Atheists can do better than saying believers are stupid

Pete says:

07:28am | 16/03/10

dunno Eric, from personal experience I think evangelical Christians are far worse….

Tom says:

08:43am | 16/03/10

Placing reliance on God for running our country is a lot smarter than those who place it on Cate Blanchett.

Seano says:

09:04am | 16/03/10

So Tom you’re saying Kevin Rudd is God?

Muttley says:

09:20am | 16/03/10

Tom, i disagree. At least we know Cate Blanchett exists….

M B Andrews says:

10:35am | 16/03/10

Muttley, does Cate Blanchett really exist? I think we need to be more skeptical.

Muttley says:

10:53am | 16/03/10

M B Andrews, fair point. But i believe the conspiracy goes deeper. Has anyone ever seen Cate with Nicole Kidman? I believe they are the same person. I have strong suspicions that they are both infact Guy Pearce.

Tom says:

07:35pm | 16/03/10

Seano, not exactly, ... but if you believe Kevin Rud is God, you might just crack a gig with the ABC or Fairfax.

Seano says:

06:47am | 17/03/10

Tom. I don’t believe Kevin Rudd is gone, I also don’t believe Cate Blanchett is running the country. But then I’m not stupid…

dave says:

12:06pm | 16/03/10

Tracey, interesting that your title is “Atheists can do better than saying believers are stupid”.  Introduce your article by stating “to denigrate those who gain succour from their faith is, at best, patronising and, at worst, counter productive.” But then, you proceed to ridicule believers yourself, using popular epithets such as “God-botherers”, “Captain Catholic”, etc, and perpetuate mythical perjoratives quite unrelated to Australia but carrying an appropriately negative connotation with which to brand believers (“Bible belt”).

Hypocrisy… thy name is Tracey Spicer.

Gavin says:

02:38pm | 16/03/10

“God-botherers” and “Captain Catholic”, etc, are terms to describe the evangelistic impositors, like Abbott and others who pontificate and insist all others take their brand of faith as truth. These terms obviously did not refer to people who believe and are of faith, as a whole. Just the self-righteous noise makers. As someone who believes, I don’t take offence to those comments as they do not apply to me.

dave says:

05:10pm | 16/03/10

Fair point Gavin. Though I imagine you’d agree that Tracey’s article - given the title and apparent object - would have been better served if she’d not stooped to using such… colloquialisms… herself.

M says:

07:52am | 16/03/10

no but i’d say that one calling her bitter and hateful (and then saying she’s ruining her children) would be up there

Matt Stewart says:

12:06pm | 16/03/10

I’m offended by people praying for my soul.  I believe there is no such thing as a soul, so praying for mine belittles my beliefs.

James1 says:

09:19am | 16/03/10

As an adjunct to that point, anyone who only has morals because if they did not they would go to hell has no morals at all.  Atheists do not need to be coerced into behaving morally, and do it simply because it is the moral thing to do.

Alyssa KT says:

09:22am | 16/03/10

I once had a conversation with another woman co-worker, in which I mentioned that I didn’t believe in hell. She was shocked beyond belief.
She said “But what makes you such a good person then?!”
That, in turn, shocked me!
I replied “Because I have a strong conscience, I enjoy being a good person, and I wish to leave my (future) children a legacy they can be proud of.”

That was an enlightening moment for me; if some people need to believe in heaven and hell to encourage them to make the right decisions, then I am happy to leave them be.
Do I respect them as much as I would someone who is good without the threat of hell? No.

DG says:

09:42am | 16/03/10

Alyssa KT:

That point has been made many times over and is worth repeating again and again - it is scary how many people claim that the only reason that they aren’t out killing people, raping children and generally behaving an an abhorrent manner is because they fear God.

For that reason, and that reason alone, religion serves a purpose. It gives a conscience to all of those people who don’t have one of their own.

the apologist says:

10:01am | 16/03/10

There’s a difference between ridiculing athiests for their moral beliefs, and asking them to justify them. I don’t doubt that athiests can and do act ethically. The question I would put to an athiest is this: how can you justify the existence of ethics based upon your world view? I don’t think they can.

Muttley says:

10:24am | 16/03/10

Apologist, quite simple really. We have ethics and a moral centre, not because some outside entity tells us it should be, but because within ourselves we know this is the right thing to do.

Dani says:

10:51am | 16/03/10

“within ourselves we know this is the right thing to do”—sounds about as mystical as religion to me.

DG says:

11:06am | 16/03/10

the apologist:

Self interest - I’m nice to others in the hope that they are nice to me.

Compassion - I want other people to be happy, just because I happen to want people to be happy.

Empathy - I know things make me feel miserable, I wouldn’t wish it on many people.

I could go on… My motives for various things are varied however one thing remains constant - I never consider my behaviour in the light of God’s plan. I do sometimes change my philosophy in light of my readings in other areas where an idea grabs my attention.

James1 says:

11:10am | 16/03/10

Dani,

Are you saying you would behave differently if there was no bible or threat of hell?  If so, that does not sound very ethical to me.

Muttley says:

11:38am | 16/03/10

Dani, if you cannot understand a sense of right and wrong can come from within an individual and not be formed by outside forces then you do indeed have a long way to go. Mystical? No Dani. Its called a moral compass and it has absolutely zero to do with hymms, chants and donations. The thing i find truly scary is that the flip side of your argument is that followers of religions only act in a decent manner because their chosen doctrine proclaims it so. Is this truly your position or are you just trying to be argumentative?

the apologist says:

11:47am | 16/03/10

My question remains unanswered. How can you justify/explain the existence of morals?

@Muttley:
I already admitted that you have ethics, my question was how can you justify them or explain them? And if a ‘moral centre’ is your answer, please define what that is exactly.
@DG:
That’s pretty hazy, and it doesn’t explain anything. It just describes what you feel and think. Where did your ethics come from? How can you justify their existence?

AdamC says:

11:55am | 16/03/10

@the apologist, you are talking about the difference between personal dogma and religious dogma. I can dogmatically assert my moral beliefes or I can jazz it up with an appeal to a higher power or His word. Either way, it is just dogma. Oddly enough, it seems to get uglier when the parties to the argument both believe in the higher power (or don’t).

the apologist says:

12:09pm | 16/03/10

@Adam C:
No i’m not. I’m talking about how you can explain the existence of ethics.
On reading your response, and the two options that you outline, all you’ve got to explain your ethics is a dogmatic assertion. Why should I listen to your moral opinion if the only answer you’ll give is that it’s your dogmatic opinion?
I’m not having a go, i’m just asking the question. Look at your ethics/motives behind your actions, think about how they got there, and then let me know if you think you can justify them (individually) or their existence.

Muttley says:

12:15pm | 16/03/10

Apologist, now that i have to put it into specific words, its a hard thing to define but i’ll have a crack at it. I suppose it comes from life experiences and the moral values of our parents that we observe as we grow. This forms the base that you build on as you get older and have your own experiences. You fine tune the parameters throughout your life as what the line between what is acceptable and what is not changes. But personally, mine comes from a strong belief that everyone has the right to have a life , and everyone should be respected. I am an athiest, but i respect others choices to believe as they see fit. If someone wants to worship a koala, who am i to say they shouldnt?  Just dont try to make me worship it.

Matt Stewart says:

12:17pm | 16/03/10

The apologist.

Good question, glad you asked it.  You don’t seem to agree, but I think DG has given a pretty good answer.  I have another.  My sense of what is right and wrong is a basically a set of survival instructions for my genotype.  I do things that contribute to a society that is advantageous to my survival, and the survival of my genes.

I also have high conflict avoidance as a personality trait.

the apologist says:

12:36pm | 16/03/10

@Muttley:
2 questions:
Why does everyone have the right to life? It’s one thing to believe it strongly, it’s another to justify it.
Would it be fair to say that your morals are a conceptual construct based on your own thought processes and experiences?
@Matt:
DG gave a good description of his perceptions, but he didn’t answer the question.
Re. your answer: your ethics are ultimately biologically induced? Well, that doesn’t really give me a reason to follow them (if that’s all they are in me too). They might be strong, they might feel powerful, but really, it doesn’t matter if I obey them or not. From your perspective.

Matt Stewart says:

12:45pm | 16/03/10

Apologist

I never claimed that they matter

Matt Stewart says:

01:05pm | 16/03/10

Actually it’s kind of a bizarre question.  You accept that there are atheists with morals, and I’m sure you accept that there are religious people who are quite lacking in that department, but you demand that atheists justify their moral behaviour.  What if we can’t?  Do we have to become evil?  And what about christians who do immoral things, do I have the right to demand that they explain themselves to me, some random guy on the internet?  Are catholic adulterers answerable to me because I’m an atheist?  I withdraw my answer.  I do not have to justify behaving morally to anyone, particularly random people on the internet.

Muttley says:

01:11pm | 16/03/10

Apologist,  Why does everyone have a right to have a life? You arent seriously asking me to explain that are you? Cmon. And yeah, i suppose you could define it as a conceptual construct of my own thought processes and experiences.
Question for you, so you will follow, without question, the tenets of your religion?

I_Exist says:

02:17pm | 16/03/10

for you apologist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

It is not my (or the other posters) job to make sure you have read enough background information to participate in a debate.

To the rest of you let this be a warning.  When having this sort of debate make sure that you do not keep going further down the rabbit hole.  The onus was on apologist to prove that morals come from god.  I have yet to encounter any gods, however I run into morals and ethics every day.  Also morals and ethics are not fixed and will vary between people anyway (one would assume because there are multiple gods to facilitate these different sets of ethics if ethics and morality are derived from religion?).

If you have an imaginary friend or an obsession with only one text then the onus is on you to keep it to your self.

the apologist says:

02:50pm | 16/03/10

@Matt:
So if they don’t matter, logically, it shouldn’t matter if I behave unethically. You might feel a strong revulsion at (for e.g.) my propensity for killing kids but you can’t actually tell me it’s wrong. You can only tell me it’s against your own particular biological makeup. The answer then being: so what?
Let me attempt to shed a little light on my ‘bizarre’ line of reasoning/questioning here. Yep, I accept that atheists have morals, from my worldview, all people have a God-given conscience (the foundation of ethical conviction and behaviour). But I don’t think that atheists can satisfactorily account for and explain the existence of morals. You mistake me, I wasn’t demanding atheists to justify their moral behaviour, and I certainly wasn’t asking you to. I’m not your judge. I was simply asking you to rationally and logically explain the existence of morals from their worldview (not demand and accounting because your answerable to me – you’re not, clearly) – nothing more.
As above, my real point here is to highlight that: based on your worldview, there’s no such thing as right and wrong, there’s only what is right in each persons eyes – and nobody has any right or logical reason to tell someone anything else is right or wrong no matter what it is they are doing. It makes a mockery of justice, it makes a mockery of the concept of morals and ethical behaviour. You might not have those views on ethics, but if you don’t, logically speaking you’re being inconsistent with your atheistic position. I’m just trying to get you thinking mate, not attack you.
@Muttley:
Yeah, I’m seriously asking you that question. Don’t get me wrong, I certainly believe in the value of life, but from my worldview, I can actually give you a reason why. Where’s yours?
If it’s just another conceptual construct of your own mind, there’s no reason I or anyone else should take it on board – or your ethics for that matter. As I argued above with Matt, you can’t actually tell anyone that something they’re doing is wrong. Technically speaking, there’s no such thing as right or wrong – only what different people think are right and wrong. As I also argued, it makes a mockery of justice, and it makes a mockery of the concept of morals and ethical behaviour.
Regarding your question to me: 1. define religion, 2. the tenets depend how you define religion, 3. The only thing I don’t question is the authority of the Bible as the revelation of Almighty God. My interpretation and understanding of it? Sure, I’m all too happy to have that questioned, and the interpretation of anyone else too.

the apologist says:

03:04pm | 16/03/10

@I_exist:
You need to read what I was actually saying. I wasn’t putting forward a positive argument for morals (until just my last post – which came after your one). That is a separate discussion from what this one has been. The only thing I had done up until your post was ask questions. Have a read, you’ll notice it.
Exploring the concept of morals (which athiests and Christians both agree exist) is not necessarily the same as exploring the concept of God. Pull your head out of the sand.
I am familiar with the evolutionary explanation of ethics (which is broadly consistent with some of the comments from atheists above).
If you actually want to start exploring my understanding of ethics (instead of telling me I have to justify my position before I’ve even said it), I’m happy to oblige.

Matt Stewart says:

03:07pm | 16/03/10

The apologist TL;DR

But thanks for taking the time.

Matt Stewart says:

03:24pm | 16/03/10

Okay, went back and read it, it’s only fair.  Sorry if I misinterpreted your invitation to debate as a demand for accountability.  I certainly don’t interpret your recent comments as an attack. 

Firstly, no need to ‘get me thinking’, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this over many years.  Secondly, you’re largely right.  I don’t think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ matter in an absolute sense.  I genuinely have absolutely no understanding of what morals are, and no one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain it to me.  They make no sense to me.  I do know that most people see me as moral and that I didn’t get that from religion.  I only understand ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in a subjective sense, specifically if there is a goal in mind.  Eg, I want to live longer, so I don’t support killing either through action, or inaction.  I want to keep my stuff, so I don’t steal, and I oppose other people doing it.  I only have ‘morals’, whatever they are, because I have certain goals and my morals are consistent with my goals.

Strangely, through this incredibly selfish approach, I am considered a moral person.  Having read the bible, I consider it to be an incredbily immoral book.  That’s as genuine as I can possibly be.

Muttley says:

03:24pm | 16/03/10

Apologist, you astound me. In answer to you, my position of respecting other people is based on the fact i believe it to be right. Thats a decision i have made. i’ve looked at what is in front of me and made a decision of what i feel is right based on that.You? Seem to be saying that you live that way, not because you believe the idea to be right, but because you have been told it is right.  Your reason to respect people is that the religion tells you to? And the question i asked you was “will you follow the teachings of your chosen religion without question? ” You did not answer. Also, i am not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. So i dont particularly care if you agree or not. Discussion and conversion are two different things. And no right or wrong?Where the hell did you get that garbage. Of course there is right and wrong. Religious fervour is not the only place to get a sense of right and wrong. And it is the height of arrogance to claim that there is no sense of it from my perspective.  There is just so much i would love to discuss with you but i honestly dont think any of it would actually sink in. I’ve wasted enough time with this circular argument. I’m off to find a better use of my time. Kudos for at least having the good manners to keep it civil. Best of luck Apologist.

chris says:

07:05pm | 16/03/10

Steven Fielding was set up by an anti-God, anti-family, anti-community
ABC (as usual with these things). As for the Atheists here who believe in evolution and other fanciful ideas, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Dawkins never debates Scientists on creation, he refuses to, and did again prior to the Atheist conference. He always picks an easy target and Q and A obligingly played his game by setting him up against Fielding.

Go Apologist! Although I’m afraid I think you’re wasting your time with some people. Don’t go down to their abusive level though mate.Very sad for them, eternally sad.

Finally,  ABC… let’s see a real debate, Dawkins V Dr. Jonathan Sarfati live. Of course they will never do it, oops Aunty…I think your group think is showing again!

I_Exist says:

07:16pm | 16/03/10

Apologist.
Mate you are see-through.  Anyone could tell from your first post that you were (eventualy) going to state that you believe that morals and ethics are related to religion. 

That your post came after my response shows nothing except that you thought you had kept your real opinion hidden.

Your initial post contained the text “how can you justify the existence of ethics based upon your world view”.  I thought that giving you the link would give you the answer/expaination:  some atheists believe in evolutionary concepts.

So you need to read what you are typing.  Stop moving the goal posts.
And please keep your almighty god(s) to yourself.

Shaun says:

07:22pm | 16/03/10

Oh I see what’s happening here.

Give up now folks.

No matter how much evidence you give to the apologist that can have morals without a god, the evidence will never be enough.

It’s how people like this play the game.

DG says:

12:49pm | 17/03/10

The apologist:

I agree that there is no universal “right and wrong”, surely if there were there would be no need for courts or laws - because we would all know right from wrong at the outset. I certainly don’t think that this is the case - there are plenty of people who do things that are “wrong” by societal standards, but clearly they think their behaviour is fine other wise they wouldn’t behave that way.

I believe that we, as a community, have developed a series of rules and we have imposed punishments for things where we have decided that the natural “cause and effect” consequences are insufficient. We also use the threat of punishment to force people to wear protective gear where the potential consequences are severe.

No one person has the right to tell any other person what to do. For that reason we form communities and elect people to make the rules. I’m nor sure how that makes a mockery of Justice. To me that is perfect justice, a person faces the consequences that the community has decided apply to certain behaviour.

Your definition of right and wrong is based on a book, and is based on the existence of a God for which you have no evidence other than said book.

Is there any place where your personal idea of right is different to the word of god (either as written in the holy book or as spoken by the Pope)?

the apologist says:

07:50pm | 17/03/10

@Matt:
Cool. I really appreciate your genuine comment, and I respect your right to keep your position until you decide otherwise otherwise. But I’d still like to challenge it ? I guess my big problem with the implication that morals and right and wrong don’t matter is that it means, logically speaking, horrifically wrong acts actually don’t matter, and also that there will never be justice. From that perspective, Hitler (for example) really didn’t do anything wrong. I think absolute moral values exist (which is one of the reasons everyone just knows from their God-given conscience that Hitler did the wrong thing), but I don’t think it’s possible for absolute and objective morals to exist unless they were established a priori to human existence, that God established them. That’s my take on it anyway. It’s your business of course, but if I didn’t understand something that is one of the primary motivators for my conduct and a driver for my life (as you said you don’t), I’d want to do more thinking! I think the Bible can seem immoral if parts are taken out of the unified context of the whole.

the apologist says:

07:55pm | 17/03/10

@Muttley:
So just to make it absolutely clear – the only reason that you think people have a right to life is because you feel it’s right? If that’s the case, it’s hardly establishes that they do, only that you think they do. But you presume my position when you ask: “You? Seem to be saying that you live that way, not because you believe the idea to be right, but because you have been told it is right”. I haven’t really put forward my position (and it’s certainly not as you’ve posed it), I’ve only attempted to question yours in a way that brings it to its logical conclusion.
Yeah, of course I didn’t answer your question. That was quite obvious. I asked you to further define it. I’m more than happy to answer it of course if you’d care to further define your already heavily-qualified question.
You said: “And it is the height of arrogance to claim that there is no sense of it from my perspective”. Your not getting what I’m saying. I admitted at the outset that plenty of athiests have morals and a sense of morals and are fully capable of exercising decent moral behaviour. What I’m saying is that from an atheistic worldview you can’t satisfactorily explain the legitimacy or universal applicability of ethics as a concept. To illustrate, it’s the difference between using a ladder, and explaining how the ladder got there. I think that the atheist worldview runs into serious problems with explaining the ladder (so to speak), and even an explanation that is given has terrible implications. I agree with you that there are right and wrong (the ladder), but would argue that from the atheistic perspective, right and wrong don’t exist except as concepts people make up - right and wrong do not exist in an objective sense. This is what I meant when I said that there is no true right and wrong from your perspective. I believe that the implications of that are horrific. I think many atheists are inconsistent with their position in their views of ethics, and have not thought through the implications of their presupposition and its implication for ethics.
Well, you said you’d love to keep talking with me, and you also said you don’t care to convert me, so it shouldn’t matter if it doesn’t sink in should it? I’d be happy to set up a fake email account and discuss things further. I think we’ve been extremely limited in our ability to explore one another’s understanding here. Likewise, I appreciate your civil manner. All the best.

the apologist says:

07:59pm | 17/03/10

@Chris: Thanks for the encouragement bro. Good point, I was probably a bit short fused with I_Exist. Perhaps I’m wasting my time, but I can’t know that.

@I_Exist: In your perception, you might have a view on what my position was, and I freely admit that I’m not trying try to hide my position (which you accuse me of - why would I do that?). The point was that I was discussing and questioning the positions of others in the discussion, not asserting my own. There was a difference between talking about my opinion, and questioning the opinion of others. Of course my questions were informed by my opinion (which you of course perceived), everyone works that way. But your initial accusation asserted that we were talking about my position, and you presumed what my position was – which you should have asked me for before critiquing. As I said, I’m more than happy for you to question my view as I have been doing to others, but don’t put words into my mouth please. Ask, listen, comment.
Quoting me and commenting you said: “how can you justify the existence of ethics based upon your world view”.  I thought that giving you the link would give you the answer/explanation:  some atheists believe in evolutionary concepts.” My purpose in discussing the position was not to get the answer (which I am aware of), it was to ultimately illustrate and challenge the logical conclusion of the answer (which I think has horrific implications).
I haven’t moved my goal posts, you just didn’t see them in the first place. But as Chris said, I was a bit short with you before by telling you to pull your head out of the sand. My apologies.
He’s everyone’s God, whether they realise it or not – and I’m not gonna compromise that. If you don’t like the message, then stop listening to me and stop replying to me.

@Shaun: What is it with people telling others what I think on this post while bypassing me? And with due respect, I don’t think the pursuit of truth is a game – it matters. I’m not here to argue something I don’t believe to be true just for the fun of a good ol debate. As far as I’m concerned, this is one of the most important things there is.

@DG:
I got to pull you up on your very first assertion before granting any more. Why would we all know what is right and wrong if there is a universally existing right (and wrong, consequently)? I don’t see the logical connection. I would have thought if there was a right and wrong that existed objectively of us, we would actually need to find it out, not have intrinsic knowledge of it.
You agree that there are no universal right and wrong (only each persons opinion). Why then should I conduct myself ‘rightly’? How can you tell a murderer that he is wrong – based upon your position? (I’m only trying to illustrate the implications here, not express my opinion – I am 100% convinced murder is wrong of course, as I trust you are).

Because of collective agreement and authority you say? - which is what you’re centrally arguing here I think – please clarify if I am incorrect.
That then begs the question(s): Why should we follow the societal inventions of what is right and wrong? What right does a society/community have to decide what’s right and wrong and then impose it on everyone? Executing justice according to their own standards?

Your point on my believing it makes a mockery of justice? Two reasons that I see immediately. The perspective makes a mockery of justice because justice is left undone regularly; and ultimately because any execution of justice is reduced to the tyranny of one person’s (or community’s) views over that of another person or community’s views.

Please don’t accuse me of what my definition of right and wrong is based on without asking me what I think it’s based on first. But given that you bring up my perspective, I actually think right and wrong is based on the character of God. There is none good but God (as Jesus said). Good/right is defined by who God is. What is wrong is everything that is opposite to what He is. The Bible is God’s own revelation of Himself. So, to answer your last question, I certainly don’t put any weight on the pope’s opinion (except as it aligns with God’s word), and I don’t think that there is any place where right is different from who God is, although there are parts of the Bible that are not specifically talking about God and consequently what is right. There are a number of narratives discussed in light of who God is, but the Bible itself is much, much deeper than an exposition of what is right and wrong/moral standards.

Michael says:

03:03pm | 16/03/10

That outlook has been tried in the past, but it doesn’t wash with enough people, hence the survival of religion and the birth of new ones. Atheism isn’t the key to all reason and rationality, it’s just a school of thought you and others have, which you are quite entitled to. I won’t debate this because you obviously hold your opinions dear (hence your attendance at the conference), however your intellectual arrogance and know-it-allism are a designed to diminish other valid beliefs and opinions.

Theologians through history have and do comprise of some of the most brightest, educated and highest order of thinkers and scholars. For all I know you maybe equal to them or greater. But their ideologies are no more truer to you than your self-categorised “Atheism is the only truth - the rest are all delusions” ideology is to believers.

I daresay there are some people out there who view your opinions with as much scorn and comtempt and ridicule as you do theirs.

AdamC says:

09:08am | 16/03/10

Wow, Kirk, it is ridiculous attitudes like yours which mean that, while I don’t really believe in God, I would never describe myself as an atheist. The fact is, your comment merely demonstrates, as well as your obvious narrow-mindedness, an inability to engage with the spiritual at all. This attitude – fear, as I see it – towards faith and religion is ugly and totally unedifying. It also reinforces the view I have held for a while that, when you scratch away the superficialities of ‘reason’ and ‘humanism’, atheists are just another bunch of sectarian bigots.

It actually makes me quite happy to think that, when the western civilisation which incubated attitudes like yours (along with many other actually positive things, I hasten to add) has withered and died, there will still be people worshipping spiritual deities. And there is nothing you, Dawkins, Hitchens or anybody else can do about it!

Muttley says:

09:33am | 16/03/10

Adam C, where is the attitude? I would agree with the comments.How can you have a logical debate with anyone whose position is based on faith and not evidence?  And Athiests as bigots? Yeah, there probably are extremists in the mix. Every group contains loons to some degree (just look at how many argue the religious point of view). No need to throw out all athiest arguments just because of a minority. And if you want bigotry, look at the churchs. They specialise in it.

the apologist says:

09:53am | 16/03/10

I think your analogy of the ‘slow kid’ is inaccurate Kirk (not to mention the height of arrogance & ignorance). Given that there are numerous, intelligent, PhD carrying (and scientifically employed in the secular arena..) creationists - I think the argument and discussion surrounding the issues of atheism and belief are much more complex and operate on a number of levels. Any atheist who thinks they are basing their opinion and worldview on a pure factual analysis is kidding themselves. We all have presupositions that inevitably impact the way we view the world, and the way we view the facts - whether acknowledged or not.

Muttley says:

10:10am | 16/03/10

Actually Apologist, i feel the “slow kid” analogy is appropriate. Thats the way it feels when discussing the topic with a believer. They rigidly cling to their beliefsn(which is fine) , regardless of logic or proof( or lack thereof). Talking to the intellectually challenged IS the way it FEELS. Thats not to say there arent very intelligent people with religious beliefs, but from the other side of the fence, it is difficult to reconcile a man of science believing the world is less than 10,000 years old.

the apologist says:

11:51am | 16/03/10

@Muttley:
But that’s my point: there are perfectly sane, intelligent, rational (‘non-slow’) people believing in what you percieve as insane nonsense, doesn’t that make you stop to think there is a possibility that there’s something you might not be apprehending?
It may be difficult to reconcile a man of science believing the world is less than 10,000 years old in your mind, but surely there is an immensely powerful reason for that being the case (BTW I don’t necessarily think that science contradicts the Bible, but that is another discussion for another day perhaps).
I can certainly see and understand why an evolutionist may think me to be ‘slow’ because my worldview is not solely reliant upon empirical process, but from my perspective, talking to athiests about God is like trying to describe colour to a man blind from birth.

Muttley says:

12:19pm | 16/03/10

Apologist, fair point. From the other side of the fence the reasons can appear disjointed and illogical. But that is bound to happen when trying to bring science into a debate that is based on belief.  We are never going to completely understand each others arguments, but thats no reason a civil discussion cannot be had.

Matt Stewart says:

12:21pm | 16/03/10

As an atheist, I want to distance myself from Kirk’s comments.  That said, as an atheist, I appreciate the irony of his pseudonym

Kirk Cameron says:

12:45pm | 16/03/10

Most of you defending religion or spirituality prove why there is little point arguing with you.

No matter how much empirical evidence is amassed against your beliefs you still doggedly push the same barrow and argue that those of us who read the research and understand it “just don’t understand your point of view”. We do, we’re just intelligent enough to figure out that it is false.

But AdamC, I am with you, our society is on a path to creating it’s own Armageddon, not one brought about by God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but ourselves and our inability to deal with the real world around us.

The slow kids have held us back and now we are going to fall in a heap as a result. But it’ll be fun living in the idiocracy.

the apologist says:

03:56pm | 16/03/10

@Muttley:
Completely agree on your point on civil discussion. WIsh Kirk wasn’t so hard headed on that point though…
@Kirk: don’t suppose you’ve ever watched ‘Way of the Master?’

TC says:

09:58pm | 16/03/10

Exactly how is atheism proved correct Kirk? The apparent absence of evidence for a God is not proof of anything.

Im no research scholar but it seems just as moronic to deny the existence of something on the basis of lack of proof.

TC says:

10:08pm | 16/03/10

Kirk. I havent seen anyone here defending religion. The majority appear to be tactfully calling you an idiot

Harquebus says:

12:03pm | 17/03/10

The early morning evangelicals are the best comedy act around.

James1 says:

09:23am | 16/03/10

I imagine that is how most atheists feel - it is certainly how I feel.  I feel no need to proselytise my atheism, and I am very happy to keep it to myself (I don’t even try to push my daughter in any direction, and I hope that she can work out what she believes for herself without the interference of pushy parents), and ignore religion wherever I find it.

the apologist says:

09:47am | 16/03/10

adjustment - I meant to say:
athiesm is not in fact putting forward a message in the positive sense

the apologist says:

09:54am | 16/03/10

@James:
I would be interested to know James if you have looked into any religion for yourself that you base your rejection on? Just curious.

James1 says:

10:05am | 16/03/10

the apologist,

I was raised a Catholic.  I have studied comparative religion, and I understand the basis of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Scientology quite well.  I have studied ancient Greek and Roman religion.  I have also studied evolution and natural selection.  I came to my conclusions independently and after intense introspection.  That is why I refuse to push my atheism on my child, because I want her to go through the same process, and reach the conclusion that suits her.

the apologist says:

12:03pm | 16/03/10

@James1:
Couple of questions - and if you can’t be bothered responding/don’t want to, that’s fine.

If you don’t believe in God (based on your journey), why would you want to subject your kid to something that’s wrong? (from your perspective).  Although I suppose that would tie in with why you think there’s no God - would you care to answer that one?
Also: you say that you understand the basis of Christianity (i’m a follower of Jesus), did you percieve a difference within Christianity on understanding? (i suppose one of the biggest is Catholicism and Protestantism, although Liberal and Reformed perspectives are probably bigger differences in my opinion).
Thanks for your comment.

James1 says:

12:16pm | 16/03/10

the apologist,

Always happy to respond, time allowing.

My reason for allowing my daughter to be exposed to something I think is incorrect (as opposed to wrong), is that I oppose religious indoctrination, as it attempts to rob people of going through the process of deciding for themselves what they believe.  If I were to indoctrinate my daughter, and not allow her to be exposed to beliefs that are contrary to mine and my partner’s, that would make me no better than those who do the same in the name of the religion.  For me, it is an ethical choice, in that it is unethical of me to decide for my child what she will be exposed to in terms of religious belief (or not).  I hope that makes sense.

I do see a difference between (particularly) Catholicism and Protestantism, and the claims they make about understanding and truth, but at base they claim things which are incompatible with my broader world view (that, when making laws and forming societies, we should not rely on supernatural matters to guide us), and thus the differences matter far less than do the similarities.  I would say much the same of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and any other religion anyone cares to mention.

the apologist says:

04:08pm | 16/03/10

James,
Fair point on the ‘wrong’ ‘incorrect’ paradigm. It makes sense.
That said, I wouldn’t agree with it. I think it would be safe to say I was indoctrinated in Christian thought throughout childhood – but owning it for myself was another (and challenging) matter. I don’t think there’s a neutral perspective, if I don’t teach my own kids – someone else will, and probably from an anti-theistic perspective. I suppose it’s different in my case too given my conviction on the truth of Jesus.
I think Protestant Christianity would argue that there is no separation between supernatural and natural (in that God created all).
Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing.

Adam says:

09:47am | 16/03/10

Although its just as pertinent to the other thread John, we get the politicians we deserve

the apologist says:

09:56am | 16/03/10

I think your assessment is a negative re. Dawkins, and a positive re. Fielding.

David says:

01:22pm | 16/03/10

I agree SM. The astounding feature of Fielding’s performance on Q&A was his apparent shame for his beliefs, he seemed as though he didn’t want to be honest or upfront about his position.

Now you could say he knew he would be ridiculed but surely this is nothing new and why believe it if you lack the capacity to defend it? Surely someone intelligent enough to be worthy of representing voters at a Federal level should be able to defend his position the earth is no older than 10,000 years while the overwhelming geological and astronomical evidence suggests well over 3 billion years. A substantial variation of opinion.

David says:

08:33am | 16/03/10

I agree, Luke.

The other similarity, in my view, is that atheists cannot prove (ie, in accordance with rational scientific principles) that atheism is true, any more than Christians, or other believers, can prove that God is true.

For instance, I’ve never heard any atheist rationally explain the beginning of existence.  I can’t prove that God created existence, but it doesn’t stop me believing in God; atheists can’t prove that God didn’t create existence, but it doesn’t stop them denigrating God.  Nil all, I’d say.

As for Tracey, after using the words “God-botherers”, “fantastical fairytale” and “religious nuts”, you’re hardly practising what you preach.  The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.  Your arrogance might not be as crude as Dawkins, but it’s there all the same.

Me says:

08:39am | 16/03/10

Calling any mass movement with lots of followers a “religion” doesn’t make it so, especially a mass movement which refutes the very notion of deities existing. You might as well call The Democratic and Republican parties “religions”.

To be a religion you need to have a deity. It doesn’t actually mean anything to call atheism a religion, because it;s not one.

Me says:

09:09am | 16/03/10

Of course David, you can’t disprove the existence of God, but because you can’t disprove something, that isn’t a reason to believe in it. You may have heard of the teapot analogy. It is impossible to disprove that there is a teapot in orbit around a distant sun, but because we can’t disprove that, you wouldn’t believe that there was a teapot in orbit around a distant sun would you?

To believe in something that can neither be proven nor disprove is characteristic of a madman. Therefore I must conclude that the majority of the world’s populace are mad.

David says:

10:03am | 16/03/10

Thanks, Me.

I thought I only had God to believe in.

Now I can believe in teapots too.

Your analogy is weak.  You misunderstood my point.

I don’t believe in God BECAUSE his exitstence can’t be proven; I believe in God IN SPITE of the fact his existence can’t be proven.

Matt Stewart says:

12:09pm | 16/03/10

But David, why do you choose THAT god to believe in, above all the other gods whose existence also cannot be proven.  I’m not trying to be a jerk, I really want to understand.

Lee from WA says:

04:24pm | 16/03/10

Me: Buddhism has no deity. Is it a religion?

Luke says:

10:02pm | 16/03/10

Hahaha, it’s funny Me, the way some people go on around here I reckon you could refer to most political parties as a form of religion. Deity in my opinion is optional, think Scientology, Budhism etc.., they would be referred to as Religions but don’t necessarily have a deity so to speak.
Anyway, the whole thing gets a little tiring, I really don’t care what anyone else believes, I know what i believe and I am content with that. I don’t have any reason to go and convince everybody else that I’m ‘right’ in my beliefs and that they’re wrong because that would be impossible. I find it odd that some people feel compelled to do just that…

I_Exist says:

09:53am | 16/03/10

Hey mate
Dawkins did have a chat with Father Bob on Sunday night Safran (can download the podcast @ abc’s website.

Brian says:

10:49am | 16/03/10

It’s be a lot easier for atheists to ‘live and let live’ if there were no religious proselytisers constantly trying to impose their beliefs on everyone affected by public policy and law.

I find it hilarious that atheists are called ‘rude’ for their failure to kowtow toward and accommodate those who find it of utmost import to run everyone’s lives because they think there’s an all-knowing, all-powerful sky-daddy.

Chris says:

08:27pm | 16/03/10

“I actually don’t think Dawkins and atheists in general are really all that interested in spreading atheism to the entire global populace”

“What they are interested in doing is getting the thinkers and intelligent people of the world on side”

I’m confused. Is he or isn’t he interested in spreading atheism? These two statement seem to contradict eachother.

the apologist says:

12:10pm | 16/03/10

I presume you’re attacking Christianity. The god you’re describing is not the God of the Bible. Do your homework before you attack. You might not believe in God, but the least you can do is try and get an accurate perception of what others percieve Him to be.

Matt Stewart says:

12:27pm | 16/03/10

Oh, you know the consensus view of all christians?  Now who is being arrogant?  Clem’s view of the christian god seems pretty consistent with the bibles I have read, and the god of some of my christian acquaintances (though not all)

MelD says:

01:55pm | 16/03/10

Clem, one of the many gifts ‘God’ gave us was free will, we can choose not to believe in him, the writings of God were interpreted by man from a long dead language that they think they got it right, I am Agnostic so not really bothered by either argument, as long as people don’t try to change my mind or push their beliefs on me.

Has anyone seem the movie Dogma? yes it pokes fun at religion but it also makes some good points and way’s of looking at things;

“He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it. “

“I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can’t generate. Life becomes stagnant”

Just a thought

the apologist says:

04:02pm | 16/03/10

@Matt: No, I certainly don’t claim that. But I do make my claims in defence of the Bible, which is unquestionably the foundational text of Christianity. I’m happy to back up my claims based on Biblical argument if you care to challenge. My claim stands, Clem’s god is not the same as the God of the Bible.

Matt Stewart says:

10:35am | 17/03/10

The great thing about the bible is that you can use it to make and support pretty much any argument you want.  I have doubt in your ability to do just that, but see it as a pointless exercise.

Matt Stewart says:

11:03am | 17/03/10

Oops, I meant “no doubt in your ability…”  No disrespect intended.

The bible means very different things to very different people.  I fully accept that not all christians see god and the bible the way Clem talks about, but some do, among a myriad of ways.

the apologist says:

12:13pm | 16/03/10

@ DG:
re Fielding: Because he was not sufficiently equipped or gutsy enough to defend it.

J says:

10:45am | 16/03/10

Scientology is dangerous because of its attitudes towards mental ilnesses.  Encouraging people to reject psychiatry and drug therapy - very scary stuff.

John A Neve says:

10:57am | 16/03/10

J,

I did not really want to buy into this debate, but you sucked me in.

Plaese tell what is the difference between Scientology and Catholicism?

They both play with peoples minds, they are both businesses, they both put their hands in peoples pockets, worst of all, they both continue to allow the great divide between rich and poor.

DG says:

11:09am | 16/03/10

J,

How is Scientology’s approach to psychiatry any more dangerous than the catholic belief in being healed by the power of prayer?

J says:

11:38am | 16/03/10

John A. Neve:

I agree with you.  I’m not a fan of any religion, and having ready extensively, I’m simply not sold on the idea.

If it helps people get through their day, that’s fine.  Just don’t expect that ghost stories of fire and brimstone will make me change my mind.

Suddenly I’m thinking of Dante’s Inferno.  Its descriptions of Hell are awesome.

Where was I?  Oh yes…

John happened to bring up Scientology, and their specific rejection of mental health issues and their treatment, is something close to my heart.  I also think John was shining the same critical light on all religions in his post.

No debate from me, I’m afraid, I feel the same as you.

H of SA says:

10:12pm | 16/03/10

Bob, what in particular did you find false or unreasonable in my statement? I’m genuine when I say I don’t feel we live in a vacuum. I am also genuine when I state my view that to assert that something is not true- must come from a conviction. Could you point out the fallacy for me? Also how is it connected to semantics?

Me says:

10:00am | 16/03/10

You can focus on the semantics of the word “believe” all you like, but Atheists “belief” that there is no god stems precisely from the fact that there is no evidence to support it.

No, there is no objectionable evidence that there is no god, but there is no objectionable evidence that faeries, elves, pixies, unicorns and teapots orbiting suns don’t exist. It is not rational to entertain the possibility of something existing which as not been proved to exist merely because it is impossible to disprove it exists.

It is not a faith to not believe in something which cannot either be proven nor disproved, it is simply reason and rationality to dismiss the idea. The onus is on those advocating the existence of god, pixies and unicorns to prove their existence, not for atheists to disprove something which has not been proven in the first place.

David says:

10:11am | 16/03/10

Me, once again your feeble intellect has failed to grasp a very simple point.

You say (most inelegantly), “It is not rational to entertain the possibility of something existing which as not been proved to exist merely because it is impossible to disprove it exists.”

Most people who believe in God do so NOT because there is no evidence to prove his (or her) existence, but in spite of it.  It’s called faith.  You might not have it.  Others do.  Get over it.  And yourself.

Trying to compare humanity’s belief in God (or Gods) to teapots orbiting the Sun is naive, churlish and contrary to rational analysis of the quite complex theological arguments that unerdlie most religious traditions.

You’re a lightweight, Me.  Go back to school.

Bob says:

10:21am | 16/03/10

This is a standard flawed argument frequently put up by theists so I’ll respond with the standard retort.

“Atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”

Muttley says:

10:35am | 16/03/10

David, You may choose faith over scientific proof. That is your choice. Others have chosen more wisely. Get over it. And yourself.  To me your argument is naive in the extreme. Why dont you toddle off back to Sunday school. The rest of us can learn science. You feel free to get your education from a 200-year old work of fiction.

H of SA says:

10:42am | 16/03/10

Me, Some very interesting points.

I usually see little point in arguing semantics but I can substitue belief for a less loaded phrase like “things they think are true” ect.

The question of evidence is as I alluded to subject to debate. Personally I think when you consider the existance of matter and the fact that some matter has a condition we call life - to see that and actually be confident there is no God takes a faith that would put many theist to shame. Not sure how some of the actually atheist punchers rather than agnostics would respond to that suggestion - but I think it takes a degree of faith to see existance even as observable and assert that there is no divine. Obviously my seeing it as evidence of the existance of God is faith, I just think that those who see it and assert no God have a lot of faith in that view too.

You stated that “It is not a faith to not believe in something which cannot either be proven nor disproven, it is simply reason and rationality to dismiss the idea” - I see issues with this view.

Take for example Louis Pasteur’s (previously ridiculed) view that microscopic organism where the the reason people got sick. Or the belief that electrons existed, or any other phenomena that wasn’t observable until later.

If it was “simply reason and rationality to dismiss the idea” as it was unobservable at the time, then reason and rationality don’t come out looking to good. Or alternatively, we could say those very few who weren’t sure but thought it was worthwhile withholding judgement or even seriously investigating were the only rational minds in these situations.

You say the onus is on those advocating the existance of God. This depends on the context. If someone is trying to argue the existance of God yes. But in the context of the Atheist society telling people to “celebrate reason” the onus is on them to demonstrate that their view is reasonable. I would argue that its not.

For every farie people don’t just feel unsure about, but actually truly believe is non existant there have been historical cases of unobservable phenomena that did (it turned out) exist. A person who asserts there is no God because there is no observable evidence must also assert that those who used to not believe in electrons or microbiology were also reasonable men - though they came down one side of the fence when there was no evidence either way.

I still really don’t see how someone holding rationality and reason as a basis for decision making can actually come down on the side of definately no divine.

David says:

10:46am | 16/03/10

Sticks and stones, Muttley.

I accept there are tensions between science and my religious beliefs.

I was just trying to point out that the logic Me, and his ilk, uses to denigrate religion is not infallible.  It’s a bit more complicated than he, or you, make out.

I’ve never been to Sunday school.

Also, I’m quite conscious that the Bible was written by humans.  I accept it’s not the word of God incarnate.  That’s why I read the likes of Hans Kung, who, among other things, rejects the myth of papal infallibility.

I know it’s convenient for you to think of all believers as a homogenous mass of thoughtless, brainwashed automotons.  But religion, just like life, ain’t that simple.

You should go back to school, too, bub!

David says:

10:49am | 16/03/10

Amen, H of SA.

H of SA says:

11:08am | 16/03/10

@ Bob 11:21 am

You say “Atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby”

Well in way, not collecting stamps *is* a hobby. We don’t exist in a vacuum so if we don’t collect stamps, we must have some other pass time - even if that pass time is doing as little as possible. Its still a way to pass time, much in the way asserting something isn’t true - is actually asserting something.

Muttley says:

11:41am | 16/03/10

David, it is easy to believe the religious as brainwashed automatons as that is the way they appear. And i would disagree. religion is that simple. An easy way to keep the plebs in line. Looks like it is working too. So stick that in your cassock “bub”.
  And where does attacking someone’s “feeble logic” fit into pointing out a flaw in logic? This is a topic where there are many with strong views. Start attacking without foundation and it will escalate. THAT was the point of my entry to you.

Bob says:

12:02pm | 16/03/10

H, you say you see little point in arguing semantics and then you resort to Sophistry. You appeal to reason, and then violate it.

Voxpop says:

02:03pm | 16/03/10

I’ve often told people I’m Agnostic to soften the blow and try not to engage in this debate but in all honesty I identify more with Athiests - athiests don’t impose their reasoning on others but merely question others’ lack of reasoning (also you have to remember Dawkins is not ‘preaching’ his position, this isn’t a recruitment drive he’s on an author tour selling books). 

I grew up with only a slight nod to sunday school type catholics but was then put through a Catholic high school where my firm belief that religion is merely a crutch for many was solidified.  I was horrified most by the hypocritical preaching that serves to elevate those and their faith above others.

Paul Horn says:

04:26pm | 16/03/10

So Me you believe stars are immense objects spewing light, radiation and heat through the blackness of space? Can you prove it? Have you seen one? What evidence is there that stars are no larger than your pinkie?? How can you prove to anyone that believes only directly what they see?   

Lets face it why is the assertion that there is no God seen to be superior in scientific reasoning to the one that believes in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being?? In the end it takes faith and to believe that one stance is inherently superior is just extreme arrogance. To talk about a tea pot orbiting the sun is a bit pointless unless you believe that said tea pot created the universe. But a tea pot is a creation of man so by that logic you must be a nutter! You may believe we were created by Aliens - fair enough no one can disprove it but that still doesn’t explain the origins of the universe!   

If “nothing” created the universe then nothing was responsible for a cataclysmic action that created what we are and everything around us and nothing is driving what we shall become. Either “nothing” or “something” was responsible for creation. For “something” to initiate the creation of this immensity we call our Universe would require something infinintely more powerful than faeries, gnomes, bull frogs, tea pots whatever would you not agree? But perhaps “nothing” was responsible for this immensity in which case it takes faith to believe in “nothing”! 

It all comes down to faith, you must leave it at that.

the apologist says:

12:20pm | 16/03/10

@Ross:
That’s quite an inaccurate, uneducated and popularist assessment. Christianity, at least, is intensely focused upon what happens in this life.

James says:

09:34am | 16/03/10

Yeah but you are talking about Communist dictatorships not atheists, that is, it’s the communism what done it.

Atheists can latch on to all sorts of other ideologies.  Nothing in atheism says we all must do this, they simply don’t believe in god.

James1 says:

09:46am | 16/03/10

It is possible to be conservative and atheist Paul.  Your argument is silly, and simply reinforces the need for a Godwin’s Law that applies to misplaced communist analogies.

And just remember that your fellow travelers - fellow people of the book - have done some awful things in their time.  Just look at radical Islam, for instance.  If you insist on judging atheists because they share something with communists, then atheists might insist on judging you according to what you share with your religious fellow travelers.

Just more food for thought.  Have a nice day now.

Bob says:

09:51am | 16/03/10

How about all those crusades?

Me says:

10:10am | 16/03/10

I would like to second James1’s call for Godwins law to extend to misplaced analogies of communism, or for a new equivalent law to come into existence.

J says:

10:55am | 16/03/10

Paul, atheism and an ideology are two seperate things.  You’ll notice in all those ideologies like communism, socialism, facisim, one person or a select number of people elevated themselves to the status of Gods.  They functioned almost identically to a religion, minus the spiritual element.

Atheism is an absence of belief.  People like Marx and Hitler and Mao Zedong still needed (and commanded) the people to believe in them.

Last time I checked, Dawkins was just encouraging people to question everything and make their own decision.  He wasn’t looking to raise an atheist army.

I happen to agree that the world needs religion, in some form.  According to some, there’s only a need to be good and kind if there’s spiritual accountability.  I’d rather have those people do the right thing and fear Hell, than have God disproven and them change their minds…

Bob says:

11:41am | 16/03/10

Bob above (not me), the Crusades prove nothing insofar as the truth of an idea is concerned. Anyone can pull out a bad example of any group.

Paul Horn says:

12:35pm | 16/03/10

Thanks for your replies folks, much appreciated but I will have to give you an education! One of the central tenets of Marxist ideology was the fervent belief in atheism and the greater belief that religion should be wiped from the face of the Earth hence the pogroms initiated by Communism against the Christian faith both in Russia and China. As such it comes as close to damn it to a poster boy for an atheistic poltical system. You don’t get any better example than that.   

And sorry J you are totally wrong. Our Mr Dawkins has never been objective in his assessment of Chrisitianity or religion. He has been totally dismissive and downright insulting!  Christopher Hitchins is another extremist that attacks the Christian faith with fervent ardour. He has lectured on the ABC with great aplomb. He accuses the bible of suporting racism, war, murder etc without even looking at the context or cultural systems that were in place at the time or even reading the entire message. He takes only what he requires to support his hatred of religion and that I find very frightening. Little difference between men like Hitchens and the Communist secret police dragging people off to the gulags. But then Christians should perhaps welcome this as Chrisitianity grows in times of persecution.

And er James even though some horrible crimes have been committed in the name of religion over the millenia it pales into insignificance when compared to the utter devastation wrought by atheisitic regimes.

Further to all this I may add just remember that to believe in no God takes faith in itself, in fact far greater faith than backsliden Chrisitians such as myself. I believe the mathematical probability of man evolving from inorganic elements in a primeval eco system is someting like 10 raised to the power of minus twelve. Now that my good friends takes huge faith!!!

J says:

01:22pm | 16/03/10

Paul, I’ve got a feeling you didn’t read a word of what I wrote.  Dawkins’ has been scathing of religion, yes.  He’s suggested people give up religion, yes.  Never has he commanded people to kowtow to him instead of a God - I think you’ll find those oppressive regimes did.

I’m not sure even if you saw the Q & A episode where he encouraged religious education insofar as learning about the various religions to promote tolerance, and enabling people to make up their own minds vs indoctrination.

You’ve given the textbook blinkered response of the fanatically religious.  No surprise, really.

James1 says:

01:44pm | 16/03/10

Paul,

I oppose communism as much as you, yet I am an atheist. 

And if you are so certain that so-called “atheistic regimes” killed so many more, what are the exact numbers of death and destruction wrought by religious regimes throughout the entirety of history?  If you can not provide a number, your point is utter rubbish.

James1 says:

01:47pm | 16/03/10

Also Paul, talking about the mathematical probability of inorganic material evolving into organic life is meaningless in this context unless you juxtapose it against the mathematical probability of an invisible man taking inorganic material and making organic life.  So again, that point is utterly meaningless and thus complete rubbish.

It takes a brave person to simply say “I don’t know how that happened, and I am going to try and find out,” rather than “This old book says it happened this way, without providing any evidence.  Thus I don’t need to look any more.”

Lee from WA says:

04:33pm | 16/03/10

All you guys go on about how atheism and communism have very little to do with each other. Well couldn’t the same argument be said of Jesus? Did Jesus authorise the Crusades? No. Did Jesus authorise the Inquisition? No. Those things have more to do with Roman pagan religion than anything else and nothing to do with biblical Christianity.

The thing is that atheism does have an inseparable link with communism. Lenin, that great capitalist, said: atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_religion). When they were coming up with their ideas, communists wanted to dispose of religion because of its association with the old order. Atheism was the new way forward. When atheism didn’t take root, Lenin and his buddies decided that it was perfectly reasonable to stamp it out by force.

Lee from WA says:

05:00pm | 16/03/10

James1: John Dickson, a historian, puts the figure for how many people killed in the Inquisition at around 6000 over 350 years. Pol Pot killed 2 million or so in 4 years. You do the math. When we include Stalin and Mao we start getting into the millions of people who died in the space of 50 years or something. There is no religious government who exterminated their own population on such a large scale in the history of Christianity.

James1 says:

08:38am | 17/03/10

Lee,

You account for the Inquisition.  Good.  You forgot fundamentalist Islam, the Islamic conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, the War of Spanish Succession, the persecution of Catholics in England, persecution by Catholics in Europe, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and thousands of years of religiously motivated killing.  Some parts of the Old Testament recount awful acts of genocide, committed at god’s insistence by his chosen people.  The list of religious crimes is too numerous to list here.  Why would you just choose one small example and pretend that paints the full picture?

Paul Horn says:

02:07pm | 17/03/10

Maq your comment
“One only has to peer in the direction of the US to see the aura of religiosity permeating their politics. When delusional thinking shapes the way that countries are governed, we must do what ever we can to alter that delusional thinking - whether that delusion exists as ideology or religion, the argument is the same. “
is intereseting for its extreme hypocrisy!!! One thing that really grates me about delusional secularism is that as soon as a religious person in the political sphere aka Tony Abbott makes a stand on a moral issue (lets say abortion) that the inner city progressive elite despise they scream and shout that there must be separation of church and state even though it is the politicians belief not the church heirarchy making the statement. If Tony Abbott had been an avowed atheist but found the extremely high abortion rate to be abhorrent (which it is by any measure)  would the inner city elite have called for separation of church and state. What makes an Atheists opinions more credible in the political sphere than someone else with strong religious convictions? 

All you are doing is calling on a particular groups opinions to be silenced and are therefore just as guilty of repressing freedom of speech as those you point the finger at!!  In that you are very close to the Nazi and Communist dictators that severely repressed freedom of speech and religion as they too were absolutely convinced in the rightness of their political convictions to the detriment of any who dared speak up against them!!!

Muttley says:

10:22am | 16/03/10

God,  thanks for the heads up. Appreciate it. By the way, if we dont believe in you, can you have a word with some of your eartly minions and get them to stay the hell out of our lives, M-kay? Also, if you bump into Thor, ley him know where in a drought still and could use some more rain. Great. Thanks.
p.s. While not gay myself, you must admit they brighten the place up a bit eh?

MelD says:

02:08pm | 16/03/10

Hi God, So if I don’t believe I am going to hell? Oh well, I am going to hell for a lot more than that and at least it’ll be warm.  If I believe in a higher power but don’t want to put a name to that power it’s just organised religion I am against. Thanks

Maq says:

10:02am | 16/03/10

No.

“President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden’s stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.” - 2005, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

We should accept that people have private beliefs. But the minute those private beliefs inform the execution of their office - those beliefs are incredibly debatable.

“If a certain belief makes a person happy, and helps them to find meaning in their life (without causing harm or hurt to others) then why not just let them believe whatever they want?”

This is true, but it’s a little complicated. Bush had 50+ years to “believe whatever [he wanted]” - just think how the situation would have played out if his beliefs were questioned more thoroughly…

Muttley says:

10:24am | 16/03/10

Jenni, spot on. But the problem is that the nature of religion does not really allow the concept of “live and let live” . Its more follow me or go to hell. And thats the more accepting religions. The more extreme take the position, follow me or i will kill you. Not really a healthy basis for discussion.

MelD says:

02:20pm | 16/03/10

Spot on Jenni, yes debate it but don’t tell others what to believe in which is what I see a lot of the arguments are, you don’t have to prove anything, I believe Vampires exist, werewolves, ghouls etc I believe in things that go bump in the night, I don’t care if people think I am crazy, people say to me prove they exist, I say to them prove to me they don’t.  neither party can win the argument.

Maq - I am not american so don’t really care if Bush heard it from the easter bunny, he was in that to sell arms, which is why they get into most wars so the CIA can sell weapons to both sides can’t prove it just my theory.

Muttley - then be against religion not ‘God’

Muttley says:

03:27pm | 16/03/10

MelD, i AM against religions. I have nothing against God. He doesnt exist. I cant dislike an imaginary character.

Adam says:

10:07am | 16/03/10

That’s, in part, the crux of the debate Peter. We are all happy for anyone to have a faith and believe in whoever you wish. We just don’t want that belief to inform policy decisions

Me says:

10:13am | 16/03/10

This is not a stupid debate, it is a supremely important debate. It is not so much a debate about a persons personal beliefs, but about when science comes into conflict with religion, and they inevitably do so when it comes to answering questions about life and the universe.

In such instances it is about faith versus rationality and evidence, and choices need to be made about which one is used as a base for the advancement of society.

Peter says:

11:09am | 16/03/10

There have been many scientists throughout history that have eventually been proven wrong. It still happens today. We shouldn’t be so arrogant as to believe we know everything. We don’t. Darwin’s theory, is just that, a theory. These scientist portray it as fact in our class rooms, despite constant references from scientists about a “missing link”. We can’t have athiests either, sitting in science rooms telling our kids these are the “facts” of how we came to be, but if you want to listen to something more fanciful, just go to you religous class because that is not really the truth. We can’t have ONLY athiests driving the agenda. There are scientist out there who do believe in God you know, so lets not get too arrogant. How many times have scientists changed their percieved “age” of the universe in the last 20 years? Lots. And now I hear these scientists don’t even know what shape the universe is.. If they don’t know what shape it is, then how on earth will they ever really know how old it is. Science is good at presenting unknown things as facts..

Isaac says:

11:42am | 16/03/10

@Me OK it’s not a stupid debate but it is pointless and is a debate that has no definitive answer.

Faith and reason can and do coexist one does not cancel out the other.  Also your point about which one should be used to advance society smacks of indoctrination which is wrong.  Let people figure it out for themselves, they’ll make the ‘right’ choice according to their individual perception of what is right and wrong.

Oh and your assertion that somehow science and religion are locked in mortal combat is ridiculous.  One deals in the physical properties of the universe we live in, the other attempts to deal with the spiritual.

Matt Stewart says:

12:34pm | 16/03/10

This is a stupid debate. I believe Peter is God.  no one can prove me wrong.  I know people who don’t believe in Peter, I can’t prove them wrong.  A never ending debate that will go nowhere.  Just let people believe in what they want to believe in.  Even if it is absurd and damaging.  Eventually in death, we will all find the answer… unkless of course like me, a Peterist, you believe that you don’t die, you are transmogrified into a hair on Peter’s head for all eternity.

iansand says:

01:17pm | 16/03/10

As far as I am concerned you can worship the brown dog down the road.  Just don’t expect me to eat Pal on Friday because that is what you think the dog requires.

Or have creationism taught as science.

Peter says:

03:48pm | 16/03/10

You should be so lucky Matt… I’ve never been called a God before, so thanks for the compliment… Is that how angry you get when you can’t convince someone of your beliefs? I just said believe what you want ,and you can be comfortable that there is no one on the planet that can prove you right or wrong. Sorry if that offends your principles…

Matt Stewart says:

02:35pm | 17/03/10

The arrogance!

There are a lot of guys called Peter, you know.  And for a guy who calls people angry, you do ‘passive aggressive’ pretty well.

Mike says:

03:05pm | 16/03/10

Equally, if it helps some people to believe that two sub-atomic particles hurtling through the nothingness that was the pre-universe magically found each other and rammed into each other, thus creating all we see around us from a giant explosion then we should let them be. The crazy fools.

James1 says:

10:39am | 16/03/10

In much the same way that religious bigots screaming in the faces of parents of dead gays does not endear anyone to the cause of Christianity.  These parents are just trying to mourn their dead children.  Both sides have their bigots.

And how do you know that Dawkins is not interested in helping anyone?  What do you know of his work in bringing understanding of science to the general public?

Bon says:

11:28am | 16/03/10

Religious or Athiest, some people are just jerks.

Lee from WA says:

04:40pm | 16/03/10

Bon: couldn’t have said it better.

Zeta says:

10:57am | 16/03/10

Maybe becase Dawkins’ doesn’t bother to make an argument for or against the existence of God.

At the heart of his rationale, is the quite sound hypothesis that God, that is a mythical sky dwelling personification is not the best explanation of Earthly circumstances. Darwin’s theory of evolution is, quite rightly, a superior theory, proven through scientific methodology.

But that’s where Dawkins, and Hitchens, who is worse, and unlike Dawkins doesn’t have the same intellectual chops as a biologist - make this cognitive leap - namely that since Darwin’s theory of evolution is superior to the theory of divine intervention (not creationism, remember that even the senior hierarchy of the Catholic Church are not themselves Creationists, they’re a special, seperate breed of the faithful) that God therefore does not exist.

So it’s like I have this theory, that when you climb on a plane you enter another dimension, which is why your soul always feels several hours behind your body when you land and flight hostesses never quite seem human and planes really fly through time and space.

Qantas has a theory that jet lag is a result of disturbed cicadian rhythms and their hiring practices preference very small blonde mutants. Also, physics.

Qantas’ theory of flight is superior, therefore, Zeta does not exist.

Matt Stewart says:

12:38pm | 16/03/10

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Dawkins does not attempt to disprove the existence of god because it both pointless and impossible.

Dawkins does demolish the evidence put up for the extraordinary claims of theists, and without evidence, those claims are absurdities.  The onus of ‘proof’, if there is one, is on the people making the alternative hypothesis, not the null.

Guy says:

10:57am | 16/03/10

Alex - ‘Laissez-faire’ is simply French for ‘let it be’.

I hope the irony of criticising another’s prose when you yourself are confused is not lost on you.

Alex says:

11:20am | 16/03/10

Guy - ‘deixais lhe seja’ is a literal Portuguese translation of ‘let it be’ but is not often used in English prose as it does not have a distinct phrasal connotation. ‘Laissez-faire’ does, which is why it gets employed, and it is often misused.

John says:

11:16am | 16/03/10

Do feel too sorry for Fielding, I sure soon he’ll make a decision on some legislation that will hurt a lot of people. Then we will wish Dawkins was a little harder.

the apologist says:

12:29pm | 16/03/10

@Dave F:
I’ll answer from the Christian perspective.
I presume your question of ‘Who’s Gods dad?’ is more accurately, where did God come from? The answer of course (according to revelation) is that He is eternal and has neither beginning or end.
Your ‘answer’ is unjustified. You’re making up your own god.

Trevil Knieval says:

06:36pm | 16/03/10

@the apologist:
“The answer of course (according to revelation) is that He is eternal and has neither beginning or end”

How is that more justified that Dave making his own reasoning? Show me the proof that revelations is true. Why is it more believable than any other theory of our existance?

Peter says:

12:06pm | 16/03/10

Dawkins has got a whole lot richer flying around the world telling people God doesn’t exist than any priest I know.. He is having a big laugh…

SLF says:

12:13pm | 16/03/10

Hmm, easy mony making scheme eh? Easier than selling indulgeneces ot passing a collection plate around? Nope.

Maybe he will not go to a muslim country to preach athiesm is because he would not meet with rational debate? Maybe because he would get a fatwa on his head, because in backwards religious societies that believe in hand chopping off, stoning, treating women as possessions, prosecuting rape victims for unlawful sex and destroying ancient relics of other religions, religion is used as an excuse to control, punish and manipulate society?  Do you reckon that could be why?

Peter says:

12:42pm | 16/03/10

SLF, im not a fan of stoning rape victims to death, i am not a fan of destroying ancient relics (btw only the taliban did that), i am not a fan of persecuting people of different sexual orientations, im not a fan of treating women as possessions, but we can learn something from them. Now, if some idiot kept of breaking into people houses robbing them and made a living out of stealing from people, I would rather chop off his hands, than sending him to prison for 5 years and give him a life of 3 free meals a day, free accommodation, tv etc. We can learn something from them. I wouldn’t mind seeing some criminal copping 100 lashes for breaking the law rather than locking them up and housing them at our expense. Believe me 100 lashes is just as big as a deterant than locking them up. Its a lot cheaper too…

Seano says:

12:47pm | 16/03/10

And an ad homiem attack seems to be an easy way to ignore the man’s arguments.

John says:

01:11pm | 16/03/10

Well David, having lived in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn’t be in any great hurry to go there to preach Christianity or Judaism or any other religion for that matter, which is not Islam. Then you would have some thing in common with Richard you both be in prison if you were unlucky dead. There is danger in being an atheist even in Australia.

SLF says:

02:05pm | 16/03/10

@ Peter. You are right, we can learn a lot from Islamic Theocracies, such as how to live in the dark ages.

Whilst our criminal justice system is flawed, it is not as bad as the alternatives. Having lived there and unfortunately known about the ritual beheading on a Friday etc I think I prefer trial by jury and a penal system that does not advocate multiple state based executions every weekend.

Peter says:

03:58pm | 16/03/10

What intellectual giant? All he does is spruik other peoples work (Like Dawkins). Just because he speaks with a plum in his mouth, it doesn’t make him an intelletual giant. Me thinks you worship rubbish…

Matt Stewart says:

11:02am | 17/03/10

Dawkins isn’t an intellectual ginat because all he does is spruik Dawkins?  Don’t follow your logic there champ, but thanks for replying.

I don’t worship anything, but I have immense respect for the pursuit of knowledge.

Peter says:

12:06pm | 17/03/10

What does he do Matt? You follow the teachings of an intellectual giant, so tell us, what does he do? I to have an interest in seeking knowledge, but please don’t ask me to disregard my spirituality because it offends you. There are more spiritual people on the planet than they are people like you. Pursuit of knowledge must not dismiss spirituality…

Matt Stewart says:

02:39pm | 17/03/10

- You’re in a majority?  Oh, you must be right.  My bad.
- I’m not a follower of Dawkins specifically, I read his stuff amongst a lot of other stuff
- I’m not your research assistant.
- I never asked anyone to disregard their spirituality.  Or their religion.

DG says:

01:22pm | 16/03/10

Cambo - some of us find a great deal of comfort in the knowledge that that this is not just a test, jumping through hoops for a sky daddy that demands behaviour on his terms on fear of eternal damnation.

Some of us derive hope for the knowledge that there is cause and effect. That our actions have consequences (as opposed to the common Christian belief that everything that happens is part of God’s plan). That we have the capacity to choose and can strive to our own goals without fear of punishment by some mythical entity. 

Some of us despise the idea of fate and destiny. That we have no control over our own lives, that we are puppets dragged along towards a pre-determined outcome. That suggestion does not inspire hope - it is the opposite. It is a life of hopeless servitude, of trudging along the path free from choice or opportunity.

Just Sayin' says:

01:40pm | 16/03/10

Logically heaven and hell can’t exist.  Good people go to heaven and are happy.  But how can good people be happy knowing that people are suffering in hell?

J says:

02:09pm | 16/03/10

That’s not terribly Christian of you.

James1 says:

01:52pm | 16/03/10

Very true.  People like Paul Horn rightly condemn communism for the harm it has done, but then go on to say that religion is good because it has caused less harm than communism.  Even if this were true, which is arguable, it would still be hypocritical.  Akin to saying that mass murderer is bad because I don’t agree with him, while the other, equally bad, mass murderer is okay because I do believe in him.

Matt Stewart says:

01:39pm | 16/03/10

I’ll take that bet.  Can we make it 5k/10k?

I’m happy to put the money in escrow today, if you are.

Bob H says:

02:15pm | 16/03/10

Old Bert is correct that many old people sitting in lifes’ departure lounge are comforted by religious descriptions of the next destination, especially if they can see their flight number is already on the departures screen. 
But Dawkins is a genuine thinker, his view will not be changed by any desperation.  Insecurity is exploited tastelessly by religions but Dawkins is a bit too smart for that old game.

Matt Stewart says:

11:00am | 17/03/10

Still happy to do it today.

Just Sayin' says:

02:46pm | 16/03/10

You don’t want to push your beliefs on people.  Except when you come to an online forum and tell people not to have a debate they are enjoying.  Cheers for the input, champ.

Bob H says:

05:37pm | 16/03/10

Let people be - yes, tell that to the interfering catholic church - no contraception, gays are bad, poverty good, church accountability bad.  If religions kept out of the way and did not force dogma on unfortunates, you would have a point. Unfortunately religions do not sit quietly anywhere.  Athiests do not shove anything done anyones throats - when’s the last time you have been door knocked by athiests?  Being upset by athiests pointing out how silly religion is should encourage some defensive argument other than shouting with hands over their ears “you are horrible and nasty ner ner ner” .

stephen says:

02:30pm | 16/03/10

When i say that I love God, I get the same feeling inside as when I say I love, say, my neighbour.
‘Cause, you see, I’m in love with love.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, and you don’t, for that matter, need any evidence at all to believe in something ; it’s just that God has been given so much credit for something that really belongs to us !

Grace says:

02:56pm | 16/03/10

Stephen, you’re right, if you are talking about emotions that emanate from the human soul. But when I make a claim about God, and I have my reason, then that reason can be valid even if it is not based on scientific evidence. I do give God a lot of credit in my life because He is actually responsible for those things, like supernatural peace, miracles, revelation about situations, knowledge and wisdom, inexplicable interventions, healing, etc. As for what belongs to us, even God would not take credit for them.

Matt Stewart says:

02:53pm | 16/03/10

Maybe some people think the church and science are in opposition because the church used to brutally torture murder people for scientific investigation and discourse.  Maybe that sort of behaviour makes people a little defensive. 

Where does Dawkins present this fallacy you speak of?  Dawkins does not seek to disprove the existence of god.  The onus for proof is on the people claiming something exists.  Which means, the onus is on religious people to prove gods’ existence, unless you want to obfuscate by saying it’s not about proof its about faith.  It also means the onus is on scientists to prove their theories of the beginning of the universe and the evolution of life.  They are working on it.

PS, I can easily measure the volume of water in a swimming pool with a ruler.

Chris says:

03:12pm | 16/03/10

I think you are not giving science the credit it deserves by saying that it can “only” explain the physical world.  As if that were not a triumph in itself.

“I believe in Christ because I have evidence - but it is not scientific evidence.”
“What science can’t prove, look for other forms of evidence. “

What other forms of evidence are you talking about here?

I’m wondering how you can know anything at all about the supernatural if it exists outside of the observable (physical) universe

Grace says:

03:18pm | 16/03/10

Yes, Matt, I concede you can measure volume with a ruler, but you do understand that a ruler cannot measure other units, like intensity of light, or electrical current.

Dawkins made it quite clear that his conclusion about God was determined by his knowledge of science. He assessed claims of God - whether God existed or not - based on the evidence available to him. He said something along the lines of:  “Either God exists or He doesn’t and if He does, science should be able to confirm it.” Dawkins is an atheist because of his reliance upon scientific methods.

Having said that, there are many professional scientists and intellectuals that have no problems with integrating their personal belief in God and scientific knowledge. In fact, the world’s most successful lawyer (according to the Guinness Book of Records) set out to tear apart the evidence of Christ and Biblical Christianity, only to be so thoroughly convinced that he changed his mind.

Lee from WA says:

04:27pm | 16/03/10

Grace: I get what you’re saying but I don’t think its true. There is a historical element to Christianity that can be proven/disproven by science. Jesus was a real person in real history who made certain claims about himself. Those claims can be put to the test like anything else in history.

Lee from WA says:

04:23pm | 16/03/10

And atheists have never put anyone to death? You should ask a few million Chinese Christians about whether overtly atheistic government put religious people to death.

Matt Stewart says:

10:32am | 17/03/10

The point, alas, is completely missed

Lee from WA says:

04:25pm | 16/03/10

Atheism already has with such luminaries as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who make the Crusades and the Inquisition look like small potatoes.

Matt Stewart says:

11:29am | 17/03/10

You’ve dropped this chesnut a few times Lee, so lets deal with it. 

I don’t attribute responsibility to religion when a religious man kills his wife in a fit of rage, because religion is not the impetus for the killing and has nothing to do with the killing.  I attribute to responsibility to religion when apostates are stoned to death, when crusades are waged, when inquisitions are undertaken.  I don’t attribute responsibility to atheism when religious people are killed by socialists, just as I don’t attribute responsibility to peasants or the uneducated when landowners and intellectuals are killed by socialists.  Socialists kill all these people because because something else in their lives threatens their socialist doctrine.  I blame their socialist doctrine.

The crusades et al were undertaken in the name of religion.  The murder of millions of Cambodians, Russians and Chinese was undertaken in the quest for absolute power, and in the name of socialism.

Thanks for not making me invoke Godwins Law.

Lee from WA says:

12:01pm | 17/03/10

Matt: Except that atheism is thoroughly linked to communism, as pointed out by the quote I put elsewhere in these comments. You cannot easily separate atheism from communism. They persecuted religious people to ‘liberate’ their societies from the ‘tyranny’ of religion, religion being the opiate of the masses and all that. Their atheism did cause them to act terribly. Atheism was a critical part of their political ideology. You cannot separate the beliefs from the ideology - they are linked.

I’ll give you an example. Say I become a politician. I believe in that humans are special because they are made in the image of God.  A bill comes up that gives animals the same rights of humans. I reject the bill. Did my religion cause me to do that? No, because what I do as a Christian has to do with the spiritual life of people. Did my beliefs impact my decision? Yes because beliefs and political ideology are linked. My beliefs impact on my ideology.

Atheists should be willing to accept that communism and atheism are linked, even if they reject the ideology, in the same way that Christians are marred by the Crusades, even if they reject the theological basis for those wars.

However, in the end, all motives, especially in the political sphere, are mixed. Did the Crusades have only to do with religion? No, power and prestige were involved. How about the Wars of Religion after the Reformation? The rule of Rome was what people went to war over, both in the religious and, particularly, in the political sphere. Rather than endlessly polarised views of atheism and religion, I’d rather both sides have a nuanced view of each other.

Matt Stewart says:

03:21pm | 17/03/10

Lee, Let me start by saying I really respect your comments on this page.  You’ve given me a good comprehensive reply to my last comment, which I thank you for.  Let me address it para by para.

1.  I don’t think dropping a quote somewhere makes for a conclusive argument.  Whilst I accept that all socialists are atheists, I do not accept that all atheists are socialists - they are not inextricably linked.  I also do not accept that socialists kill in the name of atheism or derive their morality from atheism.  I accept that they kill to achieve and maintain power, and they see religion as a threat.

2. If I take your point correctly, I accept that faith can impact ideology.  I do not accept that must affect it in all decisions.  Ideology can come from places other than religion/lack of.

3. The distinction I am making, is that while the crusades were undertaken in the name of christ, murdering socialists did not do so in the name of atheism.  Crusaders were totalitarians and christians - they killed because of the former in the name of the latter.  Stalin was a socialist totalitarian and an atheist, and he killed because he was the former, and he was the latter because of the former.  (we should get a socialist in on this debate too, that would be really fun!) 

4.  I completely agree.  In both cases, the pursuit of power was the principal driver.  But where the socialists were atheists because religion was a threat to that power, the crusaders were christian because they believed in christ - no matter how badly they distorted his message.

Peace to you, Lee.

John says:

07:55am | 17/03/10

Christopher Hitchens Vs Dinesh D’Souza Debate: “What’s So Great About God?” University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado January 26, 2009. I thought Hitchens delt with D’Souza very well. I not sure if more can added by Dawkins.

Matt Stewart says:

11:15am | 17/03/10

Nor the means to cure disease and illness - there would be far more child mortality and death from simple infection without science.  Ever had an operation?  Try having it without the anaesthetic science provided.

If you want to compare science and religion in this way, then I’ll draw out the difference.  Religion is used to initiate war, science is used to win it.  Science alone would not lead to war, religion alone would just lead to far more limited war. 

Caveat.  I think what I’ve written is bollocks, but only because it is an extension of the bollocks above it.

Peter says:

11:54am | 17/03/10

Why the personal attacks Matt? I also believe religion has prevented wars, but you only want to see one thing. If I want to read bollocks, i’ll just look at all the statements you have made on this page. I am having a discussion with you and you are throwing personal insults.. Maybe that’s because you have no God in your life.. Look around you, the evidence is everywhere… Don’t get angry just because you godless and i am not….

Peter says:

11:11am | 17/03/10

I think the Old Testament refers to one God. In the opening page it does say you will not worship false idols, just me your lord you God (anyway it goes something like that). I think people are born with spirituality inside them. They don’t need a priest or a Government to tell them what to believe or not…

Mark says:

06:49pm | 17/03/10

Peter, the Bible say in Genesis Chapter 3 Verse 5.
....“you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like GODS who know what is good and what is bad”.
So there are more Gods then one, if we were to believe the Bible.

DM says:

05:05pm | 17/03/10

The problem is, of course, that if there is a real need for a “consciousness” to be behind “this” (presumably the vastly complex universe we sense around us) then there is logically also a real need for an even greater “consciousness” to be behind the first “consciousness” and so on indefinitely. Any attempt to explain this requirement away by merely *claiming* that the first postulated “consciousness” does not need to have been created, but can have always existed, is futile. This is a compelling, and so far unrefuted, argument against the need for a creative “consciousness” as the source of the universe’s creation.

Claiming to not yet understand how the universe originated, and not pretending to such understanding through supernatural stories, is a much more honest position.

Matt Stewart says:

04:14pm | 17/03/10

Wow, who’s the angry one?