says:

10:01am | 29/02/12

Very refreshing view, Reality Girl. Hopefully Steve and other religious people read this comment and take note. Thanks.

Chris L says:

05:35pm | 29/02/12

Reality Girl to the rescue with the powers of logic and independant thought! Living day to day in her secret identity as an ordinary member of a “Christian” nation, Reality Girl remains vigilant against the forces of stupidity and BS!

spartacus says:

08:25am | 29/02/12

God is an Atheist

M says:

09:08am | 29/02/12

God needs some motivation therapy. Everyone needs to believe in themselves.

braunman says:

03:08pm | 29/02/12

@M, Bah dum tish

Facts says:

08:30am | 29/02/12

Jesus never claimed divinity.
Jesus was a rabbi, the very thought of a rabbi claiming to be the living form of god was - and is still - unthinkable. Jews dont ascribe form to god, jesus did not either.
A telling new testament story:
When asked by a roman inquisitor if he is the son of god, jesus says:
“YOU have said so.”
Ie the romans have ascribed divinity to him, not him, nor his followers.
Multiple times in the gospels he is referred to as ‘rabbi’, ‘master’, teacher’. He is never referred to as ‘god’.
C S Lewis should have checked again before deciding what jesus intended.

Jamie says:

08:33am | 29/02/12

Graeme, your ignorance is breathtaking - there is not a SINGLE contemporary written record of Jesus’ birth or life. Not one. Not a single person alive at the same time as Jesus allegedly was wrote about it.  Not a word was written about him until Matthew wrote about him, over 70 years after his alleged birth.

I am an atheist BECAUSE I’ve studied the Bible and religion. You should try it some time.

Jamie says:

08:34am | 29/02/12

Graeme, your ignorance is breathtaking - there is not a SINGLE contemporary written record of Jesus’ birth or life. Not one. Not a single person alive at the same time as Jesus allegedly was wrote about it.  Not a word was written about him until Matthew wrote about him, over 70 years after his alleged birth.

I am an atheist BECAUSE I’ve studied the Bible and religion. You should try it some time.

James1 says:

08:25am | 29/02/12

Are Christians a minority?

Jamie says:

08:36am | 29/02/12

In all that blathering, there isn’t one sensible refutation of any of the points you listed. Do you have a point?

When you’re right, you get to be smug. When you grow up, you might get to do it too.

Jane says:

08:37am | 29/02/12

Every school child in a government school has 30 minutes of drivel “rammed” down their throats every week, unless they “opt- out”. One example of many.

We may ridicule you, but what did you do to us for thousands of years? Who’s really self- righteous?

M says:

08:38am | 29/02/12

Hitler affirmed in public speaches that he was a Christian.

Religion and killing in the name of God has been the driving force of every Crusade in history. The crusaders believe that they are doing gods work. Hence, god is responsible.

How is this lost on you?

Steve Perry says:

09:45am | 29/02/12

How about the many cases over the years of children being sexually abused by the clergy? Are you saying this didn’t happen? Because I reckon thats a really good example of someone having ‘religion’ jammed down their throats…

Reggieman says:

10:00am | 29/02/12

M says “Hitler affirmed in public speaches that he was a Christian.”

Oh really? Here’s a quote from the “Christian” Hitler: “National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. “

But, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

And the “Crusades” line that all you “rational” atheists throw about, as if it’s some “smoking gun” argument killer? Why not read your history. The crusades started as a result of the atrocities that the Muslims perpetrated upon the citizens of Jerusalem when they invaded what was (and still is) considered to be the city at the centre of the major religion at the time. The Crusaders believed that they were justified in taking the city back and exacting retribution upon those who had slaughtered so many innocents.

Jane, I had evolution “rammed” down my throat at school. My response? “Ok, thank you, but I choose not to accept it.” Why can’t you do the same about scripture classes instead of hyperventilating and foaming at the mouth about the “drivel” that was “rammed” down your throat?

Oh, and Jamie. my point is this - so many of you atheists call yourselves “rational” and crow about how you all submit to “reason” rather than belief, but most of the arguments you lot sprout are not “reasonable”, or “rational”, but deluded and ignorant!

M says:

11:14am | 29/02/12

@ Reggieman, point 24 of the programme issued by Hitler’s German worker’s party.

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.

Hitler’s speech on 12 April 1922:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.

Speech on 01 May 1923:
We have faith that one day Heaven will bring the Germans back into a Reich over which there shall be no Soviet star, no Jewish star of David, but above that Reich there shall be the symbol of German labor - the Swastika. And that will mean that the first of May has truly come.

01 August, 1923:
It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God.

26 Feb, 1925: It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.

01 Feb, 1933: It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection….May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.

March, 1933: Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us…. We are all proud that through God’s powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.

1934: Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions.

1936: In this world him who does not abandon himself the Almighty will not desert. Him who helps himself will the Almighty always also help; He will show him the way by which he can gain his rights, his freedom, and therefore his future.

Etc, etc, etc.

http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Another Chris says:

11:42am | 29/02/12

So the fact that Hitler said he was a Christian means you think he killed in the name of God? God’s so called chosen people are the Jews meaning that Hitler’s pogrom was not done in the name of God. If it was, it contradicts the very teaching of the Bible.

Jane says:

11:55am | 29/02/12

@ Reggieman ” I had evolution “rammed” down my throat at school. My response? “Ok, thank you, but I choose not to accept it.””

One hopes you choose not to accept gravity as well, and you float away…...

M says:

12:02pm | 29/02/12

I didn’t draw that bow, I was simply pointing out to Reggiman that hitler was a christian. Reggimen didn’t think he was.

Reggieman says:

12:28pm | 29/02/12

M
Wow, a public figure states a belief in God to stir the masses! Haven’t seen that one before. How’s these for you? Handwritten notes from Martin Borrman, who was Hitler’s secretary during the war. These are the private conversations Hitler had with his friends and staff, taken from a document called the “Bormann-Vermerke” and originally published in the original German in “Adolf Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944”.

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors—but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .”

Sorry to burst your bubble M, but, as I said earlier, the truth always gets in the way of a good story

Chris L says:

05:46pm | 29/02/12

@Reggieman - Martin Boreman was an atheist and very anti-religious (not always the same thing). His writings will, of course, carry a heavy atheistic slant.

At least you noticed Boreman. So many apologists waste so much energy trying to make Hitler out to be an atheist that they miss the actual atheist in the party.

kate says:

03:20pm | 29/02/12

“Thank you God (Sam’s Mum)” is also brilliant.  Google the full version, but here’s a taste:

Thank you, Sam, for showing how my point of view has been so flawed.
I assumed there was no God at all but now I see that’s cynical. It’s simply that his interests aren’t particularly broad.

He’s largely undiverted by the starving masses, or the inequality between the various classes.
He gives you strictly limited passes, redeemable for surgery or two-for-one glasses.

I feel so shocking for historically mocking. Your interests are clearly confined to the ocular.
I bet given the chance, you’d eschew the divine and start a little business selling contacts online.

F.. me Sam, what are the odds that of history’s endless parade of gods
that the God you just happened to be taught to believe in is the actual one and he digs on healing,
but not the AIDS-ridden African nations, nor the victims of the plague or the flood-addled Asians,
but healthy, privately-insured Australians with common and curable corneal degeneration

Jane says:

08:34am | 29/02/12

And you wonder why we mock you.

AdamC says:

08:52am | 29/02/12

Jane, I am not a Christian. However, I do endorse the Christian practice of having compassion for the less fortunate. So I will endure your mockery if you will accept my pity. Deal?

Rhino says:

08:57am | 29/02/12

Atheists philosophical and intellectual base is thin?

So looking through the list of other speakers at the atheist convention:
Lawrence Krauss (Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologist)
Daniel Dennett (Philosopher)
Richard Dawkins (Biologist)
Sam Harris (Neuroscientist)
Eugenie Scott (Biologist and Science Educator)
PZ Myers (Biologist)
Peter Singer (Philosopher)
AC Grayling (Philosopher)
Geoffrey Roberts (Queens Counsel)

I could go on with some other very notable atheist thinkers but just confining it to the list of attendees at the conference seems appropriate.

Might I suggest that your comment was a bit thin on meat or maybe its meat free because your in the middle of lent?

James1 says:

08:59am | 29/02/12

I didn’t realise you were a believer, Adam.  Any particular brand of god, or are you an agnostic?

AdamC says:

09:35am | 29/02/12

Rhino, I wasn’t claiming that there are not many clever, accomplished atheists. I was criticising the doctrine, not its adherents. There have been a lot of very smart Communists and Fascists, for example. That doesn’t make those ideologies any less flawed. (Incidentally, it is kind of funny to see an atheist deploying the ‘appeal to authority fallcy’, given their rejection of spiritual authority.)

James1, at the risk of paraphrasing a mass killer, I would probably describe myself as a ‘cultural Christian’. That is, I am an agnostic who has a strong philosophical affinity with Christian ideas and philosophy. I keep threatening to go all the way and believe in God and the resurrection and stuff, but I am not there yet. I have thought about starting to attend Church, though. The problem is, the only Church congruent with my ... choice of lifestyle is the Uniting Church. Eugh!

David says:

11:33am | 29/02/12

@AdamC

Atheism doesn’t have doctrine. That is the domain of religion.

Rhino says:

12:57pm | 29/02/12

@AdamC

David beat me to it. Atheism has not central creed, doctrines or beliefs that unify it except the lack of belief in god(s).

How one arrives at that position, a lack of belief in god(s),  however is often based on intellectual pursuits and thinking in many and varied fields and forms. What that list of speakers demonstrates is the many varied modes of intellectual expression and learning can lead to a loss of faith or an expression of dislike or disagreement with faith and religion. What is more, many athiest might enjoy learning about these things, be it Dawkins take on evolution, Krauss explaining why atoms have weight, Singer, Grayling and Dennett explaining philosophical positions and history, Scott explaining how she continual deals with forces that impede science and science education and so on.

But you can also contrast the always amusing PZ Myers Crackergate incident with the measured and thoughtful work of Geoffrey Robertson who might just get the pope charged with crimes against humanity.

Thus saying atheism is of a thin “philosophical or intellectual base” is rather lacking in facts, that is what the list demonstrates, not that it is a convention of comedians laughing at religion.

AdamC says:

02:35pm | 29/02/12

David, some atheists, who often refer to themselves as agnostics, assert that they do not personally believe that there is a God (or heaven, hell, nirvana and the rest) and leave it there. That is clearly not a doctrine. However, Atheists, in the sense that most of use the term, believe that there is no God as a truth. That is, they assert the general rightness of their position and have arguments in favour of it, just like a religious person does. That form of Atheism is most certainly a doctrine.

Rhino, you seem to be trying to have it both ways on that question.

James1 says:

03:23pm | 29/02/12

Interesting thoughts, Adam.  I too would consider myself a cultural Christian - that Jesus fellow had some good ideas that we should not discard due to a lack of faith in his alleged father.  I am finding myself more and more drawn to the faith of my upbringing, and have genuinely contemplated attending Mass several times, but the faith part just isn’t there (although I did take my daughter to an Ash Wednesday ceremony last week).

Further, while I understand that agnosticism is the only logical position to take, I just can’t accept the existence of anything supernatural without evidence, and that is why I continue to refer to myself as an atheist.  If anything supernatural can be proven to exist, I would change my position immediately.  But actual faith just doesn’t seem to be in my DNA.

BTW, totally understand on the Uniting Church.  You might as well stay an agnostic, because the difference seem largely theoretical.

Chris L says:

05:55pm | 29/02/12

@AdamC - I disagree with your interpretation of atheism. While I recognise there is a vocal portion who proclaim that there definately are no gods, this does not constitute a central theme of atheism.

It’s like saying that thongs are traditional Australian garb. There’s enough examples to give it a ring of truth, but in actuality we are a far more diverse mob than such a statement would imply.

James1 - I suspect most atheists are also agnostic, and that most agnostic are atheist.

PS. Hey! I was brought up Uniting Church… ah who cares?

Reggieman says:

10:48am | 29/02/12

“as atheists we ‘believe in nothing’.

So what what you are saying then is that your belief in nothing is a belief in something, that is, nothing! Therefore you have a belief system, which, by definition, is a religion.

M says:

11:17am | 29/02/12

Reggieman, please explain how nothing can be worked into a system of beliefs.

Kika says:

11:34am | 29/02/12

Well, no. If you are an A-THEIST then you don’t believe an theism. Which means you think you know the answer. So by believing you know the answer, means you have a belief.

Why then do atheists have conventions? Is this not a congregation of like minded people with the same belief that there is no theistic god so let’s get together and mock those who do? Sounds like the opposite of a Hillsong congregation that get together for a rock show and some entertainment while knocking those who don’t believe what they do.

A Dose of Reality says:

12:36pm | 29/02/12

Reggieman

“So what what you are saying then is that your belief in nothing is a belief in something, that is, nothing! Therefore you have a belief system, which, by definition, is a religion”

Thank you for the illustration in non-logic, really - it’s hard to find another piece of idiocy such as this - you’re right up there with pell!

Misinterpreted phrases,misconstrued ‘definitions’, unsubstantiated conclusions and wildly irrelevant constructions!  Textbook grade 2 stuff!

What you have said is along the lines of:

“the sky is blue, so is the Mediterranean sea - therefore by definition the sky is made up of Hawaiian t-shirts”.

But to play the game - belief in nothing is an absence of ‘belief’ (when that word is used in the superstitious context).  It is pretty straightforward.

A Dose of Reality says:

12:46pm | 29/02/12

KIKA

LOL, LOL, LOL Thanks for the proof that not all comedians are atheists!

theism |?TH??iz?m|
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

atheist |??TH??ist|
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

You will note that the definition does not state that the atheist ‘know’ anything (on the subject matter) - just that he does not ‘believe’.

Gnostic - is someone who purports to ‘know’
Agnostic - is someone who does NOT pretend to know (either way).

It is straightforward!

Scotchfinger says:

01:01pm | 29/02/12

@Dose of Reality,

Actually I found Reggieman’s summary quite good ha ha - although I agree, a belief system is not ipso facto a religion. Remember that secularism is not some sort of vacuum that has filled the void in place of religious belief, it is in fact an adaptation of christian thought by way of the enlightenment. The enlightenment philosophers sought to replace religious doctrine with a type of scientific humanist program; helped along by the success of material progress. Therefore, Atheism is indeed a belief system that has been constructed over time.

A Dose of Reality says:

01:20pm | 29/02/12

Scotchfinger,

Gee what an extrapolation that is!

Atheist = absence of belief (used in the supernatural context).  Quite simple really.

You are confusing philosophical constructs with quotes necessary to avoid destruction at the hands of churches and their persecutions.

Galileo springs to mind - he had to ‘justify’ his ideas to avoid death.

Scotchfinger says:

02:11pm | 29/02/12

@ DoR,

According to OED, atheism is ‘disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods’. Neither of us is disputing the definition. What I am arguing about is the causes of atheism. Those who don’t have an opinion one way or the other are agnostics, not to be confused.

As to Galileo, he was as much a victim of his fellow scientists as the church (read ‘The Crime of Galileo’). Interesting that for every scientific martyr who is trumped around to show the intolerance of the church, scores of others who had a good relationship with the church are quietly left out: Bacon, Newton (not an insignificant figure in the enlightenment), Descartes, Darwin (most church figures acclaimed his Origin when it was first published). Apparently Galileo is the only one who counts…

Chris L says:

06:12pm | 29/02/12

@Scotchfinger - I suspect the scientists of history who maintained good relations with the church are left out because they are not relevant to the topic. Of course the church was happy with scientists who were also followers. If any of them had announced their apostacy I think the story would have been different.

Scotchfinger says:

08:49pm | 29/02/12

@Chris L, with respect, the scientists/philosphers who I mentioned did more to advance the cause of science towards the enlightenment, than any others. True, they were religious or deists, but their ideas had nothing directly to do with the book of Revelation. So they enabled a belief system based on observation, physics and deduction rather than the good Book, despite the power of the latin Church. What does this say about the supposed intolerance of the Catholic Church?

Kika says:

09:11am | 29/02/12

What’s doughts? Doubts?

M says:

08:40am | 29/02/12

I don’t regret not having faith at all.

SimpleSimon says:

10:58am | 29/02/12

In some ways I am jealous of people who have faith. I tried, when I was younger, to believe in God and Christianity. I couldn’t do it. It made no logical sense to me. And even if I could bring myself to believe in a God, I couldn’t align myself with Christianity which I found to be hypocritical and oppressive. So I see where you are coming from in your regret.

kate says:

03:41pm | 29/02/12

Sure, sometimes I regret that I “simply do not have faith and cannot believe”.  Instead of making hard decisions, taking responsibility for my actions, and looking after myself and my family, sometimes I would love to crawl back inside the cocoon, absolve myself of any responsibility, worry or intellectual effort, sink back into childhood when mummy & daddy did all my thinking for me and santa brought presents and everything was ok, and I was safe and the world was a simple place.

But seeing as I am a grown-up, that ain’t gonna happen.

Emma says:

12:21pm | 29/02/12

How many homosexual couples attend your church or have celebrated their wedding at your church?

Scotchfinger says:

01:49pm | 29/02/12

about as many homosexual teen couples that are openly seen together at public schools across the country, or who celebrate their wedding at registry offices. You would probably find as many Christians are tolerant of homosexuals as atheists. Discrimination is not particular to religion…

Chris L says:

06:21pm | 29/02/12

@Josie - Those individuals who intrude upon your life in order to mock are in the wrong. I don’t think anyone questions that. Nor could we, with any self respect, deny that there is such a portion of rapscallions within our (atheists) midst.

Mostly, though, you have to look in order to find the mockery. For example, you intentionally clicked on a blog criticising atheists for laughing at theists. It is quite logical to assume there will be responses to this. If you choose to look you cannot blame others for what you see. Same goes for this convention that you are not required to attend.

Personally I think having to put up with mockery is a lesser problem than having societal expectations and even legislation (less so nowadays, thankfully) trying to dictate your actions.

Josie says:

08:46pm | 29/02/12

@ Emma. My brother and sister are both homosexual and don’t believe in ‘marriage’ in a church as its celebrating a religious sacrament that they don’t believe in.  That’s their choice not mine and i support it. I’ve been to two close male gay couples ceremony’s before and after the civil union was passed. This whole ‘no gay marriage’thing is has been flogged to death. Are you surprised to know I have a differing opinion and a mind for my own? Probably.

@chris. You’re right but as everyone here is entitled to their opinion so am I. Diversity and culture should be accepted and embraced in order to move forward.

Trog says:

08:56am | 29/02/12

I’m atheist and I don’t dislike Christians…unless they get up in my grille.

I dislike religious leaders directing their faithful how to vote and I don’t like religious communities evangelising and directing how other people should live.

I like the way that some religions perform charitable work that not many others are prepared to do.

I don’t like the way that stuff like stem cell therapy research is stifled by religious uproar, because I believe that saving lives and quality of life takes precedence over saving religious sensibilities.

Christians (and other religions) have had a good run at ruling the world. Theocracies have never worked out well and their time is over.

Christians, as individuals, I don’t dislike.

Jamie says:

08:57am | 29/02/12

But many of your religious brothers and sisters DO use religion to deny other people basic human rights. Fred Nile does it to deny gay couples the right to marry. Tony Abbott uses religion to deny women access to birth control.

Religion is dangerous. It is used to keep people in the dark, to deny them the knowledge to make rational, informed decisions for themselves. As Douglas Adams said “Isn’t it enough to see that the garden is beautiful, without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it?”

Josie says:

10:58am | 29/02/12

@Jamie
My ‘religious brothers and sisters” are either from a different upbrining, have had different exposure to their faith or have got it all wrong. I can’t speak for them as all I try to do is promote being a good person. Thats all it essentially means. Its a shame that there are some Christians out there that aren’t judgemental and offensive and just horrible in general. I’m not speaking for them but I’m speaking for myself and my experience but I’m sorry that you feel that way. I just think, with all the sadness in the world, why contribute to something that doesn’t affect you.

But please, if it does, please confront people in churches, please go to work on public holidays - because clearly we are all the one person and we have all offended you the same way.

Lauren says:

01:57pm | 01/03/12

I can hear what you are saying Josie, but you have done the exact same thing that you just complained about. You claimed that “when you make comments like this against anyones faith, sexual orientation or religious belief - you are BOXING THEM and judging them as a whole”, which is a bit rich considering you did the same thing in your opening sentence by claiming that “Athiests don’t like Christians”.

The reason I do not participate in religion is because I do not like being told what I should and should not believe, and what I should and should not do in order to be rewarded in the afterlife. I make my own choices on what I think is best for my wellbeing, based on my own thoughts & observations, not those of someone else.

You ask us to be tolerant of your lifestyle and choices, yet the main opposers to homosexuality are religious groups. Where is the tolerance there? You can’t say “respect me and my beliefs” when you don’t do the same to people who don’t share YOUR particular beliefs.

I have nothing against people who choose to live their lives religiously. That’s your personal choice and none of my business. However, I resent being told that I have no ‘morals’ and am somehow more ‘empty’ because I don’t believe in a higher power.* I don’t feel any need to question my life, because I don’t see the point in it. I’m here and that’s it - if I wasted my time worrying about the reasons why then I’d go crazy (not to mention miss out on a lot of things).

*This wasn’t directed at you by the way, but other comments.

Jane says:

08:46am | 29/02/12

We are not descendants of apes. We ARE apes. We share common ancestors with the other great apes. This is grade 4 science. Read a book.

Jamie says:

08:51am | 29/02/12

Jesus Christ, at least has some semblance of understanding of your opposition’s viewpoint before you attempt to ridicule it. Have you ever actually read about “Common Descent”, or are you just repeating what they teach you in church?

M says:

09:12am | 29/02/12

I believe Christians to be evolutionary retarded apes, so I’d say your idea has merit.

James1 says:

09:15am | 29/02/12

Yes, I do think we share common ancestors with apes and fish.  I have no problem with this fact at all.

Why do you?

Lee says:

08:55am | 29/02/12

@Geoff. That was incisive…fellow god botherer here….well written. Thanks

Jane says:

09:16am | 29/02/12

It’s not us who are arrogant. We don’t claim to know everything about the universe, we certainly don’t claim to know the creator of it and THEN claim to have a personal relationship with the said creator, and know what they want. That’s arrogant, don’t you think? Irony? Not quite, but hypocritical in the extreme.

MelJaye says:

02:10pm | 29/02/12

I don’t claim God doesn’t exist. I just state that I don’t believe he does.

Alan Duval says:

08:54am | 29/02/12

Presumably that will be times to coincide with Ramadan or the next ‘Draw Mohammed Day’.

James1 says:

08:57am | 29/02/12

Every time it publishes an article advocating for atheism.  Christians seem to forget that, as an atheist, I find the beliefs of Muslims exactly as outlandish as I do those of Christians.

After all, if I sat in a cave, not eating and drinking for 40-odd days, I’d probably see a glowing dude who told me to conquer the world as well.

fml says:

09:03am | 29/02/12

Where have you been?

There was one on Sharia law not too long ago.

Kika says:

09:12am | 29/02/12

There’s been plenty. The article about the woman refusing to take off her Niqab when she was pulled over by the Cops is the latest one that springs to mind.

SimonFromLakemba says:

09:34am | 29/02/12

On Valentines Day they did.

But we are Christians so why would we need to see an ‘Anti-Islam’ article apart from the obvious?

M says:

09:18am | 29/02/12

As a fellow Gen Yer, I heartily endorse this comment.

I can’t wait for the baby boomers to drop off the mortal coil and give Gen Xers and Gen Yers a go at running society.

PW says:

09:30am | 29/02/12

Some call it God, some call it nature. Different words for the same thing.

M says:

10:19am | 29/02/12

PW, they are not the same thing.

marley says:

03:37pm | 29/02/12

It’s a pity more boomers didn’t follow the law of nature and eat their young.

GYTIC says:

04:29pm | 29/02/12

Marley, whilst your tongue in cheek remark is amusing, you aren’t actually refuting my point.

marley says:

07:41am | 01/03/12

@GYTIC - wasn’t really trying to refute your point.  I sort of agree with it, though, being (much) older, I’ve lost the youthful fury.  I was more addressing myself to M’s first comment.

Geoff says:

09:30am | 29/02/12

Daniel, you are quite correct. Jesus predicted that those who believe will have their family and friends ridicule and ostracise them. I find these responses confirm this.
Also, in reference to your quote from 1 John, please be aware that you shouldnt quote two verses without interpreting them through the rest of scripture. When viewed through other verses such as John 15:12-13 “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” you will see that John was exhorting us to not concentrate on earthly things (ie possessions, status, power, etc) but to concentrate on relationships with God and other people.
It sounds like a pretty dangerous philosophy, don’t you think?

Andrew says:

09:33am | 29/02/12

I am well versed in the Bible, and I would like to assure anyone not well versed in the Bible that these comments definitely are taken out of context.

Daniel says:

10:16am | 29/02/12

Geoff:  no, *your* quote was taken out of context.  “You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”  - this is talking about Jesus’ putative sacrifice for us, not a command for us to sacrifice our lives for strangers.  Even in your out-of-context quote, it’s about “friends”, not the world.  As the entire epistle of 1 John (despite Andrew’s protestations) it’s about loving your (Christian) “friends”, not “the world”.  I don’t really have any moral objection to that, just I think it’s disingenous of Christians to constantly tell us that a central tenet of Christianity is to love everybody.

Daniel says:

11:55am | 29/02/12

I should point out I’m not the “Daniel” higher up in the comments (with comments earlier this morning).  Didn’t realise the name was taken. 

Atheist says:

10:38am | 29/02/12

Fully agree Zeta. I absolutely adore comedy so I find it a great shame that Australia has no comedians. Being a snivelling, bitching whinger is NOT comedy, unless of course your audience is made up of snivelling, bitching whingers.

Chris L says:

09:43am | 01/03/12

@Zeta - Ben Elton peaked with Black Adder.

@Atheist - Check out Adam Hills

Andrew says:

10:30am | 29/02/12

“None of us will truly know what happens after death until it actually happens to us, we are all destined to find out sooner or later. I’m happy to wait for that time.”
We will not find out, as we will simply cease to be.

Atheist says:

10:42am | 29/02/12

Andrew says:
We will not find out, as we will simply cease to be.

And how do you know that, Andrew ? Do your atheist beliefs tell you that ?

skye says:

11:27am | 29/02/12

@Andrew, You can’t correct someone about their beliefs, as it is personal and different for each of us. We will either find out, or not. All I know for sure is that we will all die. Perhaps that is what I should have written….

Andrew says:

03:15pm | 29/02/12

@ Atheist
No, scientific facts tell us that there will be no consciousness after our brains cease to function.

St. Michael says:

04:36pm | 29/02/12

@ Andrew: out of interest, would you mind defining “consciousness” and where it begins and ends?

For clarification, I refer to “consciousness” as opposed to the brain or the electrical firings thereof.

Here's a treat. Good boy. says:

10:42am | 29/02/12

Wow you’re a clever boy aren’t you? Funny what you can find on google!!!

Andrew says:

03:24pm | 29/02/12

No, it’s actually funny what you can find in the bible! But, as a lot of people have said here, if you don’t laugh at this sort of stuff, you’d cry.

kate says:

03:48pm | 29/02/12

Hanzel your assertions are complete rubbish.  None of that happened.  You have been fed lies by the Religious Right nutjobs

Hanzel says:

03:56pm | 29/02/12

@ Kate, look it up

kate says:

04:09pm | 29/02/12

you’re the one who asserted it - how about you produce some proof

Philosopher says:

09:58am | 29/02/12

Bullshit Dale, the real mental illness is the extreme arrogance required to automatically rule out even the possibility at all of having a spiritual aspect to our existence. Scientific facts can never provide the required evidence to either rule in or rule out the existence of a spiritual aspect of existence, so indeed in this situation, the only rational thing to do is listen to your own intuition. And who are you to mock other people’s intuition? You haven’t heard and experienced what they have, ergo you are irrationally arrogant and therefore mentally ill.
Q.E.D.

Emma says:

01:20pm | 29/02/12

Philosopher

Someone wrote earlier in the comments that everyone has a good laugh and that godly spaghetti monster, despite the fact that the existence of that spaghetti monster in the sky is just as high as that of your God (which ever one it may be).
So you accept the equal chance of both existing?

Scotchfinger says:

04:33pm | 29/02/12

@Dale,

I don’t see how the scenario you describe has existed since medieval times. At least in the west (middle east is different ha ha). You may personally have had some bad experiences with Jehovah Witnesses, sorry about that. These days, most christians scurry around furtively as they did in the days of Nero.

As to your ‘artificial morality’, all morality is essentially a construct. Scientists and philosophers have tried and failed to deduce a scientific, objective morality (Hume, Kant etc) and been unsuccessful. Could you describe just how, for instance, the 10 Commandments of Moses are crazy? Even Nietzsche, perhaps one of the most capable of anti-christs, could not construct an alternate morality that we would find acceptable (Hitler notwithstanding).

fml says:

12:06pm | 29/02/12

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
—Stephen Roberts

Kika says:

10:31am | 29/02/12

Wow something we can both agree one.

HUMANS cause war and selective genocide!!!!

M says:

11:05am | 29/02/12

Which war was started by athiesm?

subotic says:

11:30am | 29/02/12

@M, history has plenty of examples where atheism, just like religion, has been the cause or reason for armed conflict and wide-scale death.

My favourites are in places like Cambodia, where Darwinian evolutionary theories were the prime motivator for selective wholesale murder. And keeping it local, it’s no secret that belief in the theory of evolution (read: white evolution superiority) was at the centre of the genocide of the Australian aboriginal population.

@Kika, I have 5 bucks says that even if you dislike religion per se, you still hold dear some of its belief systems such as the immortality of a so-called human soul, as well as the existence of some type of afterlife where some part of mankind exists after they cease to breathe. I don’t. You and your dogs cease to exist at death. Period. We have nothing in common except for a mutual dislike of each other’s perceived morals, or lack thereof.

M says:

12:24pm | 29/02/12

Ethnic cleansing is not the same thing as war. It also has nothing to do with athiesm.

Darwinian theories are not theories. They are also not interchangeable with athiesm.

Care to try again?

subotic says:

01:07pm | 29/02/12

Firstly, wars have been started by atheists, just not in the name OF atheism, which is what you’re driving at.

Communism is not the same as atheism, and communism could actually be considered a kind of religion if we are defining religion as a “strongly held belief in a set of dogma without regard to evidence”.

But it is an interesting point. How many wars have atheistic communists started? The Korean War, the USSR invasion of Afghanistan and Georgia to name a couple of obvious examples.

These wars were started by atheists, fought by atheists, but in the name of communism.

So, is it to be considered cCommunism or atheism?

A Dose of Reality says:

01:12pm | 29/02/12

No-one has ever conducted a war, nor slaughtered populations “in the name of atheism”.

Indeed the usual suspects brought up with this misrepresentation finds the main culprit (stalin) and his nasty offsider (hitler) were actually both rather ‘religious’.  Their crimes were due to the fact they were monsters - with political and racial ‘objectives’ - not because of their stance on ‘religious beliefs’.

Many people have done so ‘in the name of a superstition”.  The slaughter in the Americas, the ‘crusades’ inquisitions to name a few.

Crimes have been committed by atheists - absolutely, but not with atheism as the ‘cause’ nor as the ‘justification’.

Subotic - you really are funny, not through intent, nor wit.  You are just funny.  Read your own post - hilarious, Groucho would have loved it!

James1 says:

02:24pm | 29/02/12

“history has plenty of examples where atheism, just like religion, has been the cause or reason for armed conflict and wide-scale death.”

Could you list them?  I don’t there are any examples where this has happened and that you are grossly mischaracterising events, to be frank.

M says:

04:09pm | 29/02/12

Subiotic, you categorically stated “Atheism causes war.”

I asked you to list which wars were caused by athiesm.

Then you back pedalled like a labour leader on an election promise and changed the context of your original statement.

You lose.

subotic says:

07:55am | 01/03/12

At least I can spell folks names, M, unlike most of the religionists and atheists around here…

Richard says:

03:53pm | 02/03/12

Subotic, you lose.  Quite badly.

And I CAN spell.

Chris L says:

06:25pm | 29/02/12

That explains why marching bands frighten me.

Kika says:

10:27am | 29/02/12

I agree with you on that one. Richard Dawkins is the atheist’s Brian Houston!

They dont’ know there isn’t a God. They have no idea because they aren’t dead yet, but they ALSO think they know the answer so in itself atheism IS a religion.

Luce says:

10:51am | 29/02/12

The very basis of theism is illogical and irrational. Atheism is not even close to being “as big a wild stab in the dark” as theism is.

Agnosticism is the belief that we CAN’T know (and, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you can logically have evidence to support such a position), which may be true, but that doesn’t mean the evidence on either side of that view is equally absent. Most atheists arrive at their beliefs by looking at the world around them and logically deducing the most likely scenario: i.e. the world came about and operates by natural processes (a lot of which science can now describe in intimate detail), rather than by the hand of a divine being.

Atheist says:

10:58am | 29/02/12

Hear hear ! I’m an atheist myself but I find most atheists are a friggin’ pain in the backside. They do more to ram their beliefs down your throat than any other religion (and I went to Catholic school !) Constantly shouting out “Pedophile priests !!!” while ignoring all the good that Christians do for others around the world., quite happy to have time off for Christmas and Easter etc.
I wish they would just SRFU about their beliefs like they want others to.

David says:

11:10am | 29/02/12

@Philosopher

Are you agnostic about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, pink unicorns orbiting Mars? Surely the only rational position is to be agnostic about these beings.

iansand says:

11:14am | 29/02/12

This is why I call myself a functional atheist.  I know that I cannot prove or disprove the existence of god (which, strictly speaking, makes me agnostic) but regard the existence of god to be so unlikely that the possibility can be ignored for practical purposes.

Why does god, if it exists, tolerate the activities of its boosters on Earth?  I reckon any decent god would be doing a lot of smiting.

Luce says:

11:35am | 29/02/12

David and iansand, thank you.

Chris L says:

06:31pm | 29/02/12

To quote Fezzik in The Princess Bride -

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”

@Philosopher - I’m referring to your interpretation of atheism.

Hanzel says:

11:26am | 29/02/12

No where are Christians trying to limit free speech (even when a hilarious atheist comedian covers the crucifix in elephant crap), the authour even praises free speech. It is the secular atheists who are trying to limit freedom of conscience and speech around the world with regard to marriage, abortion, and other issues. This is in-line with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al’s. religious persecution in the 20th century….who would of thought it would be the progressives taking us back to the 1950’s. The Taliban and atheists have a few things in common, the hatred of free speech being but one.

Luce says:

12:44pm | 29/02/12

The author praises free speech, yet criticises atheists for exercising it…?

And religious persecution? Hyperbole, much?

Re marriage: equal rights for all, not just for heterosexuals. I’ve yet to see one person put forward a legitimate negative effect equal marriage would have on the lives of all those who oppose it, yet they still can’t help but try limit the rights of others.. and then claim to be the victims, even though, as I said, they are the ones limiting the rights of others.

Re abortion: freedom to exercise choice over your own body, particularly in cases of rape or when there is a medical risk to the mother, or when the mother is incapable, either financially or mentally, to raise a child.

These policies are not in line with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al because they do not seek to limit the rights of others, they seek to increase freedom for everyone, and simultaneously limit the ability of the religious to try exert control over other people’s lives. Christians are not being silenced on these issues, nor are they being persecuted, and to claim as such is actually just dishonest, and using emotive and alarming language with no real basis to it to try push your argument. No one is harming or killing christians over these issues, and no one is using the law to prevent them from speaking out.

More and more I get the feeling that the fuss is really because society is slowly moving away from their views, towards greater freedom on a personal level, and it causes conflict with their world view. Hence why they claim to be victims even though they are one of the largest and most powerful sub sections of society on this planet.

David says:

12:45pm | 29/02/12

@Hanzel

How is campaigning for a cause (gay marriage, abortion etc) limiting free speech?

Hanzel says:

01:35pm | 29/02/12

Luce and David,

Arresting a Christian pastor, suspending a Christian student or sacking a Christian consellor for arguing that traditional marriage is best is limiting their free speech. Telling an employee that they can’t wear a cross necklace is an attack on freedom of conscience as well.

Forcing a Christian nurse to partake in abortion procedure or face the sack is yet another instance of secular tyranny spinning out of control.

I agree, that in OZ we haven’t experienced this level of oppression but storm clouds are gathering.

Luce says:

02:06pm | 29/02/12

I’d argue that sending death threats to a 16 yo, forcing her to have an armed guard follow her around school, and having her local politician call her “a nasty little thing” all because she petitioned to have a prayer banner taken down because it violated the constitutional separation of church and state is slightly worse.

Or there’s the numerous cases of murder, attempted murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, bombing, property crime and anthrax attempts (in the US alone) against individuals and organizations that provide abortions. Great practice of “thou shalt not kill” there.

I could go on about religiously motivated crime against homosexuals as well.

Then there’s the movement to ban science in schools in certain places in america, in favour of creationism.

And all the cases of censorship, or attempted censorship, a perfect example being Christians trying to ban Harry Potter in American school libraries. Harry Potter. Seriously?

And secularism is the tyrannical movement? You really have to be kidding me.

Hanzel says:

03:42pm | 29/02/12

Luce,
Separation of church and state doesn’t appear in the constitution.
The constitution states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

Separation of church and state appears in a letter written by Jefferson to insure members of the ‘Danbury baptists that the new federal government would not endanger the free expression of their religion’ and then later in an opinion from Judge Hugo Black who was anti-Catholic, a former member of the KKK and who totally misinterpreted Roger Williams’, a Baptist minister,  original argument for a wall of separation to protect the Church and its people from state interference.

It’s impossible for religious people to stay out of State business because religious people are the State, along with others.

I agree, that any sort of violence against abortion clinics should stop immediately.

Luce says:

04:13pm | 29/02/12

That’s a fair point. However the US Supreme Court has chosen to interpret it as such several times.

The separation of church and state is aimed and promoting religious freedom by not allowing the state to impose a religion, as well as not allowing the church or church doctrine to have any control in government. The intention for protection goes both ways.

And no one’s asking religious people to stay out of state business, they are asking religion to stay out of state business. There’s a difference. e.g. you can’t make a law banning homosexual marriage based on words in the bible. Or you don’t preach religion in a state run school, because it’s a state run school etc

Kika says:

11:51am | 29/02/12

I spent a lot of time in my youth in a Seventh Day Adventist family. They had PLENTY of books around the house saying the Pope IS the antichrist, Catholicism is evil, everyone is evil except Seventh Day Adventists, if you are a Christian and not a vegetarian you are a hypocrite… there was plenty of that!

St. Michael says:

10:46am | 29/02/12

Is that an indictment on the entire Christian church, or just on the three morons running this particular one?  Egocentrism’s common to all large organisations: government, corporations, clubs, etc, etc…

CJ says:

12:16pm | 29/02/12

No, It’s not an indictment on the entire Christian church. I never suggested it was. What I clealy stated was that it’s “a great example of how poorly a modern Christian church in Australia can behave.” However, I don’t believe Christain City Church Balmain (part of the massive C3 movement) is unique in pentecostal circles in its treatment of members who ask questions about finances - which seem reasonable to as given many such churches demand parishoners give them 10 per cent of their gross income. They call it “tithing”. The super-rich Hillsong Church does it, too, and there have been multiple former worshippers booted out of that church after asking questions about the emphasis on and use of $$. I find it an odd thing, this aspect of the pentecostal movement (which is huge in Australia): Jesus was supposedly a pauper and reputedly threw traders out of his church, accusing them of turning it into a “den of thieves”. Yet if you rock up to most large pentecostal churches in Australia today, they’ll hit you up for 10 per cent of your gross wage, regularly ask for extra “offerings” (they even hand out credit card slips) and flog all manner of books, CDs, DVD and whatever and charge admission to special “conferences” where they ask for even more cash/credit cards to be produced. The C3 website even has an online store (http://www.c3store.com/). I think it’s worth raising this to try and illustrate that some people actively trying to promote Christianity to the masses in Australia today (and boy are they active - Hillsong has a weekly TV show) seem to put a heavy emphasis on income streams and silencing those people in their pastoral care who ask questions about how the church is spends their money. The fact is many churches like this are big business.

St. Michael says:

02:11pm | 29/02/12

“The fact is many churches like this are big business.”

So are many nonreligious (even atheistic?) charities (Oxfam and Greenpeace to name two, though I’d argue the Red Cross similarly has the symbol but none of the religion attached to it) which are similarly supposedly intended for the public good and not for themselves.  And note that Oxfam has been done for 13 of its employees diddling the accounts.  These, too, regularly send pavement-pounders out to try and get you to provide regular donations from your credit card or bank account.  These too have online stores.

The concept of “tithing” in the modern era seems to have been largely kicked off by George Clauson, the chap who wrote the book “The Richest Man in Babylon”, and Napoleon Hill’s “The Power of Positive Thinking”, which many real estate and “success” spruikers have followed in their own books.  Before then it was confined to the medieval Catholic Church, and then expected principally of noblemen with wads of cash to spare, not the peasant busting his ass in the fields every day.

Serving money first is a common experience across all human life, and certainly large organisations share that aspect to a greater or lesser extent.  I don’t doubt that there are some high up in the hierarchy of several churches who would rather collect dollars than souls, but unless Jesus was out there saying his followers had to ring in the cash isn’t that simply a case of hypocrisy by individuals or groups of individuals, not an indictment against Christian belief at large?

Me personally I think Hillsong and its ilk have got it wrong for reasons including the ones you mentioned, but the more pertinent reason, to my mind, is this: like most charismatic churches, they would rather give people a picture of what it’s like inside the castle of the Grail, the peak experience, than acknowledging that a state of grace does not persist forever in humankind and trying to help people live in the outside world according to the lessons received from that state.

The charismatic movement has served a useful function in that it’s reintroduced peak experiences and direct encounters with the divine into religious life, but as we tend to do with mankind they’ve swung the pendulum too far the other way—orthodox theology does have its place in Christianity as much as charismatic experiences do.

Luce says:

01:52pm | 29/02/12

Best comment yet, David.

DownWithSkyFairies says:

01:51pm | 29/02/12

Don’t judge too harshly… you haven’t seen his wife…

fml says:

11:36am | 29/02/12

Awesome, simply Awesome.

I take my non-denominational hat off to you sir, well played.

Richard A says:

04:08pm | 02/03/12

This is a f*cking great comment.  I hope you don’t mind if I shamelessly plagiarise it.

fml says:

11:39am | 29/02/12

Because the gutless pricks have a comprehension level above the second grade level and are able to grasp the concept that this article is about christianity and also it is from a christian point of view. Hence their comments are christian based.

Give them an article against islam and they would say pretty much the same things. You have to atleast give them that.

subotic says:

11:56am | 29/02/12

Where would you like me to start SOC?

There’s plenty of documented material to rag off on Middle Eastern religions and make the Q’uran/ Koran look like the bigoted piece of pig vomit that it is.

Give me a starting point, or I’ll be typing all day…

Michael says:

11:56am | 29/02/12

Nah, refer to the pigeon comment above for the answer.

Paul says:

12:07pm | 29/02/12

@ shat on commies: I’m quite happy to bag Islam. It, along with Catholicism are the religions of bastardry.

Did you see the Popes funeral? Thousands of paedophiles in red velvet and only to be replaced by the ‘Hitler Youth’ Pope.

Islam is facism, burn the book accidently and they’ll go on murderous rampages. Mock Islam and they’ll put a fatwa on your ass.

I have no time for any of them, in fact isn’t it about time these insidious organisations started to pay a little tax. Perhaps the company tax rate would be appropriate. Go on Gillard, have you got the guts?

St. Michael says:

12:10pm | 29/02/12

There is the point that being a “courageous atheist” in the West is rather like saying you’re a “courageous democrat”.  For example, I don’t recall mention of any underground atheist movements in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan distributing secret copies of “The God Delusion”, or willingly facing firing squads for refusing to say Dawkins is a liar.  Christianity, by comparison, sometimes does.  Could someone provide a list of atheists who have died for their beliefs?

Chris L says:

06:34pm | 29/02/12

@St Michael - What “beliefs” are you referring to?

St. Michael says:

10:56am | 01/03/12

The Hunch has struck again on my posts…

@ Chris L: the specific belief that there is no God.

bw says:

03:44pm | 01/03/12

Wow, I thought you were supposed to love others? Not call them hate filled names.

Chris L says:

09:53pm | 01/03/12

@St Michael - but most of us don’t make that claim. Even Dawkins only says that gods are unlikely.

Besides, plenty of atheists have given their lives for king and country, but there’s little motivation to die for the sake of converting people.

St. Michael says:

09:48am | 02/03/12

“Besides, plenty of atheists have given their lives for king and country, but there’s little motivation to die for the sake of converting people.”

Wilfred Owen would like to talk to you on the fitness of dying for your country.

As for dying for a king: if you say there’s little to no logical motivation to die for the sake of an invisible autocrat who can do pretty much anything he wants, how is it superior to die for an autocrat you can actually see?

Chris L says:

04:29pm | 02/03/12

“how is it superior to die for an autocrat you can actually see?”

Didn’t say that, St Michael, just that people have felt motivated to do so. I don’t know why, and if I did I wouldn’t be here to describe it.

One thing that seems clear, though, is atheists aren’t motivated to change someone’s way of thinking enough to die for it.

Some theists have been, and that could be considered noble, foolhardy or insidious depending on your viewpoint.

St. Michael says:

05:54pm | 02/03/12

Oh well; as we sink gently down onto page 3 of the Punch, I suppose we’ll just have to leave it as having different points of view.

fml says:

12:10pm | 29/02/12

I dont hate this jesus bloke, i have never met him. I hate the people who think they meet him everyday.

amy says:

12:32pm | 29/02/12

why do you people like to shout bible quotes at us? what are you trying to acheive?

Beth says:

01:48pm | 29/02/12

actually it was directed at the author, and other christians who seem surprised at being ridiculed. Jesus says that people who follow him can expect to be hated.

Al says:

12:24pm | 29/02/12

“The bible is one of the most accurate historical texts in existance, no historian disputes his existance or life.”
Bullshit, plain and simple.
There are plenty of disputes by historians re: Jesus existence or Life, whther the stories are based on one person, no person or multiple persons. And the historical accuracy of the texts has been PROVEN to be false in many instances and there are many historical texts that are more accurate.

amy says:

12:34pm | 29/02/12

“come to terms with whether you believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be; God’s son. The bible is one of the most accurate historical texts in existance

hahahaha..youre kidding right?

Jim says:

12:36pm | 29/02/12

Our way of life isn’t founded on christian values at all. Your religion may teach equality, justice, the value of individual life, helping the poor etc but that doesn’t make these values exclusively yours. Most empathetic humans can actually work these things out for themselves. In fact, it’s a much better set of values if people have them because of their own empathy for other human beings instead of because they were told to by a 2,000 year old zombie. What about other countries or societies that do not subscribe to the judeo-christian god? Don’t you think they probably have a similar set of ideas about equality, justice and the value of life?

The debate about the historical accuracy of the bible is much to long for a forum such as this but I will bet there are a large number of people who would disagree with your statement that the bible is one of the most accurate historical texts in existence. Noah’s Ark is surely fantastical as much as Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. There may have indeed been a real Jesus but the idea that he was anything more than an ordinary person with some wise words is pure fantasy. If he did indeed perform mircales and then raise from the dead, then why were only 4 books written about him? And why were these books written by people who weren’t even born when he suppsoedly did all these things? It’s because they are just stories written by primitive society. They might be good stories but that doesn’t make them true.

Weary says:

04:38pm | 29/02/12

Your right Jimmy.  People do bad things to other people because they are bad people.  Then they hide behind religion and use it to get away with their actions.  Right catholics?
And no, I don’t have to ask myself how someone came back from being stone cold dead - what is wrong with you?  It couldn’t be more obvious that this stuff was made - and it was made up by really unevolved men from thousands of years ago…  These blokes describe a god who is significantly dumber than I am.  Sorry, but that doesn’t work for me. 
You ask how we can explain how he came back from being stone cold dead?  Great question!  And how was he able to shoot green lightning from his eyes and fly to space without wings?  HE DIDN’T!

Andrew says:

12:05pm | 29/02/12

No. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

fml says:

01:31pm | 29/02/12

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus

marley says:

01:34pm | 29/02/12

Maybe the Greeks had it right:  the Gods sit on high, and we are mere playthings for their amusement.

Drafnel says:

01:44pm | 29/02/12

Oh my God, Matt! Wow! I’m sure no-one’s ever thought of that before!

Erm, actually (like practically every such objection to Christianity), that was discussed at length by the early church around 1,700 years ago. Your example was discussed at length earlier than that by some prominent Jewish Rabbis. It has also continued to crop up throughout church history.

If you were to study theology today then you’d spend a semester looking at the various responses to predestination vs free will over time.

Fatal flaw? Christianity is still growing today - especially in China, where secular rationalism and naturalism have been taught in the schools for several decades. Kind of makes Dawkins’ so-called explanations as to the existence of religion look like the ignorant attempts at belittlement that they are.

Bottom line, if God exists then he simply exists regardless of whatever logical constructs you can create.  Conversely, if he doesn’t then he doesn’t no matter how many “encounters with God” millions of people around the World may have each year. Nothing anyone can write on The Punch will alter that.

Matt says:

02:30pm | 29/02/12

@Drafnel: Because I was not the first to have the thought, it somehow makes it immaterial? Perhaps you should have refuted my points, rather than attacking me through sarcasm?

Besides, it is the work of theologians to create logical constructs to frame their religious views, not mine. Blame them, not me.

Drafnel says:

03:33pm | 29/02/12

Matt, I foolishly imagined that your objection was an honest one, meaning you’d want to know the answer. Too easy for you to claim that I should have given a complete answer, knowing full well that any pithy answer that would fit in a Punch blog can barely do the issue justice. I have pointed out that the predestination vs free will question has been addressed over and over again, starting millenia ago, and there’s an abundance of literature on the topic. If your objection were an honest one then you’d be able to spend the time reading the various ways people have addressed the question - which may or may not satisfy you. After all, it’s a genuine point. But your last post has clarified that you just wanted to talk, not listen or think. Thank you for clarifying that.

Theology is not about knowing the answers. It’s about living with the questions.

The vocal, irrational #7 atheists who post on such blogs as this evidently can’t live with the questions and would rather declare that the questions are invalid.

Again, God either exists or he doesn’t. No amount of insistence that I should have satisfied you better will change the truth. Ultimately we hope that a rational, evidence-based approach will show us the truth - not because we know for sure that it can (maybe it can’t), but because it’s the best we have. Little quasi-logic games where you play pithy one-liners off against each other are at best an entertaining but completely irrelevant diversion.

marley says:

01:35pm | 29/02/12

To be fair, there are mainstream churches outside Australia which not only do not mock gays, but which actually perform marriage ceremonies for them.

Hanzel says:

01:06pm | 29/02/12

See communism, socialism, Marxism, progressivism, secularism. It ain’t pretty when a handful of crazies think they know what’s best for us, e.g. North Korea.

Our rights come from our creator, not from the neo-hippies.

MikeS says:

01:22pm | 29/02/12

Well Steve,

Religion offers a construct on which people can build a reason for, and an understanding of their existence. It also offers hope that there is an existence beyond the end of the physical life we start with. There is a certain comfort that comes with faith in God/Allah/Jehovah that helps people find purpose in their lives.

And it doesn’t hurt that the morals and ethics associated with these religions promote peace and understanding of all who we interact with.

I’m not from either side of this argument. I just like to read a lot and am interested in theology.

Hope this helps a bit.

marley says:

01:32pm | 29/02/12

I don’t know that there’s any logical reason a religion is necessary, but there seems to be something in humans that demands an explanation for the world around them, and their place in it.  Science has gone a long way to answering the first question, but not so far in addressing the second.  So, we look for answers.  Some find those answers in humanism or secularism or one of the political ‘isms, but others still find it in religion.  I can’t answer why;  I can only say that’s the situation.

Steve Perry says:

02:17pm | 29/02/12

@ MikeS and Marley -

I really appreciate your well thought out and reasoned responses to the question. Cheers!!

I tried believing when I was younger, but it always felt forced to me. Like I was always trying to convince myself that it was all true. It was the first experience I had of true peer presure - everyone around me said that there was a god, so I had to believe too. In the end I decided for myself that religion just didn’t work for me, I lacked faith in the unfallable and almighty.

I have always struggled to understand the part that religion plays in people lives. I was once told that I must have a very empty life without religion. I thought about this for a while and I had to disagree - I have a very full and happy life. I am surrounded by loving and caring family and friends. Why do I need to bring religion in to that which is already so fulfilling and rewarding?

Seamus Hopetoune says:

02:29pm | 29/02/12

It’s a tool to keep the masses ignorant.

Al says:

02:37pm | 29/02/12

Steve Perry - Religion tends to be used(I dispute the word neccasary!) for the purposes of:
1) Control over the masses.
2) To justify prosecution of those who hold different beliefs.
3) For political manuvering.
4) For the comfort of those who require the existence of a higher power.
5) ummm…..I am strugling to come up with a fifth reason.

Any of the ‘good’ that religous people do (and tend to claim it is BECAUSE of religion) can just as easily be done by a person who is not religous but just wants to help their fellow humans. There is no necessity for religion.
See my previous post.
Believers in religion tend to want a final judgement from a higher power to ‘give meaning to their lives’, while non-believers want to give ‘meaning to their lives’ as they see fit, not what some person who wrote a set of rules thousands (or even hundreds or tens) of years ago stated.

marley says:

03:49pm | 29/02/12

@Drafnel -
1. atheism is a “thing” in the sense that “thought” is a thing.  It’s just not a religion.  I, for one, will defend my views on atheism in the same way I would defend my views on politics or economics or the merits of Cezanne, ice hockey and Jamaican rum.  I have ideas and opinions, and I’m prepared to argue them when challenged.  Why shouldn’t I? 

2.  I don’t make absolutist statements.  Why are you making one about me?

3.  See answer to 2 above.  That’s your second absolutist statement. 

4.  Your teapot reference escapes me.  I find the laws of physics and the theory of evolution to be a far more satisfactory explanation of the order of life and the universe than I find religious works to be.  They are more consistent, they are more rational, they can be subjected to testing and proof.  I think the argument that things are the way they are because god says so, is to me an intellectual cop-out.  It’s like conceding the game before you’ve even tried kicking the ball.

5.  I see absolutely no reason why the non-existence of god should preclude the existence of thought, which is what you seem to be saying.  Thinking is a biological function – even quite primitive animals are capable of it at some level.  I don’t see why the concepts you describe – love, hope, pleasure, consciousness, language, art, mathematics – should be ascribed to god and not to plain old biology.  And if life has meaning beyond striving to perpetuate the species, then it lies in the values we ourselves attribute to it. 

Finally, no, you are not rational.  Your entire argument rests on a number of untested assumptions, and concludes with a swingeing insult to anyone who sees things otherwise.  I am not a “nutter” – but I am a rationalist.  You are not.

Gordon says:

04:13pm | 29/02/12

Dawkin’ biology is better than his atheology, and I was an atheist before he wrote any of it, so I’m not big on noisy atheists myself, but then again I have never been harmed personally by religion or the religous. Many people have tho, and for you to call them nutters for speaking up is a bit rich don’t you think?

Drafnel says:

05:07pm | 29/02/12

@Marley, okay so I addressed my post a little too broadly. I think my gripes are valid for the majority of noisy atheists. They’re quite happy to argue like a #7, but as soon as they’re called for doing so, they quickly transform into the most docile #6 you’ve ever seen. “There is no God and you’re the most stupid fool for thinking there could be. Stupid, deluded, brainless people like you ought to be put down. Oh, of course I’m open to persuasion. Yes, of course it’s possible that there could be some kind of a god out there: gee whiz, I’m not irrational!”. Just look through the posts above.

There are plenty of people on this very page arguing that atheism is a “nothing”. So, for example, when Karl Marx’s foundationally atheistic system developed into Leninism, Bolshevism, then Stalinism and killed 60 million of Stalin’s own citizens, it apparently had nothing whatever to do with atheism because atheism is a nothing and therefore can’t be held responsible no matter how intimately intertwined it is in the events. The noisy atheist will stand by some version of that statement. I call it a cop-out.

You’re serioulsy not familiar with the teapot? The argument that the existence of God is a proposition equivalent to the proposition that there’s a teapot orbiting the Earth (or Jupiter or whatever) at some undetectable location?

Of course reason exists, regardless of whether or not God exists. My point is that if an ultra-naturalist (like most highly vocal atheists) were consistent then he’d have to demand evidence for the existence of love, hope, etc, and would not be able to accept anyone’s experiences of those things (including their own) as evidence. Nor peoples’ actions based on their claims to be experiencing hope, love, etc. He would be forced to state that those things don’t exist. That he doesn’t, shows up the noisy atheist’s inconsistencies.

@Gordon, surely you can distinguish between a noisy, irrational #7 atheist giving a blast to anyone he disagrees with, and a person speaking up about harm from religion?

As a #5.5 atheist myself, I have a very strong gripe with the hordes of #7 atheist wankers who are out there (all insisting that they’re actually #6, of course). They are truly among the most religious people in the World.

marley says:

06:44pm | 29/02/12

@dafnel - there may be plenty of people arguing that atheism is a “nothing”  - though I haven’t read that many comments saying exactly that.  I don’t think it’s fair to argue, as you seem to be doing, that the absence of belief in god as a causative factor is a “nothing.”  It’s more a “something” - a belief in rational explanations for phenomena which can be a bit mystifying at first glance, but for which study and thought will provide solutions. 

As for the Marx-Lenin-Stalin continuum, no, I don’t think your reasoning holds at all.  Stalinism was an abomination for a whole lot of reasons, but atheism wasn’t the core, any more than Catholicism was really at the core of the Spanish conquest of the Americas.  Power, land, resources, were the driving force in both cases.  Stalin didn’t collectivise farms or put generals to death for some atheist principle;  he did it to eliminate sources of opposition.  It was for exactly the same reason that he bulldozed some of the churches - to eliminate the Orthodox Church as a political influence. He may not have cared about the Judgement Day, but he didn’t commit atrocities on some atheist principle;  he committed it on a much older principle of might making right.

And your point about “naturalists” not accepting evidence of love or any of your other attributes - well, that’s a complete misrepresentation of how people of a scientific bent regard the world.  Evidence is evidence, to be studied and considered.  If a million people are interviewed, and 800,000 insist that there’s something called “love” or “language” or “mathematics” then the naturalist/rationalist will consider the position, develop tests, run them, and evaluate the results.  He won’t simply retreat into a dark room saying “nothing can be proven.”  Because, to put it at its most basic, many things are capable of proof.  And others, if not provable, are nonetheless supported by a great deal of evidence.  That people can feel love and fear, like art,comprehend mathematics, well, all these are capable of assessment and evaluation.

What you describe as the religious point of view seems to be all about relying on god as an explanation;  ‘naturalists’ as you term them, prefer to look to other people to provide explanations.

Chris says:

02:10pm | 01/03/12

Marley what I find most interesting about your position is your statements that the beliefs of atheists are based on rational decision making and observation.  The obvious inferrence is that Christians (or religious people generally, I guess) make irrational decisions.

I don’t think that is supportable. 

We can take one example if you like - the creation of the universe.  Last I checked, the Big Bang theory was still pretty popular.  Absent a God, the theory is that, at some point a little while ago (around 13.7 billions years, according to Wiki) the entire universe spontaneously expanded rapidly from some kind of singularity.  There is no apparent cause or trigger for this, as far as the theory suggests - it just happened, according to the theory.

Personally I find that to be irrational.  There was nothing - and then there was something, and then all this stuff happened which caused the universe to exist - BUT nothing and nobody caused it, and nothing and nobody triggered the events to occur - they just did.

It also cannot be proven.  It was not observed, nor can it be recreated or studied.  The theory is just that - a theory.  It provides one possible explanation for events, but in my personal view is pretty irrational to suggest that is all “just happened”.

I don’t think you can say this particular theory is supported by ” a great deal of evidence” either.  It’s just a theory - it might be sound, it might not.

Cheerio,
Chris

Chris L says:

02:29pm | 01/03/12

@Drafnel - scientists have indeed made study of human emotions and their causes. Hence we have such things as anti-depressants, valium and an understanding of schitzophrenia. There is evidence that emotions are real (in this case, chemical evidence plus a measurable reaction to emotions), but to date still no evidence for gods.

As for your atheist who said “brainless people like you ought to be put down.” (among other things).... who said that? Is it someone here? Did that ever actually happen?

marley says:

01:27pm | 29/02/12

@LostinPerth:  just so you know, I’m pretty much an atheist, and I don’t do or believe most of the things you ascribe to me.
I don’t mock Christians; I don’t ascribe wars to religion unless they were clearly conducted for religious purposes and didn’t just use religion as a rallying call;  I don’t refuse Christians the right to speak of their beliefs (except in my doorway); I don’t try to impose my beliefs on anyone.  I do plead guilty to believing in the big bang.  But that’s not less credible than believing in Genesis.

The thing is, you criticise atheists for insisting “on telling Christians what they MUST believe” and yet you are doing precisely the same to atheists.  Tolerance is a two way street, and perhaps you need to start walking along it as well.

Mike says:

01:32pm | 29/02/12

I full on agree with that statement. Give them any criticism or say something that is not in their belief and they go off. The comedians I give real props to are ones that will mock atheism as readily as anything else.

Besides, whatever your chosen faith is - you can still learn about the others.

fml says:

01:27pm | 29/02/12

If the cause is ‘avin a laff, then yes, yes it does.

Steve Perry says:

01:30pm | 29/02/12

I think it’s the beard. It makes him look shifty…

Plus he once gave me a Starscream Transformer when all i wanted was the Optimus Prime one (the awesome one with the trailer). Since that day he has been the focus of my rage. Didn’t he know that I NEEDED that transformer?! If he can’t give me what I want then to Hell with him and all of his ilk.

Davy says:

02:15pm | 29/02/12

Of course ‘santa’ is an anagram of ‘satan’. but then ‘david summers’ is an anagram of ‘mums sad diver’. or if you prefer ‘mums diva dres’.

St. Michael says:

03:08pm | 29/02/12

@ Davy: oo! oo! This reminds me of when they asked Black Sabbath to play their records backward, and they solemnly intoned that they had distinctly heard references to Satan.  Along with “hey ma, my chair’s broken”, and “fish smell in the water.”

fml says:

02:05pm | 29/02/12

Or, you could have chosen the wrong religion and in fact the Buddhists are correct and that we are actually reincarnated. Or it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real?

What if your entire life is based on a lie? on a form of control?
wouldn’t it be rational to just be a decent person and hope that if you are wrong and there is a god, that he would not judge a good man bad because of an absence of belief?

I refuse to believe in a judgmental god that the modern day religious advocate.

As an agnostic, i have been told by atheists that i am a fence sitter, i have been told by the religious minded that the absence of belief leads to evil.

My actions are not because of a fear of eternal damnation or fear of not entering the paradise to come. My actions are based on one thing, and one thing only and that is not creating pain.

If i am wrong, i will walk right up to god and say, sir, I was wrong, but you cannot deny that i tried my best and that my actions were not of the purest of interests.

Dave says:

05:28am | 01/03/12

I don’t put my faith in anything.

fml says:

01:54pm | 29/02/12

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

Seth Brundle says:

02:05pm | 29/02/12

Firstly, are you suggesting that God exists within a finite, physical form, and that the statistical likelihood of his existence is a function of the volume he occupies within our universe, and that this is the basis of christian belief?

Secondly, I don’t believe any atheist has ever said they have disproven the existance of God, in the same way no one has disproven the existence of the pink unicorn.  There are innumerable things that have not had their existence disproven that are available for you to worship, all of the equally absurd.

Davy says:

02:59pm | 29/02/12

@ seth. What I would suggest is that science is best at detecting finite physical forms. The universe being a large place that ‘science’ has not looked everywhere in, means science can make no claims either way. Atheism means no deity. Atheists ‘believe’ there is no god. It is therefore a belief system and should be judged as such.
If a religious person has an experience that does not fit into a secular world view, then secular people try and explain it using their own world view. They will usually try to explain it away using ‘science’. As science is best at examining finite physical things this creates a difficulty.
@fml The little old lady then continued..“but tell me, with all your cleverness and knowledge of stars and such”, “Is the inside of a star, dark or light ?”.

Chris L says:

02:36pm | 01/03/12

@Davy - the popular definition of atheist suffers the same problem as the popular definition of theory (in that it’s wrong). One can be an agnostic atheist… in fact most atheists are agnostic.

As far as I’m aware no-one has suggested that science has proven gods don’t exist. At most we can say science has shown how supposed miracles really happened and they didn’t involve gods.

Jimmy says:

01:56pm | 29/02/12

You are living out your ‘cause’ right now: to convince people that God does not exist… You’re right Atheism as a concept has no cause but Ahteists do, they are obsessed with trying to convince other people they are wrong. Isn’t that exactly what you are criticising in religion? That there is only one point of view that is correct? It’s completely hypocritical and interestingly enough, absurd!

James1 says:

02:52pm | 29/02/12

I talk about my atheism in an attempt to get people like you to understand Jimmy.  I don’t care what you believe - you are free to believe whatever you like, it is no business of mine.  But at least I have made the effort to understand the ontology behind your (and most religious) belief - that an ancient book or books (or some works of science fiction from the 1950s in the case of Scientology) is evidence for the existence of a supernatural being or beings.  If I tell you what I believe, I don’t want you to agree with me.  I just want you to understand the ontology so that you stop mischaracterising my beliefs (or lack thereof) as per Zac above, who seems to think all atheists believe the same things.

While a Christian may tell you all about Jesus in an attempt to convert you, when I tell you all about not believing that Jesus was the son of god I am not doing this.  I am simply telling you my own thoughts on the matter, which happen to differ from yours.  I usually expect that we will agree to disagree, ideally with a better understanding of why the other person believes what they do.  Don’t look at atheism through a Christian lens - all that will do is impede your understanding.

All that said, some atheists will try to convince you of their position, and they are just as bad as door knocking Christians.

Scotchfinger says:

03:36pm | 29/02/12

@James1,

Interesting how you disparage religious people based on the main source of their understanding: a book. What did you learn from at school: a text book or two? Perhaps even a science text book? Right or wrong, literature and learning go hand in hand in western society.

But I agree proselytisers are tiresome, no matter what they are pushing. Belief is given freely and taken freely, or else is is not belief it is indoctrination.

James1 says:

04:39pm | 29/02/12

That was not intended as disparaging, Scotchfinger.  It was simply a statement of fact, as unlike the science books to which you refer, the holy books must necessarily stand alone as there is nothing behind them but the belief that they either are, or reflect, the words/views of a god, and nothing in front of them which is not derived from said books.  The science books describe other events and processes which can be observed, documented and proven empirically outside the books themselves.  Holy books do not.  That was my point, which I admit I worded badly.

Scotchfinger says:

06:49pm | 29/02/12

James1 I partly agree, however no religion springs forth fully formed. Christianity (as opposed to Judeism) in particular has developed from many sources, including Greek and Persian. This is behind my main contention, that religion is based on ignorance and superstition. None of the great religions (other than Islam which I hate) reflect this. Some of the greatest minds in western thought have given a lot consideration to the great questions, as have scientists as well. For Aristotle, the father of our sciences, the sophists who believed the gods had no effect on pepole were hedonists who had nothing to contribute to understanding of the world.

St. Michael says:

05:47pm | 29/02/12

“The Devil made me do it?”

St. Michael says:

02:52pm | 29/02/12

That would depend on whether you regard the Adelaide Street Church as an “on the whole” representation of Christianity.  Taking it scientifically, one sample does not necessarily reflect the entire substance.  For my part, I don’t regard their behaviour as either respectful or representative of the Christians I’ve met.

Sort of like anyone calling themselves the “right” wing of the ALP.  Or Malcolm Fraser claiming the Liberals had gone “too conservative” as being the reason he quit.  Nobody seems to have a problem with there being a variety of differing, even opposing, views of how to interpret a political party’s mission, despite that party usually stating itself as being for “the good of Australia” in virtually all cases, but churches seem to be criticised alike for either being a monochrome body of people or for tolerating differing views on how to live a Christian life.

Other religions have a diversity of views within them.  Take the Jews: ultra-orthodox Jews get around in cool black clothing and have these insane long earlocks, liberal Jews you wouldn’t even recognise except from the wearing of a yarmulke now and then.  Nobody with half a brain sees the ultra-orthodox as representing the majority or the totality of how Jews behave.

Witness the diversity of criticism directed in these threads against Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular: various justifications or motivations for atheism range from illogicality, paedophilia, being rich, and plain old dislike for having your door knocked on of a Saturday morning.  I’d be pretty foolish to class these responses as representative of atheists as a group.

Jebus Help Us says:

03:15pm | 29/02/12

“That would depend on whether you regard the Adelaide Street Church as an “on the whole” representation of Christianity.  “

A fair enough comment. But funny how it’s not a standard that Christians typically allow applied to Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are moderates who support democracy but are often lumped in with the very few terrorist extremists.

But then what’s Christianity without it’s double standards, help the poor whilst churches sit on huge wealth, save the children whilst in the past (hopefully) covering up abuse by priests etc.

St. Michael says:

04:00pm | 29/02/12

“But then what’s Christianity without it’s double standards, help the poor whilst churches sit on huge wealth, save the children whilst in the past (hopefully) covering up abuse by priests etc.”

Is that an error in Christianity as a belief system, or the sin of particular individuals or groups of individuals that are part of the church?

If you go by the literal word of the New Testament, Jesus was explicit enough about it: give up all that you own, take up your cross and follow me.  And for the first hundred or so years, again going on Acts and the other appendices to the New Testament, it seems that’s how the early Christian communities so behaved.  And even in the medieval period large elements of the Catholic Church lived by that creed: Francis of Assisi was a nobleman’s son and stripped himself quite literally bare at the town’s gates, taking up a life of poverty and service.  The Carthusians and to a lesser extent the Benedictines also had that mode of activity, at least to begin with.

As to huge wealth—that would depend on seeing the full account statements of what goes in and what comes out, which, it’s fair to say, are not easy to obtain.  It’s one thing to have all those statues and paintings in the Vatican, but if they’re mortgaged to the hilt the argument is that the church in question does not actually have that wealth at all.

As to children and paedophile priests: again, this is rather more about individuals than Christianity’s belief system. “Hungry Beast” once did a nice piece of the historical attitude of the church to the issue, and it was quite clear: for the past 1,500-odd years various figures in the Catholic Church, from saints and popes down, abhorred paedophilia and said it should not be tolerated.  Its coverup by high elements in the Catholic Church is as disgusting as you can get (well, if you discount the possibility John Paul I was murdered, but that’s another row to hoe entirely) but why should Christianity as a whole be tarred with that brush? Pretty sure most people reckon politicians at large are a lying, thieving bunch, but does that mean you abandon belief in Parliamentary democracy?

(The Islam thing I’ll leave aside.)

Jebus Help Us says:

06:59pm | 29/02/12

“Is that an error in Christianity as a belief system, or the sin of particular individuals or groups of individuals that are part of the church? “

Do I really need to provide you with a list of prominent Christians and Christian ministers who have come out against all Muslims because of the actions of a vile few? Are you really going to the cherry pick which ones do and don’t represent your faith and at the same time miss the huge irony?

“As to huge wealth—that would depend on seeing the full account statements of what goes in and what comes out, which, it’s fair to say, are not easy to obtain.  It’s one thing to have all those statues and paintings in the Vatican, but if they’re mortgaged to the hilt the argument is that the church in question does not actually have that wealth at all.”

Are you seriously going to pretend that the Vatican is in hock and that’s why they can’t sell of some of the billions they have in art treasures to help the poor? Weasel words and little more.

“As to children and paedophile priests: again, this is rather more about individuals than Christianity’s belief system. “

How is the organisational cover up of child abuse by the church (with most denominations represented) merely an indictment of individuals? When a significant number of individuals from the top down band together to not only protect pedophiles but leave children in harms way this is an indictment of the whole belief system.

A system which puts protecting itself first.

St. Michael says:

10:50am | 01/03/12

Hmm.  Punch gremlins ate my post again.

“Do I really need to provide you with a list of prominent Christians and Christian ministers who have come out against all Muslims because of the actions of a vile few? Are you really going to the cherry pick which ones do and don’t represent your faith and at the same time miss the huge irony?”

I might point out you are cherry picking, or at least threatening to do so.  So yes, I’d call that ironic.  But as I said: one sample does not necessarily reflect the entire substance.  You might want to read my analogy on political parties again, since the answer to your query is the same as I’ve already given.

“Are you seriously going to pretend that the Vatican is in hock and that’s why they can’t sell of some of the billions they have in art treasures to help the poor? Weasel words and little more.”

I’m not pretending.  I don’t know.  I’m simply offering a suggestion.  And unless you have a copy of the Vatican’s account statements, I’d suggest your proposition has no more evidence for it than mine has.  Suppose some or all of those goods are in hock to pay for charitable works: that would pronounce against your conclusion of wealth since there is tremendous debt owed on them and the goods are not held for the personal benefit of a clergyman.  My point is that working with suppositions or generalisations is not amenable to logical debate.  In essence, I query your factual assumptions on this one.  If you have the Vatican’s accounts and can demonstrate how much is held personally by its clergy, and the accounts that demonstrate what the Church’s net finances are, then produce them.  Otherwise you are working with a stereotype, not a reality.

“How is the organisational cover up of child abuse by the church (with most denominations represented) merely an indictment of individuals?”

Because the Catholic Church’s hierarchy is made up of individuals.  It is therefore each individual’s decision to follow an directive or not.  That is why most large organisations, including the church but also corporations, clubs, and governments have great potential for dishonesty: because you can only be in that organisation so long as you are as honest as your own boss.

But again: how does that relate to Christianity as a belief system? I assume by the phrase “Christianity” you are referring to the institutions founded to propagate it, not the belief itself?

Jebus Help Us says:

11:53am | 01/03/12

“I might point out you are cherry picking, or at least threatening to do so.  So yes, I’d call that ironic. But as I said: one sample does not necessarily reflect the entire substance.”

Being deliberately dense might seem like a good debating tactic but it isn’t. We both know I could provide you with a very long list of those who’ve come out against Muslims and are either prominent Christians or Church leaders. But you cannot provide me with the descenting view from as where near as many similarly prominent Christians. You can pretend that the majority view doesn’t mean anything but we both know it does.

“You might want to read my analogy on political parties again, since the answer to your query is the same as I’ve already given.”

That argument fails, we’re not talking about the few but the many.

“I’m not pretending.  I don’t know.  I’m simply offering a suggestion.  And unless you have a copy of the Vatican’s account statements, I’d suggest your proposition has no more evidence for it than mine has.  “

No you’re making shit up, hardly surprising for a Christian but still not a credible argument.

My argument has the only evidence, I’ve of been to the Vatican, I’ve seen many of the art treasures they have on show (and without even speculating on what they have locked away or the billions they own in property etc all around the world) we know that those treasures are worth millions or even billions. So the evidence that the wealth exists is the only fact. Your “suggestion” that they might have these treasures but not actually own them are little more than weasel words. A weak way to pretend that the church isn’t as rich as God and callously sitting on all that cash which could be used to end so much suffering. I hope it salves your conscience to pretend in the face of the evidence, it wont change the fact the church is rich and your blind defence of that is an indictment of you and your faith.

“Because the Catholic Church’s hierarchy is made up of individuals.  It is therefore each individual’s decision to follow an directive or not.  That is why most large organisations, including the church but also corporations, clubs, and governments have great potential for dishonesty: because you can only be in that organisation so long as you are as honest as your own boss. “

If an Australian company had systematically covered up child abuse from the lowest worker to the CEO then that company would now be have been shut down and many of those individuals would now be in prison.

The church as an organisation acted to protect child sex offenders rather than the children being abused this represents the double standards inherit in Christianity, “do as we say, not as we do”. Apparently Christians can cherry pick what is or isn’t Christian behaviour when it suits them but don’t want to apply that same flexible standard to others.

St. Michael says:

02:30pm | 01/03/12

“We both know I could provide you with a very long list of those who’ve come out against Muslims and are either prominent Christians or Church leaders. But you cannot provide me with the descenting view from as where near as many similarly prominent Christians. You can pretend that the majority view doesn’t mean anything but we both know it does.”

I really have no idea who you would propose to put on that list; I don’t really think we’ve achieved common thinking enough to manage telepathy.  My criticism really remains: have you interviewed 51% of the 2.1 billion Christians that make up Christianity?

If not, then, as I said, we are dealing with samples that may not be representative—just as you pointed out that Christianity is apparently not dealing with a representative sample of Islam when it allegedly condemns the entire religion.

“I’ve seen many of the art treasures they have on show (and without even speculating on what they have locked away or the billions they own in property etc all around the world) we know that those treasures are worth millions or even billions.”

Look, I think you’re missing the point: how many of those treasures are sitting as security for loans to support the Catholic Church’s charitable works? If you don’t know, then you can’t accurately assess whether the church is “rich” or not.

From the economic standpoint, which is what I’m trying to get across to you, an asset that has perceived value in fact has no actual value unless you sell it or utilise it.  Hence the discussion about mortgages.

In addition, having them on display and therefore subject to the rigours of time and wear, they’re actually assets that slowly fall in value.  They cost money to maintain them; observe the money spent by the Church to restore the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and the Last Judgment on the far wall.  Same goes for the properties around the world.  The reason they are maintained and not sold off to eliminate the maintenance budget is because many of those treasures also are great artworks, which are held for public view in the Vatican.  That is, many are held for the public good, just as most museums with millions of dollars’ worth of assets exist and have their assets held for the public good.

If we took your argument to its logical conclusion, the works held by the British National Gallery, the Smithsonian Institute, and the materials held by the Australian War Memorial ought all be sold off to pay for welfare to the poor.  Do I have you right on this?

“A weak way to pretend that the church isn’t as rich as God and callously sitting on all that cash which could be used to end so much suffering.”

Rich is an economic definition.  You can have massive assets which you can leverage.  If you do, you are probably not rich because the asset’s value is mortgaged to provide a cash stream for other works.  As we’ve seen with a lot of property spruikers, if you own a million dollar mansion on which you owe $999,000 and you have trouble paying for it or can’t pay for it, you are not rich.  Again, you are descending to stereotypes.  I can forgive you that, since it’s a human error.  But until you have the Vatican’s bank statements, we have no common frame of reference to discuss that subject since we are not dealing with the unknowable as with the disucssion on atheism versus theism—we are dealing with an objective measure.

“If an Australian company had systematically covered up child abuse from the lowest worker to the CEO then that company would now be have been shut down and many of those individuals would now be in prison.”

Would it?
There’s an inquiry going on in Perth at the moment where its said Denis McKenna, one of WA’s worst child rapists, managed to get away with child abuse at a WA government-run hostel for youth at Katanning for decades, largely due to people athe ground level being intimidated into silence and wilful blindness in government right up to and including a WA member of Parliament.  Nobody but McKenna has ever gone to jail over that, and then only because one of his victims was courageous enough to speak up.  The present inquiry is on to find out who in WA government knew and why it was allowed to go on for so long.  Not a clergyman in sight.

In passing, I’m sorry you feel so angry about this that you have to resort to ad hominem insults and profanity to get your point across.