Gillard’s atheism will bother a lot of people

Seano says:

07:33am | 02/07/10

What a silly comment, even by your standards.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

10:02am | 02/07/10

Seano :  This sleeper , when it awakes , will shred Gillard and her Labor minions like a baracuda with a jelly fish. The Australian electorate is steeped in traditionalism , firm family values , and a much deeper religious belief and faith than what you may believe.
Labor is toying with something which is beyond their capacity to understand .

Doh says:

10:35am | 02/07/10

“What a silly comment, even by your standards. “

And yet this comment would rank Shakespearean when compared to your comments.

Jon says:

10:46am | 02/07/10

If atheism is a religion. Where my tax dollars?

Julatron says:

01:13pm | 02/07/10

“The Australian electorate is steeped in traditionalism , firm family values , and a much deeper religious belief and faith than what you may believe”

Heard it before, doesnt change the fact that most people in this country are not practicing christians. As for traditionalism - where’s your evidence for such an outrageously baseless claim? Perhaps in the circles you move in…

Gillard has said nothing about removing your rights to practice or believe what you want, just that she’s not religious - should that instantly be taken as a threat by you??

Mark says:

01:15pm | 02/07/10

What a stupid comment alright… A typical brain washed religious comment from someone who beleives that ‘crusades’ have to be undertaken to have everyone beleive in your way of thinking. Us athiests just beleive in common sense, and don’t beleive there is a place for ‘pie in the sky’ theory when it come to policy making.

Seano says:

02:47pm | 02/07/10

@Wayne - That would be why people are attending church in the droves and flocking back to religion then would it? As long as she’s sensitive and sensible, which she is, generally Australians don’t give a toss and are more interested in whether she can do a good job.

@Doh - you’re entitled to your opinion. For what it’s worth.

Anonymousaurus Rex says:

02:54pm | 02/07/10

How could I not have seen it, it was so obvious in hindsight, it has been an atheist plot all along that put Jules on the throne so she can lead a crusade against religion. We must take a stand, let’s attack their places of congregation, prevent them formalising and co-ordinating, pitchforks and blazing brands for all!!

dbs says:

03:42pm | 02/07/10

Church and State should be kept separate at all times.
We are not all Christians, we are not all Muslims, we are not all Buddhists or Atheists,
but we are all Australians, for which our leaders need to govern in a way that is objective and fair, and not in a way that is influenced by their individual religious beliefs.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

03:52pm | 02/07/10

Best that i address your comments collectively as my comment seems to have activated an atheist loony left attack on Christianity .  Seano , you don’t have to go to church to be a Christian . Church attendance , to many people is simply an extension of their faith and a way to fulfil their religious belief . Many others adhere to their faith without regular church attendance and they are quite entitled to do so.
However , i was not aiming for a discussion on religion , the main point of my comment was to emphasise the fact that those who do observe normal traditions , family values , religious beliefs and faith , number far greater than those who do not.
The vitriol pours from posters such as these , without a shred of understanding or knowledge on the subjects that you address .
Let the Prime Minister declare her lack of faith , her dismissal of tradition , her partnered style of living , but make no mistake , if Gillard thinks that the Australian community will allow itself to be led down the path that she has chosen , she is in for a huge shock.

DaveinPerth says:

03:59pm | 02/07/10

@ERIC.
You are obviously upset because the PM told the TRUTH.

Politicians (with a few obvious exceptions) are VERY smart people. Generally, the smarter someone is, the less likely they are to believe in a God.

That means, generally, if you want smart people running the country,  AND you want honest pollies, then you have to stop EXPECTING them to lie to you about God and religion. 

Time to grow up. 
The PM has the same position on the subject as most of her peers. It’s unfair and unproductive to attack her just for being HONEST about it.

Seano says:

05:44pm | 02/07/10

@Wayne - the lack of church attendance shows how high on the priority list Christianity is for most people, weddings and wakes.

The PM has been sensible and responsible when comes to the religious beliefs. Your supposed community outrage at the PM’s lack of belief is entirely in your own head.

Soames says:

05:54pm | 02/07/10

Er, Baracudas don’t shred jellyfish.

Chris L says:

06:06pm | 02/07/10

“The vitriol pours from posters such as these , without a shred of understanding or knowledge on the subjects that you address .”

Funny, that’s how many religious people sound when talking about atheism.

Eric says:

06:57pm | 02/07/10

DaveinPerth, I’m not upset at all. I’m laughing at proselytising atheists. They claim to be against religion, but they’re acting exactly like the religious people they oppose!

As an agnostic, I have no commitment to either Atheism or Christianity. In fact, all those fundamentalist freaks look pretty much the same to me.

Christian Real says:

05:53am | 03/07/10

Australia is a free democratic Country,and everyone is entitled to their freedom of expression, opinion and beliefs.
If Julia Gillard wants to chose to not believe in God, then that is her choice and nobody has the right to ridicule her over her decission.
A lot of the people who attend church aren’t the Christians they pretend to be anyway.

Christian Real says:

06:32am | 03/07/10

Wayne Fehlhaber,
Our ‘firm family value’ Wayne was that we were taught to tell the truth and to respect other people, what ever colour or nationality they were from, yet for ‘A Christian, Tony Abbott seems to have lost these values because he lies on National television, the 7.30 Report. and more recently bagged our people and singled them out, teling them they should be picking up roadside rubbish.
As a person of Aboriginal origin, I find Tony Abbott’s remarks insensitive and bordering on racial discrimination, because there are many ,many more people who are on the dole that are not of Aboriginal origin, but come from European, and multi-cultural backgrounds, but he deliberately targeted Aboriginal people.
Plus the fact Wayne that Abbott appears to feel and believe that he is exempt from rules and regulations set down by Parliament.
I am refering to a story in a News.com.au article “Tony Abbott’s secret $710,000 loan”,written by Simon Benson, from The Daily Telegraph, on June 23,2010 @ 12.00AM.
Here are some extracts of that story:
“But in what appears to be a breach of the parliamentary rules covering MP’s pecuniary interests,he failed to declare the loans to Parliament for almost two years.”
In another paragraph Wayne it reads:
Parliament requires all MP’s to register any changes of interests, benefits or liabilities within 28 days.”
The question is Wayne, Why is Tony Abbott allowed to believe that he is above the Parliamentary rules that covers all MP’s?
It is obvious that he has breached them (the parliamentary Rules ), but he still remains Leader of the Liberal/National party Opposition instead of being asked of forced to stand down as leader for breaching the rules.
This disregard for Parliamentary Rules by Tony Abbott shows his contempt for the Australian Parliament and for the Australian people that he is aiming to represent should he ever become Prime Minister.

Christian Real says:

07:12am | 03/07/10

Wayne Fehlhaber,
Yo Say : “The Australian electorate is steeped in traditionalism,firm family values, and a much deeper religious belief and faith than what you may believe.”
If that is the case Wayne, why is it that most of these Australian people who you describe has having deep religious belief and faith, the ones that want to turn away refugees that arrive here by boat, I am sure that our Lord Jesus would not have turned them away, or even wanted to turn them away, instead he would have welcomed them with open arms.
It is funny that most of you Liberal and National party aligned people believe that John Howard actually turned away the boat people when he was Prime Minister.
The fact is Wayne, that John Howard didn’t turn the boat people away, but instead farmed them out to neighbouring islands with his ‘pacific solution’, which was as phoney as his claim to be addressing the issue of the boat people.
Australia is a signed signatory of the Refugees Convention Act of 1951, and to do what John Howard is claiming to have done, would be a breach of that Act.
As for traditions, Tony Abbott bagged and ridiculed the Aboriginal ‘Welcome To Country’ , and he called it “A Token Gesture’, now more recently Tony Abbott has singled out and discriminated against Our People once again, by saying that Aboriginal people on the dole should pick up roadside rubbish.
What about the Non - Aboriginal people on the dole , why are they excluded from picking up ‘roadside rubbish’ also, to only attack the un-employed Aboriginal people, smacks of racialism, narrow-mindedness,  and tunnel-vision towards one group of people.
Tony Abbott is unfit to be Leader of the Opposition Liberal/Nation Party, and he is also unfit to ever be Prime Minister of Australia with his racial views towards our people, and our people only.

Rob r Charteris says:

09:52am | 03/07/10

Wayne Fehlhaber says:03:52pm; people like you should be dragged into the streets in front of their homes and have some reality beaten into them, your numbers dwindle with every passing day

rt says:

10:22am | 03/07/10

It IS a silly comment. Gillard’s lack of a belief in a mythical supernatural being won’t matter except to a small number of conservative people like Eric who don’t vote labor anyhow. Gillard will win the election and Eric knows it and he’s not happy, hence the ridiculous comment.

Lee says:

01:29pm | 03/07/10

I think its good that a person has strong morals and values due to it being the right way to behave rather than because they fear the wrath of the big sky fairy.

Truckle the Uncivil says:

02:50pm | 03/07/10

Who would want to worship such an evil creature as the christian, muslim or jewish God.  If you believe in ‘him’ why are you not trying to kill him?

joe m says:

03:53pm | 03/07/10

For years many of us have had to put up with political leader after leader who suck up to the religious. I think it’s about time we had someone who respect’s religion but isn’t going to kiss your good book!

Sal says:

03:59pm | 03/07/10

Where is she ‘leading them on to victory agains the other religions?” Where has she said she was against other religions? Can you show me?

I have to tolerate your lot ramming Christianity down the throats of my kids in school or via reactive media censorship. The ‘Christian Brigade’ believe it has the right to dictate to me how to live, what I should be able to read/view et al. Yet woe-betide anyone who believes Athiests have the same & equal rights. I’m not an Athiest. However I expect church & state to be kept seperate. And Eric, maybe if you travelled to some developing nations, you’d see the damage that organised religion (especially ‘Christianity’) is doing to the local people of those nations. How about returning to India, Cambodia or Chile with me Eric? Yes?? Of course not.

Matt says:

10:28pm | 03/07/10

Oh dear, so many iron age thinkers, so few years of human existence left.

Until the majority world view is secular and atheistic the human race has no hope.

Sadly I will not live to see the day that a belief in fairies and invisible friends is treated with the raised eyebrows it so clearly deserves.

At least have the common sense not to indoctrinate your children so that the future holds hope for a free thinking society.

Oh hang on, you believe that God manifested himself in human form and killed himself to appease himself, in order to save you from a punishment that he himself imposes, but only if you hear about it and choose to believe it will you be saved, wow, common sense is obviously not an option.

Ray Birkett says:

08:23am | 04/07/10

Atheism is not a religion Eric, and I’d be very surprised if Julia Gillard is not interested in leading a non-existent crusade! Don’t worry, religious leaders, we won’t be trying to get a share of the financial pie, so you will continue to prosper.

Lauren says:

05:19pm | 04/07/10

I doubt Ms Gillard not believing in God will impact on her policies, so who cares? We all have a right to believe in what we like and its those narrow minded people who try and shove their beliefs down others’ throats thats causes conflict in the first place. She is not asking other people to not believe in God so leave the issue alone!

Shonky Shack says:

09:14pm | 04/07/10

Who cares what she believes in as long as she respects all people and their beliefs, which she has already said. Seeing as religion is a human state of mind and completely made up I think she has every right not to believe in God. I don’t believe in God but I don’t push these views on anyone and neither should the PM. As long as we have compassion for our neighbours and lead a good and honest life it doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not. However I don’t recognise the word athiest because I don’t believe God exists therefore the word has no meaning to me, it’s merely a label put on me by believers if they choose to. Having said that I will be voting Liberal because I believe in their policies and not because of religious beliefs held by the leader.

Jimmy says:

09:33pm | 04/07/10

There are several nations in the world where the majority of people are already atheist… China, North Korea, Russia.  There are similar patterns in these nations,
Little or no tolerance of any other belief system.
Control of media.
Control of internet.
Loss of personal freedoms.
Loss of Democracy.
Government behind mass murders.

Australians have every right to be concerned.

the devil says:

09:21am | 05/07/10

What a load of crap, only retard believe in fairy tales like god.
Good on Gillard for not helping the tards to spin their fiction.

Steely Dan says:

09:27am | 05/07/10

@ Jimmy

Those are communist nations, Jimmy.  That’s like someone using Iran as an example of why religion is bad.  Compare the communist to the other nations that have very high numbers of atheists (Scandinavian nations, Iceland) and you find exactly the opposite.  North Korea etc are good examples of why communism fails, but the existence of high-performing secular nations full of atheists makes you look a wee bit alarmist.  Don’t look out for atheists, look out for communists. 
And no, Julia Gillard is not a communist.  Not even Wilson Tuckey thinks that.

Sophie says:

09:34am | 05/07/10

So scared by one openly atheist politician, you mustn’t have much “faith” in your gods.  Polticians are supposed to represent their constituants, and considering atheism is on the rise, then we need atheist politicians to express our views, simple as that.

Bill Walker says:

03:13am | 06/07/10

I’d STILL vote for her.

Dino says:

09:21am | 02/07/10

I agree except that I would like to see JG elected to office. I find it amusing to think of the shock caused by JG and her partner living in sin in the Lodge.

On the subject of religion I often wonder about the self serving nature of politicians and whether or not they go to church/mass just to gather in that section of votes. Am I cynical much.

TrueOz says:

10:22am | 02/07/10

@Dino

I must smile at the thought of JG and her hairdresser living in sin at the Lodge!

Stewart Henstock says:

11:41am | 02/07/10

A person of considerable principle and substance….hahahahaha
You’re talking about a person who has no belief system clearly displayed when she and Swan instigated the Big Mining Tax and the ETS and then were personally responsible for dumping the two policies.
Australia was founded on Judo-Christian principles…not atheism.
If you ever find your self unemployed and destitute…which is highly likely under a Labor Gov…you wont be getting assistance from atheists…it will be the Salvos.

Julie says:

12:15pm | 02/07/10

But…a loving god wouldn’t let me be unemployed and destitute…would s/he??

Julatron says:

01:16pm | 02/07/10

Stewart - why do you assume that she has no principle or substance simply because she doesnt pray to an invisible sky-fairy? It says a lot about you if the only reason you have morals is a fear of retribution in an afterlife!

Steve says:

01:17pm | 02/07/10

“Australia was founded onJudo-Christian principles”.  Hmmm.  Like sending people into exile thousands of miles away from their homes and families, to a convict settlement.  A great Judo(sic)-Christian principle that one - but certainly a principle on which Australia was founded

Sam Spade says:

01:37pm | 02/07/10

Stewart Henstock - well said.

Ex-Evangelical says:

02:18pm | 02/07/10

“If you ever find your self unemployed and destitute…which is highly likely under a Labor Gov…you wont be getting assistance from atheists…it will be the Salvos.”

If I find myself in that situation, I think I’ll be heading down to centrelink to be supported by our secular society. I’m happy that part of my wages go to people who are between jobs through tax. In the unlikely event I need that support, I will take it. If centrelink isn’t enough I have an atheist family and friends that I know would help me. Oh wait, they don’t have principles or substance, do they? Damn heathens! I’m screwed!

The Reschs Rationaliser says:

02:18pm | 02/07/10

Stewart Henstock has conveniently overlooked all those giant charities founded on the principles of atheism that give so freely to those in desperation and need - parallel providers to Vinnies, Anglicare, The Salvos et al (but with a belief in nothing).
To name just a few there is

Mick says:

02:24pm | 02/07/10

Stewaaaart, come on mate this country was founded on the Dream Time n sh%t buddy. Give it a rest the (aledged) Christians came and stole it as they have always done and will alwways do. There isn’t a true Christian out there I’m quite certain. There was one once and they nailed him to a cross I believe. All others have been abusing and misreading the teaching ever since so back the hell up with your Christain crap. It is a fallacy, a hoax.

Anonymousaurus Rex says:

02:47pm | 02/07/10

@Stewart Henstock
Feel free to enlighten us obviously morally deprived people (because we do not draw from fear of a sky fairy to not be destructive) what Judo-Christian principles were the foundation of this nation as a penal colony?

Steely Dan says:

03:53pm | 02/07/10

@ Reschs Rationaliser

Atheist principle charities?  Atheism has no principles, (atheism is just a lack of a belief, not a philosophy). But that doesn’t mean atheists aren’t charitable.

Here’s a few non-religious charities we atheists like to give to:
- Amnesty International
- Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders)
- Oxfam
- UNCF
- Kiva.org
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (largest transparent private foundation in the world)
- SHARE

You don’t have to be godly to be good.  ‘Be good for goodness’ sake’.

Soames says:

06:06pm | 02/07/10

“and whether or not they go to church/mass”. One cannot go to mass without going to church; however, one can go to church without going to mass.

Soames says:

06:18pm | 02/07/10

“Australia was founded on Judo-Christian principles”. Really? One would never have thought that Judo had such an bearing on Christianity, unless one is ignorant of an unknown Japanese influence perhaps during the Crusades.

TrueOz says:

06:35pm | 02/07/10

@ Stewart Henstock

Not being one to rely upon anybody, I won’t be finding myself unemployed under a Labor (or any other) government. Hopefully, I’ll never have to live under a Labor government again. I detest pretty much everything that they stand for - and Gillard stands for far more detestable things than most Labor party members. Frankly, Tony Abbott is little better in that regard - it’s just a matter of degree.

To suggest that anyone (Gillard included) needs to hold some religious belief in order to be principled is an insult to the intelligence and daily conduct of those of us who choose not to believe in the silliness of elves, fairies and sky-Gods. As detestable as Gillard’s dearly held beliefs are to me, her daily conduct is exemplary and she certainly stands by her principles. Her atheism is irrelevant.

@ Steely Dan

Thanks for providing that list of charitable organisations. Kiva.org is my personal favourite, because it’s charitable without being a wasteful and useless charity. I’m sure that Julia Gillard would agree with this organisations outstanding work - despite her atheism - people of principle can be (and are) charitable whatever their beliefs might be!

T.Chong says:

08:07am | 02/07/10

Where as a good capitalist believes in Mammon. ?

Seano says:

08:07am | 02/07/10

Most people don’t care about the issue of the PM’s Atheism. The few that do care enough that it might effect who they vote for probably weren’t voting for the ALP anyway.

KH says:

08:37am | 02/07/10

Thanks Seano - at least there is one sensible comment here today.  I am an atheist (obviously) but I still voted for Rudd - at the time, it was the better option.  What he believes or doesn’t believe is not my concern - just because he believes something, doesn’t necessarily mean he can make laws based on it - there is a whole process that has to be gone through that pretty much means one persons individual viewpoint is not necessarily going to have any material effect on me.  So I choose to ignore it - people believe what they want, as do I…..doesn’t mean I can’t agree with them on other things, or even have them as close friends….............

Joan says:

10:39am | 02/07/10

athieism as in communism- (Gillard ex communism party member) goes with, treachery, ruthlessness, oppression of masses , lack freedom of religion, censorship of press, gulags, purges, torture of citizens, and forced labour .-communism as practised in the world when Julia was member- the post-2nd world communism that many fled to seek refuge in Australia and are now voting citizens of Australia. Her vanguard red-hair a reminder to all of where her politics originates.

Seano says:

11:17am | 02/07/10

I’d starting to think that Communism goes with paranoia, rhetoric and right wing scare campaigns Joan. Can’t think why.

Joan says:

11:53am | 02/07/10

Gillard should be questioned by media about her time in the Communist Party in much the same way the media has questioned Abbott about his abandoned training for priesthood Millions of Austrailians who fled communism and their families   would be interested, very interested.

Steely Dan says:

11:57am | 02/07/10

@ steve

If you’re a Marxist communist, and you interpret the ‘opiate of the masses’ thing as a ban on religion and not just a comment on its popularity, then you’d have to be an atheist I guess.  But even Stalin couldn’t help installing a state religion for a time.  Modern communism’s relationship with religion is complicated - as they’ve all been dictatorships they’ve opposed/supported/exploited religion when it suits the interests of the ruling party/leader.

But communism is older than Marx.  Jesus sounded like a pre-industrial communist to me.

Steely Dan says:

12:07pm | 02/07/10

@ Joan

Well, if the first thing Gillard did was take the proposed super mining tax rate down from 40% to 30% I think its fair to say she’s not a communist…

James1 says:

12:08pm | 02/07/10

I don’t support Gillard, but you religious types are starting to scare me.

Peter says:

12:32pm | 02/07/10

@ James1, you’ve spent at least a year putting down people of faith on the punch. Is that all you have to contribute? Some people are blind and other aren’t, simple as that.. You can interpret that anyway you like..

Peter says:

12:40pm | 02/07/10

I don’t think there is any suggestion that Gillard is still a communist. I think in our young days most of us would some delusion that communism or rampant socialism was they way to go. As we grow older, i think we learn that it simply doesn’t work..

The biggest socialist policy out there at the moment is Tony Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme. Talk about wealth distribution, take from the poor to give $75,000 to some Toorak mum who doesn’t need it, but will probably buy a Mercedes with it anyway..  And we thought the Plasma TV bonus was bad..

Joan says:

12:44pm | 02/07/10

Steve, Gillard just backpeddled the rusty Labor policy bike the one that is falling apart with every policy launch.- so she did a big patch up job on a policy, nothing to celebrate a patchup is a patchup. What`s her song ` `Patch it up baby ` ?. She may not believe in a God but I bet she believes in nationalising minng industry like a any good commo would.

Anne71 says:

12:58pm | 02/07/10

@Joan - have you forgotten that some of the most brutal and bloody conflicts in history have been over whose God is better? Ever heard of a little thing called the Spanish Inquisition? Religion has been used as justification for genocide, torture, war and discrimination for centuries. It doesn’t come down to what you believe in or don’t believe in. It comes down to power-crazy people trying to force their point of view onto everyone else, regardless of the damage they cause in the process. Get an education, will you?

Joan says:

01:14pm | 02/07/10

Anne71-  Spanish Inquistion? please get up to date in history. A large number of Australian poplutaion fled the rule of communist tyrants - post World War2 - they have a right to know of Gillards Communist
predeposition - this choice of belief makes her the leader she is- as much as any God based religious belief.

Julatron says:

01:23pm | 02/07/10

Joan’s latest witty entry:
“athieism as in communism- (Gillard ex communism party member) goes with, treachery, ruthlessness, oppression of masses , lack freedom of religion, censorship of press, gulags, purges, torture of citizens, and forced labour”

is about as smart as me saying:
“christianity, as in child sex abuse, witch burning, genocide, anti-semitism, pogroms, supporting the nazi regime, oppression of freedom of thought, oppression of the masses, crusades, torture of citizens, forced labour, fleecing the poor of their money… i could go on.

James1 says:

01:29pm | 02/07/10

I am not sure I put anyone people of faith down, Peter.  Present my alternative view, sure, but put people down?

And unlike some of these religious types, I do not think those who disagree with me are evil, and can tolerate disagreement. 

BTW, I agree on the Paid Parental Leave Scheme.  Redistribution at its worst - taking money from the rich to subsidise the lifestyles of the middle and upper classes.  If that is what the conservative side of politics offers…

Joan says:

01:34pm | 02/07/10

OH- Anne72 I do agree with problem of `power-crazy people trying to force their point `  a recent classic case is Gillard the phoney PM who ousted a popular peoples PM Rudd. Power-crazy Gillard - agree with that one - a clssic commo line- done for the good of the people without asking the people.

david says:

01:43pm | 02/07/10

many religious orders are structured as communes

Anne71 says:

01:50pm | 02/07/10

@Joan - your last name wouldn’t be McCarthy by any chance, would it?

Joan says:

02:02pm | 02/07/10

Julatron: 61.9 million killed by Communist Russia 1917-1987 and
76.9million killed by Communist China 1949-1987. There own people.
Gillard must explain to people of Australia about her time in Communist Party. Would you find her an acceptable leader if she had belonged to a Nazi Party? The people who fled from communist countries,and had families slaughtered at the hands of communists may think she is totally unsuitable PM -even as a phoney PM

Seano says:

02:37pm | 02/07/10

Yes but Joan sensible people realise a flirtation with various socialist groups in one’s youth does not a card carring, member of the communist party make. Just ask Peter Costello.

Julatron says:

02:45pm | 02/07/10

Thanks for trotting that ol chestnut out Joan. Mao and Stalin were personality cultists, their work was not in the name of atheism, unlike the inquisition and the crusades which where wholy about religion… And try and image the death and destruction the church couldve caused had it had 20th century technology and 10 times the global population to commit its crimes as Stalin and Mao did. Thanks for trying though.

Joan says:

03:20pm | 02/07/10

Sean : Gillard has to explain her past Communist Party membership - the people of Australia can decide whether it is relevant or not. As for Costello - he is a business man isn’t he- so what does that have to do with Gillard.?  So a firt with communist party is ` OK and a flirt with Nazi Party is OK I think not - not if you are a leader of Australia

Seano says:

03:43pm | 02/07/10

Joan - No Joan you have to come up with some substantial proof other than right wing paranoia. The PM has better things to do than to respond to spurious claims and silly rhetoric.

Joel says:

03:51pm | 02/07/10

Joan, all the things you listed are most commonly products of religion.  Fear and oppression is the only way religion still exists.

Ras Putiin says:

03:57pm | 02/07/10

Joan,please have a bex and a lay down; there have been despots right throughout history who have slaughtered umpteen people! Most of them have done it in the name of one god or another..To put ms Gillards name in your diatribe is quite unbecoming of you!

Daniel says:

04:59pm | 02/07/10

Joan: constantly screaming communist doesn’t make it true, grow up.

Joan says:

07:38pm | 02/07/10

Ras with name like Putin small wonder that you say pfft to Commie slaughters and not surprising that you standby your Red comrade Gillard..

joe says:

11:31am | 02/07/10

Christians are concerned that she is a member of a feminist group that is pro-abortion. So she has religious freedom but those who care about abortion care about her affiliations.

DJ says:

12:33pm | 02/07/10

To say Athiests are pro-abortion is absurd, i know several people who are religious and have had abortions one does not mean the other, while I am pro-choice I would never have an abortion as it’s not right for me but I am not going to tell someone that they shouldn’t if it’s what is right for them

Mark says:

01:24pm | 02/07/10

To DJ - Well said. The assumption by church goers that anyone not of faith is a theiving murderous rapist is ridiculous. This obsession with worrying about what everyone else is doing and taking personal offence if another person has a different perception on life is exactly why the church and state must be completely removed from one another.

joe says:

03:00pm | 02/07/10

DJ and Mark I am not implying for one second that all Atheists are pro-abortion. The feminist pro-abortion group that I refereed to that she is a member of is called Emily’s List (google it). This is the worry!

If you think religion and state should somehow be removed from one another then maybe groups like Emily’s list shouldn’t be aloud to fund candidates who to the line to their Atheist religious stance.

Your name:Truckle says:

03:18pm | 03/07/10

No, freedom of religion does not grant the freedom to be an atheist.  Freedom *from* religion does that.

Ani says:

09:33am | 02/07/10

right on.

Danno says:

10:21am | 02/07/10

War, poverty, and violence are caused by man, be it for greed, power, or just plain hatred. It is not caused by God. Mankind chooses to live by their own ethics, which are subjective rather than living by God’s principles as stated in the Bible. Do you think that there will be war, violence, etc. if we all respected life, for compassionate towards fellow human beings, did not kill, commit adultery, steal, etc. We choose to go down this path, it’s no fault of God’s so the same people that don’t believe in God and chooses to ignore Him are the same hypocrites that expect God to come to the rescue! Can’t have it both ways!

m says:

10:29am | 02/07/10

bingo! hit the nail right on the head there

Seneca says:

11:14am | 02/07/10

@ Spaghetti Godess: Completely agree.

@ Danno:
I agree that war, poverty and violence is caused by man but I think you would find that many many people do choose to live by ‘God’s principles’ and alot of the time that is where your ‘plain hatred’ emanates from. Ofcourse religion not the sole cause for bloodshed over the course of history, but think back to the incredible amount of wars that have been fought, and continue to be fought in the name of a ‘God’. So in effect, God can be to blame for a great proportion of war and violence.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that people who don’t believe in God then expect him/her to come to their rescue.. They simply just don’t acknowledge the existence of any God no matter the religion (and hopefully, therefore, believe in the goodness of humanity and our relationship to the environment).. I think you may have ran out of things to write?

True Believer says:

11:15am | 02/07/10

I think the followers of the Sphaghetti god/goddess will just end up with sauce on their faces!!!!!!:0)

SkepDad says:

11:31am | 02/07/10

You’re absolutely right Danno.  None of those things are God’s fault, in precisely the same way that none of those things are the Fairy King’s fault.  Or Zeus’s fault.  Or the fault of the invisible pink unicorn currently whinnying (silently) behind my filing cabinet.

Similarly, all the great human poetry, beauty and acts of kindness are the “fault” of humans, not bronze-age deities that have outlived their usefulness as explainers of the mysterious.

I rather hope that we continue to live by and evolve our own ethics, rather than your god’s principles as stated in your bible.  Have you read it?  A more misogynist, cruel and racist tome you’d be hard-pressed to find.

Mark says:

11:38am | 02/07/10

It took a while to find a disaster on this planet that can be blamed on the gods - dont know what religion you are Danny and there are lots of religions so there must be lots of gods as we have to respect them all dont we.
However through their combined incompetance in creation perhaps they gave you an explanation as to why they left asbestos on the planet.
The god that loves you must really hate mesophelioma victims.

Stewart Henstock says:

11:45am | 02/07/10

In that case you would be goose stepping alongside the many who supported Hitler.

Steely Dan says:

12:10pm | 02/07/10

@ Stewart Henstock

That’s not fair, Stewart.  I’m pretty sure Hitler would have been a nutter even if he wasn’t Catholic.

James1 says:

12:10pm | 02/07/10

I call Godwin’s Law on Stewart.  He loses the argument.

The Redman says:

12:25pm | 02/07/10

Danno’s post begs the question, therefore, just what is god responsible for? From my perspective, god is not responsible for an earthquake nor those that are killed, but he is responsible for saving those who are not killed. God is not responsible for war, but he is responsible for a successful sporting moment. God is not responsible for drought and famine, but he is responsible for rain. God is not responsible for disease, but he is responsible for unexpected cures. God is not responsible for the needless deaths of millions across the planet through starvation, war, pestilence, disease, but he is responsible for an Oscar winner, or an Emmy winner or an Australian Idol winner. What the christian religion has is a “get out” clause for god. Everything good is attributed to god. Everything bad is attributed to man’s free will magnimously granted to us by god. I’ve decided. I want god’s job. All the cudos. None of the blame.

observer says:

12:44pm | 02/07/10

@Danno “War, poverty, and violence are caused by man, be it for greed, power, or just plain hatred. It is not caused by God.”

Obviously you haven’t read the Old Testament (eg Numbers 31).

Peter says:

12:48pm | 02/07/10

@ Seneca “relationship to the environment” Is that the wiccan in you?

@ Danno, absolutely spot on mate..

Bob says:

01:09pm | 02/07/10

@ Danno, It’s an old chestnut but Epicurus pretty much sorted out your argument 400 centuries before Christ was (allegedly) born.

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

No matter what your answer, you can’t blame it on humans. If god is all powerful, he set the rules. If people don’t follow his rules then he’s a pretty impotent deity, you’d have to agree. So, if the bloke has no sway over the people he’s supposed to govern, it really makes him the Malcolm Turnbull of the Kingdom of Heaven doesn’t it? I think the Saints and Archangels are probably doing the numbers on him as we speak

Oh bother! says:

01:38pm | 02/07/10

Whoever we are, wherever we’re from, we shoulda noticed by now our behaviour is dumb
And if our chances expect to improve it’s gonna take a lot more than tryin’ to remove the other race or the other whatever from the face of the planet altogether
They call it “The Earth” which is a dumb kinda name but they named it right ‘cause we behave the same
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over, yes we are, dumb all over, near and far, dumb all over, black ‘n white, people, we is not wrapped tight
And nerds on the left, nerds on the right
Religious fanatics on the air every night, sayin’ the bible tells the story and makes the details sound real gory about what to do if the geeks over there don’t believe in the book we got over here
You can’t run a race without no feet
And pretty soon there won’t be no street for dummies to jog on or doggies to dog on
Religious fanatics can make it be all gone
I mean it won’t blow up and disappear, it’ll just look ugly for a thousand years
You can’t run a country by a book of religion
Not by a heap or a lump or a smidgeon of foolish rules of ancient date, designed to make you all feel great while you fold, spindle and mutilate those unbelievers from a neighbouring state
To arms, to arms
Hooray! That’s great, two legs ain’t bad
Unless there’s a crate they ship the parts to mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (Get down)
Not his, not hers but what the hey
The good book says, “It’s gotta be that way”
But their book says, “Revenge the crusades”
With whips ‘n chains and hand grenades
Two arms, two arms
Have another and another
Our Cod says, “There ain’t no other”
Our Cod says, “It’s all ok”
Our god says “This is the way”
It says in the book, “Burn and destroy”
And repent and redeem and revenge and deploy and rumble thee forth to the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
‘Cause they don’t go for what’s in the book and that makes ‘em bad
So verily we must choppeth them up and stompeth them down
Or rent a nice French bomb to poof them out of existence while leaving their real estate just where we need it to use again for temples in which to praise our god, ‘cause he can really take care of business
And when his humble TV servant with humble white hair and humble glasses and a nice brown suit and maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls, tells us our god says it’s ok to do this stuff, then we gotta do it
‘Cause if we don’t do it we ain’t “Gwine up to hebbin”
Depending on which book you’re using at the time
Can’t use theirs, it don’t work, it’s all lies, gotta use mine
Ain’t that right?
That’s what they say
Every night, everyday
Hey, we can’t really be dumb if we’re just following god’s orders
Well let’s get serious, god knows what he’s doin’
He wrote this book here and the book says, “He made us all to be just like him”
So, if we’re dumb, then god is dumb and maybe even a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side

Frank Zappa - you are what you is.

Anonoumousaurus Rex says:

03:05pm | 02/07/10

Danno, you mean God’s principles of murder, genocide, and human sacrifice to sate his rage? Oh but they were all tests of faith, or are parables, and not to be taken seriously other than the message…. Ofcourse, war is all mans fault in light of the shining paragon that is the christian god, who lies and deceives to teach moral character. How could we all have missed it for so long….

T.Chong says:

08:56am | 02/07/10

Immanuel, good to see someone else who is a fan of the good Dr. Sagan -( hope you also have the 7 disc series, as well as The Cosmos book ).
I thought Dr S. was more ambivalent, depending on whether you believe the universe is expanding and limitless, or enclosed.
It must also be remembered that he did most of his work before the advent of super computers etc, and much has been discovered since he passed onto a higher plain.

Immanuel Kant says:

09:42am | 02/07/10

When Sagan died some Christian friends of his asked his wife if he had become a Christian. One of the reasons I admire Carl Sagan so much is because he was a true man despite his beliefs. His wife’s reply to the silly question from his Christian friends was, “Carl didn’t want to believe, he wanted to know.” As a thinker from any arena, you cannot be more true to yourself than this. However like Socrates the father of critical philosophy who said, “The only thing I know is that I know nothing,” Sagan also without a concept for absolutes would say the same thing. However his book does highlight a real tension in his thinking regarding his observations in contrast to his data and discipline. I asked my wife’s mental health doctor if we would still be having a complete conversation if our legs had been amputated. He replied, yes. I asked him if our body was us. He replied with a, no. I then explained to him that his observations were contrary to his science which deals only with the material cosmos. Socrates also says, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” He understand he thinks, but minus a concept for absolutes it is impossible to prove it because a method of antithesis is require for this to occur.  When the ‘scholastic tradition and Aristotle’s metaphysics were rejected and replaced by an unhealthy emphasis on human reason alone (modernity)/14th - 18th Centuries) to solve the deep questions related to metaphysics and morality science also took on a new method of looking at things; a humanist method. Copernicus’ revolution in science meant that we went from thinking in flat world terms to thinking in oval terms, all of this after believing Aristotle for 1800 years. Only the Maori didn’t believe this idea. After 400 years of modernity human reason shifted into another context beginning with French thinkers and then the German thinkers like Kant Hegel and many others particularly in the religious arena. Products of Kant’s “a priori” concept are people like Van Gough, Gauguin, Darwin, Harnack, Bultmann, Marx, Stalin, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Hitler and Sagan and many others. Kant mostly gives us our current relative context. Hegel gives us dialectical method where two opposites are fused into a higher truth Nietzsche called ‘perspectivism’ and what we call today ‘relativity’ or ‘post- Christianism’ as it should be called.

Sagan was a great man indeed and I am happy to say that regarding his honesty to himself and what he was presented with, he will always be an example of a true human being to me. I have studied pre-modernity, modernity and post modernity in an attempt to understand history in terms of a progression in human thought development through these three periods, where by people have arrived at any particular reality about things. Science and Christianity agree, that as a person thinks, so are they. Science just can’t explain why we think yet based upon the material universe concept alone. Kant also introduced this problem to humanity with his ‘a priori’ concept where people shape reality via their thinking. Like Socrates, Kant thinks but cannot know why.

Regards my friend

Rick says:

09:53am | 02/07/10

uuughhh… a daring post which you would think would raise so many responses… and it only gets one! (a good one) by T Chong… That’s the difference between a sustained, evidence-based comment and the sea of non-sense, biased and hysterical comments you see around this one.

On another note, from a point of view of philosophy of science - If we were to see atheism from a scientific point of view, it wouldn’t qualify as a science (science as scientia, knowledge, not the popular view of looking into a micriscope) as it lacks falsifiability. In other words - when we die, we believers will be able to prove the non-believers that there is a God. If there were no God, they could never prove it to us - hence, no falsifiability. and hence its unvalidity.

Jon says:

11:33am | 02/07/10

Immanuel, gee, where do I begin!

Human beings are flawed, they invented religions, which by logic would be flawed, lots of them, over time many have disappeared and not because they were flawed. So if you wanted to try and find out the true nature of our existence, why would your starting point be based on something that flawed?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

‘This question includes God in its scope: if there is a God, then God is something, so we can always ask: why is there God rather than no God? This implies that the question cannot be answered by appealing to God. It can’t be answered by saying: because God made everything. That would only be an answer to the question: why is there something other than God rather than nothing other than God? Which is not the original question. Many naïve theists fail to understand this point.’

Eric Steinhart

A Bob says:

11:58am | 02/07/10

Nice to see the junior philosophers club is having a run on the blogs today. Hopefully they will study sophistry soon and how it applies to them.

AD says:

12:14pm | 02/07/10

That’s all well and good, but even if there is evidence pointing towards some intelligent design or guidance in the creation and running of the universe that in no way constitutes evidence supporting any or all of the organized religions.  At best, only 1 of them can be correct (and more likely none of them are).

The problem is that you get these extremist nutjobs (whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or any other faith) who assume that any evidence of a god constitutes evidence of THEIR god(s), and therefore they feel that justifies attempting to impose the beliefs and standards of their religion upon the wider world.  At which point they start interfering in politics, either directly by running their own religion based parties/candidates/lobby groups, or just by instructing their followers on which way they should vote.

While I do believe in a god, and was raised in a Christian household, I have long since turned my back on organized religion.  As soon as it becomes organized it becomes political and the god I believe in doesn’t dirty its hands in something as base as politics.

James1 says:

12:17pm | 02/07/10

I wonder if this “Kant” is the same “Carl Sagan” and “Anthony (sic) Flew” from a previous post?  I further wonder if it isn’t some fundamentalist Christian who has studied a first year philosophy course, and is now attempting to “teach the controversy”.

Paul Gauguin says:

12:28pm | 02/07/10

Kant rightly said that by applying human reason alone we no further disprove the existence of God as much as we can prove it. You need to understand the implications of his a priori concept to enter this debate. he shares David Hume’s pessimism and unlike Locke had nothing to fall back on. Leonardo realised that beginning with finite beings to understand anything provides us only with mathematics, which deals only with the material universe. He took mathematics to it’s logical conclusion by designing machines ahead of his time. In art his painting of the “Mona Lisa” represented a finite being. he wanted to paint that being that gave all beings meaning. An the same way the post-impressionist painted what his thinking bought to him as opposed to what his eyes bought his as did the “impressionist”.  Big shift in integration point here, a situation Kant gives to human reason. Atheism like all religion belonged to a time when categories mattered. The atheist cannot express his beliefs applying atheist methods because they lack categories. It seems like a difficult exercise any beliefs minus a concept for absolutes.

Paul Gauguin says:

12:29pm | 02/07/10

Kant rightly said that by applying human reason alone we no further disprove the existence of God as much as we can prove it. You need to understand the implications of his a priori concept to enter this debate. he shares David Hume’s pessimism and unlike Locke had nothing to fall back on. Leonardo realised that beginning with finite beings to understand anything provides us only with mathematics, which deals only with the material universe. He took mathematics to it’s logical conclusion by designing machines ahead of his time. In art his painting of the “Mona Lisa” represented a finite being. he wanted to paint that being that gave all beings meaning. An the same way the post-impressionist painted what his thinking bought to him as opposed to what his eyes bought his as did the “impressionist”.  Big shift in integration point here, a situation Kant gives to human reason. Atheism like all religion belonged to a time when categories mattered. The atheist cannot express his beliefs applying atheist methods because they lack categories. It seems like a difficult exercise any beliefs minus a concept for absolutes.

DJ says:

12:38pm | 02/07/10

@Rick, I agree, it’s the same principal as to whether Vampires, Werewolves etc exist (which I am pro FYI)

SkepDad says:

02:03pm | 02/07/10

@ Rick:

Atheism is not “firm belief that there is no god” as you would characterise it.  Such belief is, as you say, unfalsifiable and thus no more valid than belief in sky pixies.

Atheism is rather the “absence of belief in god” - the very embodiment of your point about evidence.  There’s no evidence for it, therefore I don’t believe it.  The burden of proof is on those who claim the supernatural.

Before you go and crack on about agnosticism, the atheist takes their personal position further by saying “not only is there no evidence for god, but there is much evidence to indicate how supernatural beliefs could naturally evolve, which when combined with the human fear of death and need for answers might make it likely (though not provably so) that gods are figments of our imagination and wish-thinking. 

If atheists have an equivalent on the opposite, supernatural side, it is with those who are vaguely spiritual but don’t follow a particular cult like scientology or christianity.  Vague spirituality is not a religion, and neither is atheism.

Atheists in general don’t even have a problem with the concept of a god or a creator, when it remains inscrutable and doesn’t affect humans.  That is, as you say, unfalsifiable.

What they do have a problem with is the idea of a higher power with any interest or influence in the human race, and the ability or inclination to punish or reward humans for their moral choices, or that there is any reason other than fear to believe in any version of an afterlife (with apologies to Tim Minchin) and the associated divisions created by specific religious cults who take the idea of a general god and wrap it in superstitious mumbo jumbo and rules and hate.

Mayday says:

02:11pm | 02/07/10

Yes lets talk about Chaos Theory…........
“the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.”
The “first mover” was a set of conditions wheres Sagan implies there was an entity and Contact was one of the worst science fiction movies ever.

Michael says:

02:33pm | 02/07/10

Religion would be the greatest joke in the world if it hadn’t killed so many people. All religions are brainwashing. That is why it feels real, it makes sense because it is all you have ever known. It’s mind control and population control, how else can you explain suicide bombers man!?!. that is what’ it was franchised for in the first place. It is a way of governance nothing more. There is no greater hypocrite than someone who needs god to do the right thing. I don’t need someone elses rules to guide me. Certain things just feel wrong it’s called your conscience and it has been around alot longer than any of the organised religions. Isn’t that a great term in itself “organised religion” go sheep go. You poor deluded fools but hey, whatever helps you sleep at night right? I sleep like a baby because I have no doubt and that is stronger than any faith.

The Redman says:

02:34pm | 02/07/10

Spiritualism is not the sole domain of religion. I consider meditation as spritualism. I consider spiritualism as a recognition of self, not of god. Do not lie to yourself about who and what you are. Accept that your shortcomings are yours, and your talents are yours. Neither are attributed to god.

What the? says:

09:23am | 03/07/10

Jon says:11:33am | 02/07/10

Humans cannot be flawed if there is nothing perfect to begin with.  If you say humans are flawed you are appealing to something higher. We were either perfect and are now flawed or we are just evolving into something better. Where does perfection end or start?
If we are just ramdom cells evolving over time, we will continue to do this forever and perfection is nothing more than your own interpretation and in reality has no substance. Perfection either exists and we are flawed or at the moment we are as perfect as we can be. What criteria do we base perfection on?

Jon says:

12:44pm | 03/07/10

What the? If that were true then religion, as a construction of humans, would be as a shadow of that perfection and therefore could not be more perfect or less flawed than it inventor and as a result would have no substance.

Fred says:

11:38am | 02/07/10

You know they did get rid of that, decades ago.  And then some religious groups asked if they would introduce it again, and nobody objected, so they did.  Going by that theory, your problem isn’t with the prayer, but for the politicians that agreed to reinstate it.

Stewart Henstock says:

11:50am | 02/07/10

Well as a Christian you are deeply offensive to me but i at least have the good manners not to make it public every 5 minutes as you atheists do.
The country was formed on Judo-Christian principles.If you don’t like the Lords Prayers being recited before Question Time put your fingers in your ears and hum “Highway To Hell”.

Steely Dan says:

12:26pm | 02/07/10

“The country was formed on Judo-Christian principles.”
Which is why our politicians are very good at backflips, and flipping others onto their backs.  Australia was formed on liberal democratic principles, Stewart.  We don’t have a state religion.

“If you don’t like the Lords Prayers being recited before Question Time put your fingers in your ears and hum “Highway To Hell”.”
You’d be ejected from the chamber for doing that (would the speaker try and flip you out?).

Mark says:

12:51pm | 02/07/10

Stewart, does my atheism offend you and here I am thinking Chritians practise tolerance as well as hypocrisy.
The principals can be retained without needing to pray to any god, just like we still live on planet earth and know it to be round and not flat as we once thought it to be. We can take what is right, the princiapls of Chritianity and leave behind the superstion of Christianity.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:54pm | 02/07/10

Good idea!! Parliament could use a good dose of AC/DC….

BBB says:

02:23pm | 02/07/10

“The country being formed on Judo-Christian principles” - killing the natives and disposssing them of their land, the use of convicts, systemic corruption in Colonial Sydney etc etc.  Our founders might have thought they were founding the country on Judo-Christian principles, but their actions indicated something quite different.

Sick and Tired says:

09:16pm | 02/07/10

Stewart, it makes me sad to see someone who claims to be a Christian and yet in the same breath fails to understand one of its most important teachings.

Jesus himself said of the second most important commandment: “The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:31)

Moreover, your taking offense at others is not showing love.  “[Love] is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.” (1 Corinthians 13:5)

Your words are Pharisaical and only serve to embarrass those who are actually trying live by the teachings of Christ.

Dan says:

05:01am | 03/07/10

Stewart Henstock, Australia was not formed on Judeo-Christian principles (which does not exist anyway), but you do realise that the Lords Prayer is a Christian prayer, and not a Jewish one? Jews, and other non-Christians, do not recite it and seeing that this is not a Christian country, killing it off would be perfectly appropiate. Not everyone here are Christian fundamentalists like you.

If you don’t like that, well, I couldn’t care less. You may be under the delusion that Australia is a Christian country and if we don’t recite the Lords Prayer before question time, we are going to hell, but don’t bring Judaism into this. Don’t bring Jews into your ignorance and fundamentalism.

joe says:

11:33am | 02/07/10

Interesting that you say the religious nuts have taken over when an Athiest just has.

Many on the left like to talk up the strength of some scary religious lobby. Think about it - they are all too busy having big families and having no money to be funding political parties.

Laura says:

11:49am | 02/07/10

Isn’t that just it? The government is MEANT to be secular. But it’s not. Religion infiltrates through tradition. I agree it shouldn’t make a difference, but of course it will.

I’d like the PM to get rid of the religious elements that are retained in parliament, such as the Lord’s Prayer recitation. But I’d like to think any PM would do this, regardless of their religious beliefs, purely because they understand that representation of one religion while spouting freedom of belief is hypocritical.

Graeme Harrison says:

10:33am | 05/07/10

Unfortunately the Rreligious Right have imported their techniques from the USA.  Australia’s tradition since the 1970s is that people vote according to how they feel the parties’ policies on the major issues reflect their own view.  With the US influence, organised christianity wants us to revert to block voting based on religious affiliation.
Christ said nothing about protecting zygots, but in the US, someone who is generally liberal yet christian, HAD to vote Republican (Bush et al) simply to reflect an anti-abortion viewpoint.
Australia’s democracy will always remain stronger when such issues of personal belief are voted upon in parliament as a matter of personal ethics.  Hopefully that might break the growing nexus between christianity and the Liberal Party.  Do christians really want the boat children behind barbed wire again?  But none better than Abbott to do the dog-whistling on faith-based race/belief hatred.  The take-over of the Liberals by the Religious Right (esp in NSW) will work for christians in the short-term, but there is nothing surer than it will sideline the Liberals and encourage votes for Greens, minor parties and independents.

Steely Dan says:

12:13pm | 02/07/10

What did she say about marriage, the apologist?

the apologist says:

12:53pm | 02/07/10

She expressed that she doesn’t agree with homosexual marriage, and maintains Mr Rudd’s (and apparently Labors) opinion on it. What grounds has she got to say that on as an athiest?? It’s been widely criticised as political expediency. So much for ‘choosing the truth’. Doubt it will take long for her to change her tune though… (perhaps when she’s safely back in office after the next election)

Steely Dan says:

01:25pm | 02/07/10

@ the apologist

Sorry, thought you were being facetious with the best (worst) thing.  I agree, she is being politically expedient.  And the same people who put her there (ALP’s right) can take her away…

KH says:

08:34am | 02/07/10

No Richard - I’m not the one deluding myself.
As for ignorant morons, that is you.  Hey if you want to dish it out, you have to take it too.  And good to know that you just ‘know’ stuff - must be comforting.

murray says:

08:45am | 02/07/10

Did an athiest pinch your last jam dougnut, Richard?

Freeman says:

09:38am | 02/07/10

Chill out, Richard
there’s more to being an athiest than just not beleiving in god. you can still have a spiritual side and you can still take an interest in the order of everything.

Z says:

10:50am | 02/07/10

I think Richard needs a hug. Come here big fella

Steely Dan says:

12:17pm | 02/07/10

How am I “petty” or “self-absorbed” for being an atheist, Richard?
I’m not the one claiming I have some special knowledge of non-physical reality that silly five-sense-using atheists just don’t get.

The Redman says:

12:43pm | 02/07/10

Richard wrote: “but I know there is more to life than what we humuns can gropingly grasp with our five relatively blunt senses. “

How? How do you know? Please, let us all know as mankind have been waiting for the so-called meaning of life for centuries, and you seem to have the answer. Of course, we all know the answer is 42.

DJ says:

12:52pm | 02/07/10

Richard, I find fault with religious types who say the dinosaurs didn’t exist when we have found bones that say they did, I find fault with religions that say we are alone in the entire galaxy, how supremely arogant can some people be? the stars were not put up there for us to look at something pretty, there has to be more to this galaxy than us because if we are it what’s the point? why are we here?

I am against some religions saying you can’t have blood transfusions or donate your organs to others on your death, man (and woman) were created in god’s image, how does the word of god spread by Her creation and to deny the mind of Her creation is to deny the mind of God Herself, if we weren’t meant to be able to transfuse or transfer organs then why would we have the brain capacity and the imagination in order to do it?

Peter says:

01:28pm | 02/07/10

Can we have a discussion about religion with out the judgements? We all bloody morons, Christians and athiests alike.. Get over it..

JC says:

01:34pm | 02/07/10

is this Richard Dawkins?

Kim says:

02:18pm | 02/07/10

@ DJ - Spot on !

I also believe that we cannot possibly be alone in this universe.  There are over a billion planets for each person on this earth - therefore (in my “moronic” opinion) it would be literally impossible for our little old green planet to be the only one populated with thinking life.

So who’s the moron?

The Redman says:

03:14pm | 02/07/10

I had a very short discussion with a South African baptist who insisted that the fact that dinosaurs and ancient human fossils where found in roughly the same area was proof that man and dinosaurs live side by side, and was further proog that the world was truly created by god at 4600 and something BC. I tell no lie.

DJ says:

03:33pm | 02/07/10

The Redman - I believe you had this discussion but forgive me if I am wrong as I tend to tune out whenever religion is mentioned in my peer group, but I was under the impression that the church do not believe that dinosaurs existed because carbon dating has them living millions of years before they say the world was created? is that not so (please be polite as I am being antagonistic merely curious) Also didn’t that shroud of taurin get debunked as carbon dating said it couldn’t be it?

David says:

03:58pm | 02/07/10

At least we can spel

DaveinPerth says:

04:07pm | 03/07/10

@ DJ

“....I was under the impression that the church do not believe that dinosaurs existed because carbon dating….etc”

Er…Which Church ? Which God ? Which time period?

There’s quite a few different churches out there !  And quite a few different opinions within each church. And the ‘acceptable facts’ for each church change according to how willing they are to accept the march of science.

The Catholic Church and it’s various mainstream offshoots seem to have stopped trying to restrain reality some time ago. They seem mostly concerned with the APPLICATION of science these days. (Stem cells etc.) The Darwin / Galileo episodes really are a case study on brand destruction for no net gain.

The Jewish religion seems happy to accept any science. (On the strict proviso that no-one questions the archaeological history of the ‘Promised Land’ of Israel)

I can’t comment on Islam and science.  Mostly due to my ignorance, but Islamic scholars seem too fragmented and diverse to really get a grasp on their position on just about anything. Seems anyone with a beard and a tin shack can call himself a Grand Mufti and start issuing Fatw?‘s on just about any subject. (Most of which seem to relate to female apparel, rather than science. And nearly all of which seem contradictory to some other edict issued 5 minutes ago.)

But if you’re talking about DINOSAURS, then we are in the realm of the clappy singy churches. These people think that the worth of the bible is diminished by any acceptance of science that contradicts their interpretation of the bible.  Therefore, the Earth is 4000 years old, evolution is a hoax and climate change is just God turning up the thermostat. In Australia they are small in number but loud in voice. In America, they seem like half the population. Scary !

TrueOz says:

09:04am | 02/07/10

@Joan

Gillard simply ousted a man that even his own party found unpalatable. Rudd stood for absolutely nothing, and as such had no natural power base with the party. Gillard is a hard core leftie - committed to a wide range of things that I find fundamentally abhorent - but she DOES stand by her principles. Who’d have thought that I’d ever defend her?

T.Chong says:

09:04am | 02/07/10

Joan, how many leaders did julie Bishop, Abbott, and Hockey pledge allegiance too, in very recent history ?

Joan says:

10:50am | 02/07/10

Power to the people - a popular people`s PM is just that- a phoney PM selected by few is just that phoney, dictatorial- no point trying to spin it in any other way…...the people know what is right - you don’t go to bed with one leader and wakeup to another voted by a select few without prior notice to public. Australia is not a banna republic or totalitarian state- pollies should not be allowed to turn it into one..

Doh says:

11:17am | 02/07/10

“.Chong says:

09:04am | 02/07/10

Joan, how many leaders did julie Bishop, Abbott, and Hockey pledge allegiance too, in very recent history ? “

Now now Chong, don’t make me roll out the former Labor party leaders, there are a few of those too aren’t there…....

Some even made multiple appearances.

KH says:

01:17pm | 02/07/10

Sure, and no one in the coalition has ever done that….......... ha!
Abbott himself has blood on his hands - that of Turnbull.  How about Hawke and Keating? Latham/Beazley/Rudd?  Costello and Howard? Not stepping down was just as backstabby (and disastrous, as it turns out);  In fact, Howard was instrumental in several nasty little coups - Peacock, Hewson, Nelson and Downer - all scalped.  Any of these names ring a bell? Thats what politics is - a bloodsport - and only those with steel spines play…......the fact is, she is a woman - that seems to be the problem for some people, because I can’t see any difference between this and any other political backstabbing that has gone on over time.  It is possible to support something, then change your mind - I would be more worried about someone who just stood there and defended something that clearly wasn’t working.

T.Chong says:

01:51pm | 02/07/10

Agree D’oh all sides from time in memorial have blood on their hands as far as leaders go.
Its just dear joan needs to seek therapy, or get some more talking points other than Gillards Red hair = communism.
Surely this is just a little simplistic, post Cold War, ?
Whaddya say Joan, google Glenn Beck, he can update you on the “Red Peril “that the US faces under Obama, and you can repeat it here, to much wise nodding from fellow utlra conservatives !

Stewart Henstock says:

01:57pm | 02/07/10

I agree!
If she were a Christian i doubt it would of happened as atheists have no morals..no principles and in this case no kids.
How can she feel remorse for the 5000 kids living in poverty in Australia when she stated she had no interest in having kids.
She’s obviously the anti christ…lol

James1 says:

02:32pm | 02/07/10

Stewart, no politician has any principles.  Therefore, by your own definition, no politician is a Christian.

DJ says:

03:29pm | 02/07/10

Stewart - Just because you don’t have kids doesn’t mean you can’t have empathy, how can you create policy for crime if you don’t know criminals? drug policy if you haven’t taken drugs? how can you help the poor whoever if you have never been poor. That’s what advisors are for, she has never said she hates kids just that being a mother was not for her.  Why is it just the kids living in poverty that you are concerned about? what about the adults? what age do you consider them kids?

Grant says:

09:48am | 02/07/10

It is refresing, espeically since you have been touched by his delicious noodly appendage of love.

We at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have as much of a right to believe our god is a flying spaghetti monster as anyone else has a right to believe in their flying dude…

And in fact I declare that it was in fact my god who created the universe, and like all the other thousands of gods that exist mine can also turn invisible, manipulate time, and pass through space and matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to pray for his noodly appendage to bless you and that you should all take communion of his holy righteous meatballs of redemption. 

Ramen…

howy says:

10:01am | 02/07/10

The ACL don’t represent the majoirty of the Australian population. But they do represent the majority of Australians who will have a family, fight in wars and build the infrastructure for the future. Atheists are entertaining but they don’t do much other than keep people amused, they’re not a serious lot.

Mark says:

10:56am | 02/07/10

Avtually Howy, whats not funny is letting people who believe in superstition have a say in the real world

Ish says:

11:04am | 02/07/10

Indeed. The Australian Chapter of Pastafarians is growing. Perhaps Gillard and Rudd for that matter should bask in his Noodleyness and revel in beer volcano and stripper heaven with the rest of out heathen bretheren.

May the sauce be with you all.

Mike Creighton says:

11:31am | 02/07/10

Ramen, brothers and sisters of the faith, ramen.

Julatron says:

01:38pm | 02/07/10

Really Howy. So Christian families outnumber non-religious families do they? Facts anywhere? Or make them up like the bible does??

acotrel says:

09:24am | 02/07/10

Oaths of Allegiance and Office always have an alternative format available which accomodate differing beliefs about God. I suggest your first priority is your concern with Julia’s politics, NOT her religion! It amuses me that the religous amongst us are SO POISONOUS!

Vicki PS says:

09:53am | 02/07/10

She made an affirmation, the standard alternative to swearing an oath.

The Constitution provides that every Member of Parliament shall make and subscribe an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the monarch before taking his or her seat.  There is no “pledge to god” required.  The Oath of Office of Prime Minister contains no references to god and the monarch: neither does the Oath of Executive Councillor taken at the same time.  Check your facts before making silly comments.

Betelnut says:

10:56am | 02/07/10

Yep, because swearing on the bible is such a powerful disincentive to commit crime that the crime rate amoungst christians is effectively zero.

Sancho says:

11:03am | 02/07/10

Christians repeat this argument ad nauseam, but all it really means is that even they admit they’re only moral because they fear punishment in the afterlife, whereas atheists are moral due to conscience and personal integrity.

Steely Dan says:

12:31pm | 02/07/10

@ Danno

“To those atheist out there, who are you accountable to?”
Society.  And in Gillard’s particular case, the Constitution.

Steely Dan says:

12:33pm | 02/07/10

@ Danno

And explain why I (an atheist) give to charity.  Explain how that fits in with my alleged selfishness.

DJ says:

01:10pm | 02/07/10

Danno - because swearing on a bible means that you are of course telling the truth, Athiests and Agnostics swear an affirmation, don’t you watch crime shows? hell The People vs Larry Tate mentions it

J says:

10:54am | 02/07/10

And Yes; it is questionable?!

joe says:

11:29am | 02/07/10

Hi Babs Juilia’s religious views and membership of Emiles list effect the unborn, as she is funded by a pro-abortion lobby.

DJ says:

01:14pm | 02/07/10

Just because she is an Atheist doesn’t mean she is pro-abortion, KRudd and Abbot weren’t going to outlaw it and they are religious

DJ says:

01:16pm | 02/07/10

Sorry Larry Flint

joe says:

11:25am | 02/07/10

Dream on Kylie. That’s like saying your nationality shouldn’t enter into the political debate or your gender. To many Religion makes them very much who they are. Numerous decisions everyday in parliament are based on Religious views.

Joan says:

12:07pm | 02/07/10

As a past member of the Communist Party - phoney PM Gillard should please explain her political origins and communistic tendecies to the Australian people.

Julatron says:

01:43pm | 02/07/10

Joan - I’d rather than admitted liar Abbott lay his cards on the table and admit his religion drives his decision making and let us know what to expect, instead of lying even more to us to say that it wont!

joe says:

03:03pm | 02/07/10

I agree Joan. Abbott said he was a seminarian and doesn’t hide from it. Gillard tries to pretend that the communist organisation she was employed by was just a “debating society”. She hasn’t answered questions about her communist party membership. She obviously has a lot to hide.

LifeofY says:

12:17pm | 02/07/10

I was going to let this one go as ‘too stupid to answer’ but I just can’t let it pass.
For starters, as a free country, everyone living in it has the right to observe any (or no) religion as they choose. Islam being one of those. In other words it already is an ‘equal alternative’.
Second, what moronic person believes that Julia Gillard is suddenly going to endorse Islamic religion as the one to be observed by all Australians? Would they be the same idiots who believe the Labor party, the court system, and the people of Australia, would allow her to do it even if the mood did strike her.
I’m worried that people as ignorant as you exist, Bob!

Jon says:

12:18pm | 02/07/10

Bob, one of the greatest gift to humanity from Christianity was Secular Society. As an Atheist I thank you for it and Christians should rightly be proud of it. Don’t worry Atheist are equal opportunity critics of religions, and Islam will get its fare share.

Mark says:

12:33pm | 02/07/10

I have watched Muslims on television, they seem to be concerend about making sure there children can grow up and live worthwhile happy lives, in fact most believers of the superstitions I know about seem to have this in common. There is also something else all believers have in common, be they Muslim, Christian, Catholic, Astrozoarian or whatever , they all belive in something that doesnt exist.

Laine says:

02:27pm | 02/07/10

Bob, congratulations for making the stupidest argument against athiesm that I have ever heard! (and I’ve heard a lot).  You’ve just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of what athiesm is about.  The world must be a very confusing place for you.
Wow… just - WOW!

Stewart Henstock says:

11:56am | 02/07/10

So Gillard is pro-abortion?
I thought she was pro choice?
Right!!!
There’s no difference.
So we have a left winger who panders to the Labor factions,whose an atheist, a possible lesbian…her partner could be a front,she’s pro abortion…naturally ...she doesn’t like kids.
You sure we’re talking Australia here…
This sounds American to me..
Something you would find on Jerry Springer..
Jerry…Jerry…Jerry…

James1 says:

12:14pm | 02/07/10

There is a difference Stewart.  I am against abortion, but I am also pro-choice.  I know that is hard for a fundamentalist to understand, but let me explain.

Personally, I think abortion is wrong.  Therefore, I would never encourage anyone to have one.  However, I believe that other people have the right to reach their own conclusion by going through the same process that I did, and if their conclusion - based on their circumstances - is different to mine, I would not rob them of the opportunity to take what they see as being the right and ethical course of action.

Steely Dan says:

12:53pm | 02/07/10

@ Stewart Henstock

That was great stream-of-unconsciousness stuff there, Stewart.  It’s like beat poetry for the ultra-right.
No kids + pro choice = hates children?  No denying it, you’re onto her, Stewart.  I advise that you layer more tinfoil onto your hat in case ASIO try to steal those revelations straight from your noggin.  Minds like yours are too precious to lose.

Peter says:

12:54pm | 02/07/10

@ James1. Wow, im a christian and i have the same view on abortion.. Your not becoming religious are you or do you think only athiest are capable of having such views?

DJ says:

01:25pm | 02/07/10

@Peter - James didn’t say that only Atheists had this view, he was saying and forgive me I am wrong James is that it is moronic to say that someone pro choice and childless hates kids, that is a ridiculous state, like James I could never have an abortion, it’s not for me as I believe things happen for a reason and if I got pregnant then that child needs to be born, but that is my OPINION, other people certainly have with this funny thing called ‘FREE WILL; the ability to form their own opinions

James1 says:

01:38pm | 02/07/10

DJ - I think that sums up what I think pretty fairly.

And no, Peter, I think that the main thing we disagree on is the existence of god.  Otherwise, you make a lot of sense as far as I am concerned.  Also, I would like you to know that I distinguish between the religious and the fundamentalists.  I would say that it is not only atheists that can hold the views I do, as religious people clearly do hold such views (you are evidence of this).  However, fundamentalists do not seem able to hold the views I do.  So you are,  while certainly religious, not a fundamentalist, and are capable of understanding and applying nuance in your arguments and thought processes.

Chris L says:

08:20pm | 02/07/10

Peter, stop making sense or I’ll bring evolution into the discussion so we can argue!

Shannon says:

10:14am | 04/07/10

Im a pro choice, childless, unwed Atheist living with my boyfriend, and we have sex!

Being an Atheist doesn’t mean your pro abortion though, My boyfriend does not have the same views as me, and i know plenty of “Pro life” Atheists. it’s a personal choice.

I hate when the bible fundies come out.

Stewart Henstock says:

01:42pm | 02/07/10

So i guess you’ll be voting Green…oh…give that tree a hug for me…lol

SkepDad says:

12:16pm | 02/07/10

In my experience Zeta, atheists are much more likely to have arrived at their worldview through pondering than religious folk, who more often than not simply never questioned the indoctrination of their youth.

Peter says:

02:21pm | 02/07/10

@ SkepDad. I think we all arrive at our view through pondering. Pondering doesn’t mean we all reach the same conclusions.

My life experience has made me religious. To me it makes sense, if i were to tell you about my experiences, you would probably have a different explaination. I won’t tell you your wrong, unless you accuse me of the same.

@ Zeta, i think everyone has a moment to ponder the mysteries of life, even politicians. I call myself a Christian, but if you disected my beliefs, they are probably not strictly in accordance with the bible. I have my own theories and i am quite comfortable with them..

SkepDad says:

03:09pm | 02/07/10

@Peter: I didn’t mean to imply that atheism is the only correct conclusion of pondering.  However I think it’s uncontroversial to say that atheist > theist happens less often than theist > atheist.

Additionally, until the pondering occurs, you have a worldview that is the same as that of your primary educators through childhood.  Some ponder early in life, some never do.  Religion as a general rule focuses heavily on the indoctrination of children for that reason.

My 70-year-old father-in-law, a firebrand anglican his whole life, remarked to me recently that it simply never occurred to him to question his faith until an atheist married his daughter.  When he did, he saw the folly in it - and not through proselytising on my part, simply by realising that religion shouldn’t be exempt from skeptical scrutiny any more than Nigerian email scams should.

joe says:

03:06pm | 02/07/10

Emily’s list’s rabid feminists wouldn’t agree to all the adverts for women of the night on Craig’s List.

DJ says:

03:46pm | 02/07/10

But mayybe with less psycho’s trawling it (matter of opinion as there was a serial killer trawling victims off Craig’s list

Stewart Henstock says:

02:05pm | 02/07/10

Hahahahaha…coming from a country that endorsed slavery and a country which has a woeful civil rights record.
No fresh ground here…it’s the same ol party which takes away the rights of the electorate by removing the elected leader and replacing him with a gold digger.

The Redman says:

03:10pm | 02/07/10

Australia had slaves. They were called Kanakas. Australia has a woeful human rights record regarding our own indigenous population. You’re embarrassing this country with this post, Stewart. (Which is American spelling, by the way)

DJ says:

03:23pm | 02/07/10

Yes but the Redman America had 2 groups that they treated badly, we only had the one so in pure numbers we are winning.

Mark says:

03:30pm | 02/07/10

I am embarrassed by that post too but,I traded my Australian Citizenship for a member of humanity certificate as one defines what I am but the other where I came from.

Rocky says:

04:42pm | 02/07/10

Hi Jon,

Sorry about Stewart, who decided to bring up slavery and civil rights for no reason??. I appreciate that your comments were a sincere reflection on the fact that Australia seems more open to the idea of electing an athiest than the U.S

All the best

Chris L says:

08:26pm | 02/07/10

Yeah, Stewart, you can mock my lack of belief but let’s be good hosts to visitors (unless MineesotaJon is a resident here in which case it’s game on!).

Chris L says:

08:30pm | 02/07/10

Don’t be so sure Joel. I don’t know of any study here, but in America atheists are the most universally hated people, which I guess means that at least racism is not as bad as it used to be.
It would seem (I could be wrong) that christrians would prefer a muslim or a hindu over an atheist, even though their god/s are obviously inferior.

JC says:

03:27pm | 02/07/10

how can Christian morals pre-date Christ?

DJ says:

03:51pm | 02/07/10

Exactly doesn’t the name Christian come from Christ? how can ‘Christian’ pre date the one whom it’s named after?

Chris L says:

08:33pm | 02/07/10

Same as yule is now called Christmas. Christians didn’t invent it, but claim it as theirs.

DJ says:

03:06pm | 06/07/10

didn’t they move the date of Jesus birthday to December to fit in with the Winter Soltice and they kept the green branches (tree) as they were part of the pagan ritual, which is why Christianity has survived the ages as they were willing to adjust to fit in with the locals belief just call it something else

howy says:

01:12pm | 02/07/10

Well said Jess, but you’re a little naive. The anti-Christian forces in Australia are strong and on the march. Atheists/ progressives detest people of faith and they will not believe the country has achieved ‘progress’ until you and your children bow down to secular commandments and throw out your Bibles - this is their goal.

If elected, one of the first things Gillard will do is decrease funding to Christian schools and increase funding to secular public schools. Communism lives on in the progressive heart, and there’s no room for Christ in a communist society.

Jess, first know your opposition before carving up your own side.

God bless

James1 says:

01:43pm | 02/07/10

I am an atheist and I do not detest you howy.  And I am most certainly not a communist, indeed I wonder if you know what the word even means.  I just disagree with you about the existence of god, and the role that laws developed by a bloodthirsty ancient desert mountain tribe should play in a modern, secular society.  How about you throw a little bit of Christian tolerance and forgiveness my way?

Steely Dan says:

01:50pm | 02/07/10

@ howy

“they will not believe the country has achieved ‘progress’ until you and your children bow down to secular commandments and throw out your Bibles - this is their goal.”
Now who’s being naive, howy?  Throwing out Bibles in anti-secular.  Secularism means the state has no business with religion - that includes not restraining religious freedoms.

And if you think there are communists left in the ALP, you’re mad, or stuck in the 1960s.

Mike Creighton says:

02:17pm | 02/07/10

@ Howie.  Ramen.

Mark says:

02:31pm | 02/07/10

Howie, dont think of me as being anti the Chritian superstition or anti any other superstition for that matter. I am anti superstion and that includes Chritiantity and all the other major defined superstiions like Islam and Judaism.
Howie, we dont need a capital A atheism is a description not a title, without belief in superstion or gods is all it means.
However I would very much like to cut funding to all superstitious schools because they prevent public schools from being adequately funded, because the public system misses out the leaders of industry and government are chosen from the ranks of the superstious schools as they can afford to pay more to teachers who provide a superior education to the students. These students are then brainwashed into thinking the superstition is real and this thern influences the decision making process.
A fascinating piece of history is that the worlds first university was established in Cairo around 1000AD for exactly this reason, it was meant to recruit people into the religion by providing a superior education and the recipients of the education could then be relied upon to further the cause of Islam.
This education model was then adopted by the Catholic church in Europe and today, 1000 years later we have you defending it. Thats how succesful it has been and why superstitious schooling must be stopped.

SkepDad says:

02:34pm | 02/07/10

Howy isn’t being naive, s/he’s being deliberately divisive.  By attempting to create a corrolary between atheism and communism, it’s just a clumsy appeal to fear and ignorance.  Reds under the bed!  Amoral atheists on the march to poison your children’s minds! 

Jess, I’m as fire-breathing an atheist as you’re ever likely to find, and I can say categorically that Howy’s description of atheists is laughably wrong.  We don’t “detest people of faith”, though we do find your faith baffling, given the long and bloody history of it - especially coming from women, who under the christian tradition are little better than property.

You can bow down to whatever commandments you like, just don’t ask me to, or try to force your supernatural beliefs into government policy or the education of children in state schools.

Jess says:

02:42pm | 02/07/10

@ howy, I don’t know that I need to ‘know my opposition’ or that I was ‘carving up my own side’.

Isn’t one of the fundamental teachings of Jesus to be non-judgemental?? I am simply flabbergasted that ‘christians’ will be the first to jump up and label Julia Gillard as a ‘harlot’ and ‘trollop’ - possibly two of the milder things I have heard issued from the mouths of christians since Julia Gillard has come out and said she is an atheist. How is that doing or being what a Christian is supposed to? How does that make Christianity any different from any other religion. While I don’t agree with other religions, while I think the one that I have chosen is right, I am not going to force that down anyone elses throat. One of my uni lecturers always said “you learn what you believe as you hear yourself speak” which is amplified by arguing.

The world has had enough of judgemental and hypocritical Christians. Is it any wonder then, that people are polarised by Julia Gillards stance?

howy says:

02:53pm | 02/07/10

Well, progressives haven’t yet demonstrated that they’re not communists, or moving towards communism. Prog’s have certainly started to move on the economy which now compliments their social equality doctrine.

Steely Dan (holding neck defensively) says:

03:00pm | 02/07/10

@ howy

“Well, progressives haven’t yet demonstrated that they’re not communists, or moving towards communism.”
Well, you haven’t demonstrated you’re not a vampire, howy.  I think you might find the onus might be on you to prove that people who don’t do things like communists are actually communists.

Jess says:

03:59pm | 02/07/10

I also meant to say, as a Christian, I don’t actually agree with sending my (not yet existing!!!) kids to a christian school. I have always thought that it is a poor place for kids to form their opinions on God…there is already so many other things for kids to deal with in school, why through religion in there??

@ Skepdad, I have come across many atheists in my time, and so far very few ‘fire breathers’. I think its probably a generalisation that gets thrown both ways - fire breathing atheists vs fundamentalist bible bashers…any kind of fundamentalism (and I think that it can exist with regards to any kind of thinking….religious, political etc) doesnt allow for dialogue or learning, which is important for making informed decisions. I get that it can be confusing/strange given the history of Christianity, and the blodshed that has followed it through the years, but as a woman, I can look at the history and truly be grateful it isn’t like that anymore. Learning from the past is important, no matter what you’re talking about.

No more on that, only I will say that I do appreciate when I meet someone who has different opinions/beliefs to me, who is able to articulate them respectfully and engage in discussion, not argument. I am totally against the forcing of religion of any kind, on any person.

DJ says:

04:20pm | 02/07/10

@Dan - thanks for running with my Vampire analogy lol love it!

howy says:

05:03pm | 02/07/10

Steely, tell me where progressives and communists differ.

Why not admit that comms and progs are identical or at least very similar in World view? There’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Steely Dan says:

11:34am | 03/07/10

@ howy

“Steely, tell me where progressives and communists differ.”
For a start, you can be a progressive capitalist. ‘Progressive’ is so vague a term it can encompass anybody who’s not ultra-conservative.

Laine says:

03:29pm | 02/07/10

What are you suggesting Jan? That Hitchens got cancer because he doesn’t believe in God?  In that case can you please explain the millions of believers who have died of cancer and what God’s reasoning was in giving it to them?  Your comment is non-sensical and immature.  Next time, do not coment unless you have an actual point to make.
And by the way, Hitchens will have a voice regardless of whether he has a voicebox or not.

Mark says:

02:09pm | 02/07/10

Nonsense, its not a matter of imposing views its a matter of education so that the belivers of superstion become more knowledgeable about the universe and take responsibility for it instead of thinking everything is a gift to them. The damage allowing superstitions to exist can be demonstrated by the Catholic church’s refusal to adopt the modern number system using Arabic Numerals.
When Fibonnacci attempted to introduce Arabic Numerals to Europe the church decreed anyone using the nunber zero would go straight to hell as obviously a number representing nothing is the work of !!!SATAN!!!
Promptly following this every aspect of European life disentigrated as nothing worked, the number system really does need zero, buildings fell down, weights and measures were wrong. Enter the darl ages.
A couple of hundred years later, the number zero was allowed to be used and things got back on track.
So, sup[erstitious belief syustems such as catholicism and Chritianity are responsible for holding back progress for several hundred years.
Now today, we are 3-400 years behind where we should of been except for the belief in superstition, space travel could have been cracked around 1500AD and global warming would already be a period of history and right now we would use fusion power and be having this conversation on the human colonies on Mars and Juipiter’s moons.
Superstitions have held back hukmanity for long enough and its time we exposed them as being fraudulent.

SkepDad says:

02:19pm | 02/07/10

Nonsense, if the christians stuck to happily worshipping their god there would be no conflict between them and the atheists, or with anyone else.

Unfortunately, non-christians are on the defensive, with christianity being rammed down their children’s throats in state schools, with christian lobby groups exerting influence to have their supernatural morality enshrined in laws, and with bigoted nonsense from folks such as yourself stating that our lives are less meaningful because we seek the truth of what “is”, rather than a nice story of what we would “like to be”.

Stop imposing our views?  Why, so that yours can be free to flourish and spread?  Education and debate has always been the enemy of the church; you sing the hymn of blind subservience and self-deception well my friend.

The Redman says:

03:18pm | 02/07/10

In many ways this is correct. I don’t believe in the christian god, but similarly I don’t believe in Yaweah or Allah (apparently the same god as christians worship), nor Buddha (love the ideals, can’t except the elephant birth thing), Krishna, Zues, Jupiter or any other deity. You must realise that merely because Gillard is an atheist, religions have nothing to concern themselves with. It’s not as if she is going to unleash a pogram against believers of religion.

Contrast that with the various Theocracies across the world and across history.

loz says:

03:31pm | 02/07/10

Not to mention the author’s bother of spiritual warfare ... ‘the masses that are getting more massive. The Pentecostal churches are huge these days, with thousands packed in. They have schools and clinics and television studios. They have podcasts and concerts and famous singers and business coaching and radio stations.’  It certainly hasn’t bothered our PM Julia Gillard like many others.  A revival must be on the horizon with all the opposing knashing of teeth lately?

Adam Dennis says:

03:49pm | 02/07/10

@Sam Spade ... “The Salt Shakers” are a religious organisation, not “name calling”. And the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” (aka FSM) is an alternative deity celebrated by nerds the world over. Name-mentioning, not name calling.
Referring to someone as being wedding and wake religious is also not name-calling, it’s a recognisable description of people whose faith doesn’t see them attend church on Sundays.

Sam Spade says:

06:34pm | 02/07/10

@ Adam Dennis…. you forgot to mention “the rabid” - probably because you can’t pretend that it isn’t name calling.  And, as a “nerd” myself, I can tell you that the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is not an “alternative diety” in any way, shape or form but rather a derogatory creation meant to belittle, insult and deride genuine religious belief.  Oh, and by the way the “Salt Shakers” is not a “religious organisation” - it is a “Christian Ethics Action Group” that has a reputation for being small, militant and aggressive.

James1 says:

02:11pm | 02/07/10

Then you are a fundamentalist, sir, and are incapable of understanding any viewpoint but your own.  You are far more dangerous than some well-intentioned stuff up like Ms Gillard.

James1 says:

02:15pm | 02/07/10

Thinking on your response, did you even understand my position?  It seems not, given that you resort so quickly to calling me a murderer, even though I personally am against abortion and think it wrong.

The Redman says:

03:22pm | 02/07/10

The most inaccurate term used in this debate is pro-abortion. Noone is pro-abortion: it is a sad procedure under any circumstances. But it is a decision for the person to take, and noone has the right to enforce their beliefs on this issue on others, and your description of abortion as being murder is offensive in the extreme. Noone supports “imposed” abortion, but I most certainly do support the right of a woman to choose.

James1 says:

02:13pm | 02/07/10

Don’t forget Al Qaeda.  However, it is not the religious that cause the war, but the fundamentalists like Stewart who claim that theirs is the only way, and any other way is evil and must be gotten rid of.  After all, a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, and a Hindu or Christian fundamentalist is just as dangerous as an Islamic one.

James1 says:

03:08pm | 02/07/10

I do not endorse it at all Stewart.  I just refuse to force my own value system onto others.  A distinction you seem to being having trouble comprehending in that fundamentalist mind of yours.

Christian Real says:

07:50am | 03/07/10

P.Davio
I didn’t know that Stalin was a failed priest, does that mean that Stalin and Tony Abbott have something in common, Abbott being a failed monk.

The Redman says:

03:07pm | 02/07/10

1. My lungs and my heartbeat
2. My children
3. Respect for my fellow human beings, irrespective of religion, race, gender etc. etc.
4. Science

Steely Dan says:

03:14pm | 02/07/10

@ Steve

Before I answer, you need to know this: Atheism means a lack in a belief of a god, not a belief that there are no gods.  You can obviously be both the former and latter, but you don’t need to believe the latter to be an atheist.

Steely Dan says:

03:21pm | 02/07/10

1.  My living brain
2.  There’s an intrinsic meaning?
3.  Healthy society, healthy relationships
4.  I’m as sure that there is no god as I’m sure that there is no Loch Ness Monster.  No credible evidence for god = no credible evidence for god.

P. Darvio says:

03:30pm | 02/07/10

“And the 4 Angels will come down to Earth and Destroy a third of Mankind” (Book of Revelations) - 2 Billion+ Humans who, by the Christian GOD, will (1) shortly no longer have a consciousness, (2) will have no meaning of life as they would have been slaughtered by GOD (this includes pregnant women and Children and (3) will no longer have any values because GOD has taken them away through mass Genocide. Please Sir - if you want answers to your 3 and a bit questions you don’t have to go very far do you now - its all in your religious texts is it not?

I thank GOD every day for people like you…..

Mark says:

03:36pm | 02/07/10

1.From the neural pathways in my brain
2.Continue the species
3.They show my qualities to other people, help me make friends, ask for favours when needed, so people can trust and rely on me - do I need to continue.
Andf the biggy is the easiest to answer, assume God does exist, assume God does love his human creations. OK, God knows all in advance so God knew how much hurt and pain the belief in him/her would cause and allowed it to occur whereas if God really did care he would have realised the error of his own existence and magicked himself out of existence to show his love for his creations. QED

Gary M says:

03:51pm | 02/07/10

If you want to be a bible basher fine but dont push your beliefs on to everybody else as you all seem to think you have a licence to do. Look at what religion has cost, just about every war now and since time began is based or has some religious foundation. To me what god would allow this to happen. The Noahs ark story always gets to me, how would you build the thing three time the size of the QE2. its not so you could pop downs to bunnings to get a few screws and some Selleys dry seal now is it?

Adam Dennis says:

04:01pm | 02/07/10

1. My highly-evolved brain.
2. Life just is. If you want yours to have meaning, it’s up to you to make something of yourself.
3. I wish to live long and prosper, and recognise that the surest way of doing that is to work co-operatively with millions of other people; from there a set of ethics arises (read Plato for a better explanation)
4. An atheist has no faith in a god. Although some atheists insist on trying to prove God doesn’t exist, this is simply a poor reflection on those individuals rather than a definition of atheism.

And Steve, that was three good questions followed by a trivial one. Everyone, everywhere should think about those three questions, because the answers will influence our behaviour in our short lives. The fourth question is effectively meaningless because it’s no more answerable than “How can you be so sure that God exists?”

Seano says:

04:02pm | 02/07/10

1. Brain.
2. Children.
3. Where would we be without them? Better to have values because it’s the right thing to do rather for fear of a potential punishment after death.
4. How can you be so sure that God does exist? Science can’t prove it either way. So why life your life on the pretence?

Simmo says:

04:03pm | 02/07/10

Steve I pose you this question, how can you be sure that there is a god AND that your god is the right one? Mankind has worshiped 1000’s of different gods since the dawn of time, what makes you so sure that yours is real?

Who is to say that Quetzalcoatl worshiped by the Aztecs isn’t the real god or Amaterasu of the Shinto deities, Thor of Scandanavian origins or even good ole Zeus of the Greeks? Who can honestly say with 100% certainty that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t the one true god? Does anyone have any evidence showing that he dosen’t exist?

SkepDad says:

04:50pm | 02/07/10

1. Dunno, but it’s fascinating following the research of people who are trying to find out.  Much more satisfying than just saying “god”.
2. Dunno.  Maybe there isn’t one.  So?
3. Dunno, it just feels good when I’m nice to people and they’re nice to me.  It makes society nicer for everyone.
4. I’m not, I just realise that it’s no more or less likely than the FSM existing, or Zeus existing, or the Great Invisible Turtle Emperor existing.

See how I’m happy saying “dunno”?  Isn’t that more honest than inserting some made up religious mumbo jumbo, pretending certainty when there really is none?

Here’s the theists’ answer:

1. God.  That Is What I Have Been Taught.
2. To Do God’s Will And Earn A Place In Heaven. That Is What I Have Been Taught.
3. Because God Will Punish Me Otherwise. That Is What I Have Been Taught.
4. BLASPHEMY

Somebody says:

02:08pm | 03/07/10

I resent that! I’m beans.

DJ says:

04:04pm | 02/07/10

I find a nursing home works a treat

Mark says:

04:21pm | 02/07/10

Its a deal.  I freed two bible bashers yesterday with the asbestos example and why god doenst love you. Beware, I will teach your followers how to think and ask questions and i am always prepared to act as bait to attract a delusional preacher and free them from the slavery of superstition.
August 25. Done.

Mike Creighton says:

05:19pm | 02/07/10

We Pastafarians would support this and look forward to helping the poor lost heathen peoples of Australia achieve a growing understanding of their inner noodliness and to the mighty beer volcanoes that await the faithful in the afterlife.  Ramen.

Reg says:

10:51am | 05/07/10

What would a non-believer be converting from and how would you identify an atheist? Obviously if you haven’t already got “a big fat halo” then you must be Muslim,  Jewish or Pagan. Check for circumcision? Daub a few windows with the Star of David? Burn a few books? Display your adherence to the cause by giving the salute?

SkepDad says:

04:52pm | 02/07/10

I do, because they’re telling it to my kids and I keep asking them not to.

Sam says:

10:45pm | 02/07/10

NO !

Adam Dennis says:

04:10pm | 02/07/10

@N8, your comment made me go back and read Tory’s article again. What sort of comments are you taking issue with? Paragraph after paragraph of verifiable fact, such as “Look at what happened last Easter. We had a bunch o’ bishops declaring atheism a lonely, evil, amoral state of being.” That’s not any sort of “comment” from Tory, it’s reportage. The comments from the bishops, on the other hand, might be more accurately interpreted as something approaching arrogant self-righteous bigotry.

It does bug me when people on either side of any argument jump in and start typing with the assumption that the other side is wrong, evil, biased, self-righteous or bigoted. Or, in your case, all of the above. Tory is a reporter, a commentator, and I think she’s done okay here. A little respect, please. And do refrain from implying that she should be “massacred” for her comments.

loz says:

08:18pm | 02/07/10

Touche! Good to see someone can read between the lines of this article. The author has a track record of breathing fire on to those who don’t agree with them. Though she doesn’t mind the luke warm, garden variety Christian that turns the other cheek.

N8 says:

04:52pm | 09/07/10

@ Adam - I take no issue with the quote from the bishops, as you say that is simply a quote of what someone said, fair enough.

I do take issue with the branding of churches as pyramid selling, political string pullers who believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I take issue with branding this as some crazy political sect that dictates to the masses what to think.

I take massive issue with this attitude of “they are different from me, they must be a dangerous bunch of nut bags” taking the extreme few, and labelling the bulk with that mentality is hardly helpful. Imagine if she published something that branded the whole aboriginal population with the crimes that have been reported in only a few specific communities. Trying to tar the churches with this brush is only different because they are a bigger target, and somehow more socially acceptable to slander, but it is the same attitude that sits behind all bigoted discrimination.

Seano says:

04:03pm | 02/07/10

Not as old as Christianity.

Adam Dennis says:

04:14pm | 02/07/10

Really? I reckon it’s got a good couple of thousand years in it yet. I predict that the followers of the FSM will outnumber Jedi Knights on the next Census.

DJ says:

04:25pm | 02/07/10

Hey! don’t knock someone religion, all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster lol

Steely Dan says:

04:29pm | 02/07/10

Not as old as the ‘Jesus’ thing, by all accounts.  The FSM wasn’t created simply as a joke (though elements were made to be humorous), it is a very important tool for explaining why religion is not science (have a look at the history of the FSM in the creation/ID school controversy, particularly in the US).  We can change the name, but then people would have to buy new tshirts.

Oh, and if it sounded like I was saying the FSM isn’t real, those parts were analogous.

Steely Dan says:

11:14am | 03/07/10

@ Zac

How wrong are you?  Let me count the ways:

1.  We can be secular and democratic.  Like we can be democratic and a constitutional monarchy.  It’s ok to be two non-contradictory things, Zac.  It’s not like we’re saying that a father can be his own son.

2. When is an opinion piece in the Australian evidence of anything?

3.
Q: “Can you also show me where it states “separation of Church and State” in the constitution?”
A: Section 116.

4. Hitler was Christian.  (‘Gott mit uns’ ring a bell?)

5. Atheism would only be a ‘conscious decision to disregard the gods’ if any of them had been demonstrated to actually exist.  Atheism is not falling for it.

6.  As your two definitions showed, atheism is not an ideology.  There is no defining need and aspirations, and we have no beliefs or doctrines.  Non-belief is not belief, Zac.

7. Dawkins is a priest?  Try harder, Zac.

Jon says:

11:31am | 03/07/10

Zac, Some claim that Islam is the greatest killer of all time, worse than Christianity, fascism or communism:
“Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest. Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed. The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism. Zoroastrianism was eliminated from Persia. The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad. Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam.

The point is that religion has done its fair share of killing and is still killing. Human beings need to find a better way of getting along.

Chris L says:

11:46am | 03/07/10

The old Hitler/Stalin approach. No matter how many times that is debunked the theists keep bringing it out as if saying it enough times makes it true. Zac, please tell us at what point either of these men killed in the name of atheism. At what point was it their lack of belief in god that led them to kill (as opposed to killing in the name of god). Also note (yet again) that Hitler was catholic and maintained a concordance with the Vatican. Stalin studied to be a priest and reinstituted the church during the second world war. In both cases the massacres happened because they motivated the people to perform these acts, Hitler though the ideal of racial purity, Stalin through worship of the state, neither of which sound particularly atheistic.

As for saying atheism is a belief or ideology, please look up the definition in a dictionary. The only common factor among atheists is that we don’t subscribe to beliefs that cannot be verified with evidence. This includes gods, fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus.

David says:

01:08pm | 03/07/10

I think you mean ‘if god existed you couldn’t be an atheist’, it is the consequence of the Argument from Divine Hiddenness (of the Argument from Non-Belief) which is an argument against the existence of the Christian God. Basically says, the Christian god wouldn’t let anyone go to their deaths a non-believer in him because otherwise they won’t receive salvation and be popped in to heaven. Seeing as though the Christian God is all-knowing, all-powerful and loving he would have no issue with being able to provide non-believers with evidence for his existence.

The usual Christian response to this is ‘b-b-b-but free will?!’ Except the provision of knowledge has never limited someone’s free will - it might make the decision they have to make harder and less pleasant to make but nonetheless still capable of a choice.

http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-such-god.html

Tas True Believer says:

08:37am | 04/07/10

Phil I encourage to look around you - look at the wonderful creation, how can anybody with a modicum of logic believe this is all the result of an accident - how much more proof do you need. Pit the work of the Lord our Creator against much of the destruction we see done by man. I know where I am happy to put my faith.

DJ says:

01:36pm | 05/07/10

Nah there are too many other plausible explanations for what you are referring to than some magical fairy who takes attendance

Jon says:

12:09pm | 03/07/10

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.

Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821 - 1890)

Reznor says:

05:21pm | 03/07/10

I think the only thing that lacks substance is any “proof” of there being any god…...There is no proof!!!!

To be an athiest just means to not believe there is a god…...nothing more…..nothing less. It does not mean that anyone has to belong to some exclusive club, sect or cult…....it certainly does not mean that person is a communist.

Simple as that.

Stewart Henstock says:

02:31pm | 03/07/10

Actually every religious war was brought about by mans manipulation of faith.
Of course Gillard has the right to be an atheist but i also have the right to vote against her if i choose because she is a atheist just like i have the right to vote against someone who is a Christian etc etc

Dan says:

04:05am | 04/07/10

Why do you need tangible evidence? That is the point of faith; you believe in something even though you can not prove it.

Steely Dan says:

11:29am | 04/07/10

@ Dan

Then that’s irrational.  Calling it ‘faith’ doesn’t make it acceptable.  You would be angry if you discovered the injection you’d just been given was administered on the basis of faith, and not evidence.  Why is religion a special case?

Reg says:

02:29pm | 04/07/10

Come on Dan, you can’t be serious. This means you can believe anything you feel like and not be regarded as a mad fowl. It also makes Stalin a good guy. Please Dan, give it some thought.

Dan says:

06:07am | 05/07/10

Steely Dan, what does faith have to do with medicine? Th there is a difference. You can’t apply a scientific test to religion when religion is not science. As for being a ‘special case’, many things are treated differently to other things; sports for example to the arts. What might be acceptable on a football field is not always acceptable on the stage.

Reg, maybe you should give it some thought. Believing in God (which can be neither proven nor disproven) is slightly different to believeing that Stalin was a good guy. I also don’t believe that Stalin was religious.

Steely Dan says:

09:41am | 05/07/10

@ Dan
“Steely Dan, what does faith have to do with medicine? Th there is a difference.”
That’s right. One works, and we can prove it.
“You can’t apply a scientific test to religion when religion is not science.”
You can apply a scientific test to any testable claim.  And we find that prayer and any other testable claim that could indicate the existence of a god fails.

“What might be acceptable on a football field is not always acceptable on the stage.”
What a strange point.  Are you trying to say that science should keep away from religion?

And Reg has a point.  What if someone has faith in Stalin?

Reg says:

09:49am | 05/07/10

Make up your mind Dan mate. Quote; “Why do you need tangible evidence? That is the point of faith; you believe in something even though you can not prove it.”

You clearly suggest that anyone’s unprovable beliefs are perfectly acceptable. Stalin believed he was right and you suggest anything goes. Why does the belief have to be ethereal? But then I suppose if it is ethereal it is also more vague and that’s common to all unqualified belief. 

Quote; “Believing in God (which can be neither proven nor disproven) is slightly different to believeing that Stalin was a good guy. I also don’t believe that Stalin was religious.”

Your belief that Stalin was not religious is in the same class as your belief in God. No doubt he pursued his goals with religious zeal which is more than can be said about your God. I just happen to understand that he was a thorough ass*ole which, on the evidence, is more than can be reliably deduced about your God. Although to be sure, there is some evidence He is worse than Stalin. After-all He allowed the beast to operate without striking him down.

Reg says:

09:27pm | 04/07/10

WTF has God got to do with same sex marriages? She has already given a clear indication about what she thinks of marriage. Apparently you can’t think of another good reason for anyone to suppose two guys getting married, might be a bit superficial. 

The Bible will be in the court to discourage Christians from lying through their teeth and it probably still won’t work. But if there’s one think that motivates a Christian, it’s fear of punishment.

Austin 3:16 says:

08:07pm | 03/07/10

Both conservatism and religious belief have been linked to lower cognitive abilities. That could be the link?

Naomi says:

08:18pm | 03/07/10

Your observation is incorrect. There are many believers who exist to the left and the right of the political spectrum. There are even many believers who maybe on the left on one issue and then on the right on another issue.

Reg says:

02:22pm | 04/07/10

Naomi, there are also many who choose to conceal their disbelief for fear of attracting the hate and derision of the ordinary religious believer.

Such concealment results in the encouragement of the fanaticism because the believer is then persuaded that very few find his beliefs extreme. There is actually a case for the non-religious to express their true feelings and that to do such a thing is not being offensive.

Yes, God told George W Bush to invade Iraq and I bet another told someone else to bomb the Trade Center, but fortunately our Ms Gillard will not be so easilly persuaded..

Reg says:

08:16am | 05/07/10

Sherlock, I am sorry I seem to have been attracted to Naomi’s input rather than yours. Allow me to address your point on political persuasion.

The “born to rule” still cling to the concept that God chose them. A life of comfort free of any need to get their hands dirty in combination with a clear understanding that God endowed then with greater comprehension, must be difficult to resist. This is why nuns, Baptists and Hill-singers tend to be right-wing. Left-wingers are just so revolting and revolution does strange things to conservatives.

Stewart Henstock says:

08:10am | 04/07/10

I wouldn’t bet your soul on that ...muhahahahaha

You don’t…but haven’t you asked yourself why you’re a good person as opposed to being a bad person.

xyz says:

02:29pm | 04/07/10

Stewart, do you honestly believe that good people only existed after the adult Jesus (supposedly) started to convert them just over 2000 years ago?

Even you can’t be that deluded… or could you?

Tas True Believer says:

08:42am | 04/07/10

As the other True Believer, now known as Tas True Believer to differentiate me from this person’s comments I do not subscribe to this person’s comments.

Personally as a Christian I am not concerned about our PM’s faith or lack of it. That is her problem if she is missing out on the best. My concern is that she does a the job for which we, the people of Australia, are paying her.

Reg says:

02:03pm | 04/07/10

But TTB, how will one contrive to decide whether she is doing a good job or not, when one’s values are based on those of a loony religious fringe?

Rock? Paper? Scissors? Hill Song? 10% tithe (before tax)? Pissing into the wind and seeing if it doesn’t come back and hit you in the face?

Shanni says:

11:23am | 04/07/10

Because he was married and had kids,

xyz says:

11:53pm | 04/07/10

Because we didn’t have the internet back then

Mike says:

09:29am | 04/07/10

Matt, use the statistics in whatever way makes you feel better, but there is a big difference between a feeling of “affiliation” (which normally comes form our upbringing) and actually holding serious religious beliefs.

I take great offence at your implication (2nd/3rd/4th paras) that as an athiest I believe in nothing, am not responsible to anyone, don’t have to answer for anything, cling to self importance, have a void in my identity, have no loyalty to anyone, have no morals, no judgement, and am easily manipulated. Gee thanks mate. Anything else you’d like to add to that? Also, could you please say all that in front of my wife? I just want to sit back and watch the result.

Guess I’d better stop my volunteer work, ask for the $15,000 back which I recently donated to cover my sister-in-law’s medical bills, and get out of my habit of giving away household items and belongings which I no longer need to less fortunate people. As an athiest I should clearly sell them on ebay instead.

What a load of tripe. If you need to read a book for instructions, or sit down and pray to a mythical entity for loyalty, morals, and the ability to tell good from evil, then you truly frighten me. You are not the sort of person who should roam free in our society if you have trouble understanding these things without a holy book and prayers.

N Davidson says:

10:38am | 04/07/10

Matt .... seems like your dear grandfather ... bless his soul .. started his own little family cult by his own wise words and your interpretation of them. i.e Our PM is not married etc…etc. The facts are out there Matt search for the truth yourself; don’t be led by the nose. The old gave us the benefit of their experience ... it is up to us to sort the wheat from the chaff! In the meantime, be the best person you can be.

Graeme Harrison says:

10:54am | 05/07/10

You can’t use the Australian Census ‘cultural affiliation’ rates to infer levels of belief/practice.  The true level of belief lies far closer to the far lower church weekly attendance figures anyone can observe.

The very high level of atheism/non-belief is documented at
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf
on how top-25 countries in terms of education, wealth, low infant mortality, good health, longevity, societal safety and freedom from disasters have high percentages of atheists, while bottom-50 countries on such measures have particularly high levels of ‘belief’ in one or more deities.

It does seem that as we get more in control of our lives, and there seems to be less wanton violence (or the acts of a vicious/immoral god), we feel less superstitious. At the extremes Africa is 99% religious, while Scandinavia is 80% atheist - you can guess where I’d prefer to live of the two types of society.

These multi-country surveys on belief confirm (independent of failings of Australian Census) that Australia lies somewhere near the European average… that we have very high levels of atheism, unless you believe our general life views are more like the USA, Latino or African countries.

Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)

Tedd says:

09:28am | 04/07/10

Ed, religion was created by humans, and is used mostly to keep the male of the species is control.  Please provide an argument for how it “will eventually destroy the world”

xyz says:

01:11pm | 04/07/10

I don’t think religion will destroy the world… I think it will eventually fade away…  a very slow and quiet death

DJ says:

02:04pm | 05/07/10

Tedd please tell me how it keeps the male in control when it is interpreted by men and from the start has been to the detriment against women?

Tedd says:

02:33pm | 07/07/10

DJ - Yes, religion is used by men to keep men in control to the detriment of women, and - in the case of the Catholic church - keep all their flock under their control.

Reg says:

10:00pm | 04/07/10

No doubt your primary motivation is that she is not a Christian, so please don’t hide behind the implication that you would be quite happy if she was a Moslem or anything else. Front up to your congregation and tell them you will accept only a Christian and Protestant Prime Minister. Next Sunday will do.

Unqualified, - your sin of omission creates misconceptions. Misconceptions which may be correctly described as dishonesty.

Mike says:

07:36am | 05/07/10

Yes indeed Pastor Steve, religious belief ultimately causes strong convictions. Even when they are totally wrong in the face of obvious evidence.

Of course, going back through many centuries of written history records of religion throws up consistently ugly periods of intolerance, hatred, and general anti-social behaviour fully sponsored by the church in various forms - all a result of its strong convictions. Galileo found that out after declaring that the Earth did indeed rotate around the Sun. This was considered contrary to scripture and he was placed under house arrest by the Church during the Inquisition (and was probably fortunate not to be executed like many others during those times).

Gotta admire religious conviction, eh?

Bigmagilla says:

10:24am | 05/07/10

Hum… it makes me sad how many people quote here and quote there without knowing what they are talking about…

The Pope is a Catholic not a Christian… I dont follow any man (or woman) I believe in a loving GOD who sadly seems to be listed as everything but.

One above says that Samuel was in the whale… sorry it was Jonah not Samuel

And in scripture it clearly says that the earth is round not flat… ” He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.” Isaiah 40:22… it was the non believers of the black ages that said the world (not the earth) was flat.

When you come to a debate come with some knowledge and understanding…

TDJ says:

04:00pm | 05/07/10

Reply to Steve.
      Gee, Steve why don’t we bring back the Salem witch hunts. One would have thought this self righteous rubbish would have been left in the dark ages. What happened to being tolerant and understanding of peoples different beliefs. I am not religious and even I know that you are not following the understanding of the Bible. Like too many religions your make up your own version.

Reply to Bigmagilla.
      By your statements you clearly want to impose your beliefs on other people. You also need to learn something about geometry. A circle is flat. The Earth is a sphere not a circle. Clearly you don’t understand what you are reading.

Mike says:

11:58am | 06/07/10

Bigmagilla writes:

“The Pope is a Catholic, not a Christian”.

Ummmm, OK. Was that some sort of joke which flew right over my head??

Rosalind says:

09:36am | 05/07/10

You may not like the ALP because of all the reasons given here Heather, but it is the ALP that provides Health, Education, fair wages and essential services for all communities. The Education Revolution and classes in Ethics will provide information to pupils to enable them to make informed decisions about history, sciences, population control etc which lead to better living standards globally and hopefully will see how they have been duped by religious parents and the church they follow. Organised religions have done all they could to disempower nations so they could control and hang on the their immense wealth and power. This is why the Catholic Church could only find Nigerian priests to perform mass in Tasmania. What an irony that the most dispossed are wasting their precious time on this planet perpetuating the myth of religion in a country where there is a healthy disprespect for religion.  As for Bob Brown, well I used to think he had some principles until he voted against the Government’s ETS and other legislation. His motive was to take votes from Labor, because the Lib votes were already exhausted, anyone voting for the MM now would be staying with the Coalition.  A very cynical move by a man who has pretended he is mr squeeky clean until he betrayed the Green movement by voting with Abbott, who is clearly a disbeliever in climate change. The Greens will never be in power in their own right and can say anything they like because they know they will never be in a position to govern. So be careful how you use your preferences in the coming election, you may well be voting for the Mad Monk.

Bigmagilla says:

12:14pm | 05/07/10

its simple… I didnt say the Christian point of view or their actions were any better ... I simply stated a loving God was wrongly viewed and that I could not trust someone like… Stalin or Mao or Lenin… and finally Hitler who was really a Sadist and Atheist, he utterly rejected Christianity and if anything followed Mohammedian religion, after all he was strongly supported by Arab funding in his war against Jews and Christians (he equated them as equal to the Pox) alike… however clinically insane is probably the best tag for Hitler… You cant tell for one minute that those I mentioned immediately above dont fit your definition as well? As for absolving themselves with a few hail mary’s… again this is a catholic bent and not at all Christian. Fact is I know I am not perfect in fact I am a sinner and accept that in the loving grace of God with his forgiveness and love. If to be forgiving and love others as is Christs example is an underlying mental condition… then call me mad.

xyz says:

01:45pm | 06/07/10

Bigmagilla, Hitler was born a Roman Catholic and he died a Roman Catholic… he never renounced his religion and the Catholic Church never excommunicated him… Given that, he is probably looking down at you from Heaven as we speak!

Bigmagilla says:

11:02am | 07/07/10

you may want to take a look at wikipedia or even this http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html  just dont have a closed mind

xyz says:

01:13pm | 07/07/10

Bigmagilla, how about you take a look at wikipedia instead of that apologetics website you posted (which is completely inaccurate):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler’s_religious_views

Hitler believed in God and was definitely not an atheist. Please open your mind and get your facts right!

Archie says:

12:14pm | 05/07/10

For your sake Sheila I hope this is a joke because if it’s not I’m glad I don’t believe in your God or any other, if all they can do for mankind is help someone with legal work.

And why would Julia Gillard need ‘Salvation’? from what, you?

Reg says:

03:04pm | 05/07/10

Shiela Hale, the anti-Catholic spirit of old Australia is alive and well eh?

How disgraceful.

Quote; “the other a system achieved only by faith through God’s grace plus nothing.”  “Nothing” would have been sufficient.

You must feel very secure being so uncharitable since there is nothing you can do that you regard as sinful. Spare us your tainted prayers.

Steve says:

04:18pm | 05/07/10

Just as well Christianity isn’t a religion. It is based on a person rather than a set of rules like every other belief system.

Sancho says:

12:18pm | 05/07/10

Is there a competition in this thread to see which Christian can grossly misunderstand evolution the most?  Eugene’s definitely a contender.

How is something “unnatural” or “wrong” in evolution?  If it happens in nature, it’s natural and works with natural selection.

Reg says:

01:12pm | 05/07/10

Hey Eugene, just to extend your horizons. You know all that squarking noises toads make after rain, well, in the excitement, that’s the males protesting <sic> at being mistakenly rogered by the other males.

Quote; “the Queen as the Head of State who is (or was, rather), also the Head of the Church of England.  Atheists - deal with it.”

Deal with what? That another woman seeks to exorcise the maleness out of those around her. Nothing to do with GOD. You are obviously suggesting that equality is anti-Christian. Anyhow they had to find something for her to do.

Another one Eugene, why aren’t Christians Socialists? Why do Christians adopt the mantle of exclusivity by hanging off the coat-tails of a mythical being? But of course, the Queen as head of the church is a frantic attempt to provide an illusion, with some degree of substance in imitation of the Catholic Church.

Nice try.

Mike says:

01:52am | 07/07/10

Eugene, if you really want to understand evolution you could always open a book. There are no “laws” of evolution (it is driven largely by adaptation of species and natural pressures). To understand it you just need a little intelligence and a large degree of commonsense and rational understanding. These qualities are not exclusive to communists and socialists, though I do concede that the far Christian Right for some reason often finds them hard to come by.

You don’t know much about the natural world do you? For example, asexual reproduction (ie, without a mate) is common in some areas of nature. Heck, even your virgin Mary was supposed to have done it, wasn’t she? Homosexuality has also been observed in many species, and it’s just a little bit difficult to believe that species ranging from mallards and penguins to hyenas and bonobos have done it because they’re sexual deviants, or had a poor childhood upbringing. Fruit flies too. It’s just unfortunate that the godless fruit fly community can’t see the light, eh?

Australia may well have no formal separation of church and state, but try shoving religion down the throats of voters and watching the results. This is not Iran or Nigeria. Deal with that.

Reg says:

12:46pm | 05/07/10

Thank you for your condescension oh wise one. You must be feeling left out.

Sheila Hale says:

09:46pm | 05/07/10

P.Darvio - I agree.  A person can attend Church (a building made with bricks and mortar) and yet not belong to the One true Church composed of all true Believers. That is those who have their natural spirit regenerated by the Holy Spirit.  This occurs at the moment they know they are a sinner needing a Saviour.  That there would be an apostasy of the Church in the latter days was clearly predicted in two New Testament passages.  First in 11 Thessalonians 2:1-3. Please read. The passage refers to “the falling away” and in 1 Timothy 4:1 again the prophetic word declares there would be a falling away or an apostasy from the faith. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 there is a description of the character of the apostasy andv the source is demons. These Apostates have given into seducing spirits and preach a doctrine of demons. They speak lies through hypocrisy, their conscience becomes insensitive, involving an attack on people’s liberty by forbidding people to marry, legalism will increase and the character explained in 11 Timothy 3:5 for they hold to a form of godliness but deny the power thereof, apostate ministers retaining the clerical garb and church titles deny the true power of godliness, false teachers described extensively in 11 Peter 2:1-2 who bring in destructive heresies denying even the Master who brought them…..follow their own lascivious doings,.. feigned words making merchandise of you….they will mock the fundamentals of the faith, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Virgin Birth, the substitutionary death of the Messiah and His physical resurrection of the dead, Peter 3:3-4 states they will mock the doctrine of the Second Coming and schisms or separations will occur.  I invite anyone who honestly seeks after the truth and with a sincere desire to make sense of spiritual matters to go to Ariel.org whose founder Dr Arnold G Fruchtenbaum is a bible teacher par excellence.

Bigmagilla says:

11:22am | 07/07/10

God is not vengeful… this is just like the garbage in insurance policies “an act of God” what a get out clause! To see that God is an all punishing all nasty Ogre of some sort who delights in spending his days tormenting you people… get a life. I dont have to defend God but let me ask you a question or two:

Do you believe in Good and Evil?

Do you believe that there is something greater than yourself?

God can forgive every sin past, present and future… can you?

xyz says:

04:22pm | 07/07/10

Bigmagilla, you didn’t answer my question.

Why is your God so vengeful towards non-believers… a punishment completely out of proportion to the ‘crime’... don’t you think?

Dan says:

07:28pm | 07/07/10

@Bigmagilla, you said

“God can forgive every sin past, present and future… can you?”

Well, no actually. God can’t forgive every sin. That’s why there is “eternal sin” (or “unforgivable sin”, or “unpardonable” sin). Look it up:

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin

Not only are you wrong about that, but it’s extremely ludicrous to ask a “non-believer” if they can forgive sin, for the simple reason that they DON’T BELIEVE in sin. Of course they can forgive, that is undeniable. Just like everybody on the planet has the ability to forgive. Whether they can forgive everything is up to the individual, but I’m sure there are at least a few people who are so forgiving.

In response to your other two questions: they are so ridiculous and subjective that I will refrain from answering them. However, should you want my answer, I’ll give it to you.

Bigmagilla says:

11:27am | 08/07/10

Dan, yes ... you know a little… eternal sin is in fact what catholics call eternal damnation (not here on earth but our life after mortal death) or severance from God. Sadly part of any believing persons life… it comes down simply to giving your heart back to God. Unforgivable sin or unpardonable sin (same thing) is the blaspheming of the spirit and its context is for believers. Why dont your read scripture instead of Wiki… get your own opinion rather than someone else’s. I read and refer to Wiki and other material for your sakes, not mine!

Bigmagilla says:

11:55am | 08/07/10

XYZ… it appears you dont or wont understand. The first question was do you believe in Good and Evil… Evil being the works of Satan or the Devil who has authority here to do nearly anything… sure God lets it happen but its your choice to choose between the two and who is the purpetrator in your mind. It appears your leaving that tag with God and thats your choice.

xyz says:

10:34pm | 08/07/10

Bigmagilla, it appears that you can’t answer my simple question. That’s OK, I didn’t expect you’d be able to.

Oh, and I do understand, but like 25% of Australians (and growing) I just don’t believe!

Sancho says:

10:34pm | 05/07/10

But what about Vishnu?  If you don’t accept the Lord in his Vyuha form - as controller of men’s affairs -, your soul will perish.

Worshiping the The false God of the bible only makes your blasphemy worse.

Reg says:

10:55pm | 05/07/10

Clearly nothing of the sort Sheila. You are grasping at obscure detail that suits your case in exactly the same way as you cling to the frantic hope that there is something out there that will save your decadent hide from an imagined after-life of misery and decay.

It is views such as yours that maintain the corrupt image of religion in the eyes of those who would otherwise only be amazed at such stupidity. Your slanted protestant views were imported in the first fleet and maintained by active laws in support of the Church of England.

Reminding you also that a religion that needs a law to maintain its position, smack of something extremely unsavory. And it’s not that long since the English decreed that a Catholic could not be PM of Australia. Times have changed, but not our Sheila.

As reticent as I am to be seen to be supporting any religion, it is worth pointing out that the Catholic Church has flourished since the period you appoint as erroneous. Could it be that your, ... or rather, their God, had not abandoned them at all, where-as the C of E and others continue to crumble and fragment?

Jesus is not the answer to your indecision and the gospel is a silly joke. And it must be indecision, because you wouldn’t come here trying to thrust your beliefs down the throats of anyone prepared to read them, would you?

These are my views and not necessarily those of our highly esteemed Prime Minister.  But no doubt you will not let the subject of this thread distract you from the opportunity to expound your vicious, divisive and superseded High Church views.

Reznor says:

06:02pm | 06/07/10

Sheila, you state that Julia and us “non-believers” need “salvation” from an archaic, fictional place contrived to scare the gullible into submission and belief of a non-existant “god”.
This is why churches are so rich…..and why many evangelists are multi-millionaires…..at the expense of the “converted”.

I believe it is you that requires “salvation” from a delusional mental illness.

To preach from a fictional novel as you do is akin to preaching from a Dr Suess book…..anyone for Green Eggs and Ham?

Reg says:

03:36pm | 06/07/10

Then you claim to have adopted your divisive attitude from the Bible that had its inception at the hands of the Catholic Church which I now expect you will claim was the one true church up to about sixteen sixty-six. You must find the Old Testament a delight of violence that accommodates your desire to pit man, woman and child, against man, woman and child just to satiate the greedy God of your Bible. .

Forgive me for thinking that Christianity was intended to be a plea for unification and peace. It seems that in their low key acceptance of irrational religion, non-believers are making a far greater contribution by turning the other cheek, to use a phrase you may understand.

I trust that our noble Prime Minister will maintain her inclusive attitude and not succumb to the vile divisive influences, such as those projected by yourself and by other so called Christians..

Reg says:

10:38am | 07/07/10

I agree whole-heartedly Mike.

Fill their heads with fearful fantasy at an immature age and it is always there beneath the surface. It is no wonder that prayer and fear of an after-life rise to the surface in a life-threatening situation.  It has nothing to do with an innate faith at all, it is abuse of the worst kind enacted by the perpetrator because they too, have been abused.

You can see the lines of thinking as the existence of disease and natural disaster were used as a tool to scare the population into conforming to religious rules. A failure of God becomes a failure of the individual or “God’s mysterious ways?” If the pace was a bit slow then why not create a terror of the inquisitorial bent?

Well perhaps Ms Gillard is there to provoke Australians into a bit deeper consideration of what really matters. Provocation being part of both God’s and Sheila’s plans apparently. We are fortunate indeed that we have compulsory voting in Australia with its tendency to neutralize the religious groups. It’s a pity the people of the US exercise their right to stand idly by as religious ratbags storm the bastions of democracy. There is nothing democratic about religious rat-bags.

Reg says:

06:30am | 08/07/10

LC I’m afraid I can’t get as enthusiastic as you are about cable quarrels but I am certainly weary of hearing about this character Conroy, who-ever he is. Sorry, never heard of the ACL.

Oooooh, another couple of labels, “agnostic”, “non-practicing Baptist.” I’d always thought that Baptists liked the title of non-practicing on the basis that to define their beliefs discriminated against those who were non-aligned. Sort of, all things to all women.

I guess this Conroy must be some Snoopy or Foo like character that haunts the internet. “Foo was here.”  +QQ+

LC says:

12:04pm | 08/07/10

Reg:

Stephen Conroy: The current minister for telecommunications, broadband, and the digital economy. He was put in charge of the federal government’s Internet Safety plan, which, amongst other things, are plans for mandatory ISP level filtering, similar to those that get Saudi Arabia, Iran and most notably China laughed at on an international scale, to apparently block RC rated material (such as the obvious child porn and pro-rape material, but also euthanasia material, various viewpoints on abortion, fringe religions, porn with the SLIGHTEST fetish component and footage of minor crimes) on the net. He has been subject to harsh criticism by various organizations, from experts in the industry to people as high up as Interpol, Save the Children Foundation and even the US Department of State.  He seemingly refuses to listen to these arguments, on at least one occasion going as far as to imply these people are pedophiles. Should these plans go ahead, Australia would become the first country in the democratic western world to do have such a thing in place. He is also a key player in a not as well known scheme (because the people involved in it are subject to NDAs, Non Disclosure Agreements, so they can’t talk about it publicly) to monitor the internet activity of everyone, from simple web-browsing histories, to emails and Instant messages, without requiring warrants.
Futher Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Conroy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/top-ten-internet-filter-lies/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm

The ACL (Australian Christian Lobby): A political lobby group that either supports changes (such as the aforementioned net filter and Tony Abbott’s plans for mandatory bible classes) or opposes changes (such as R18 games and a Federal Bill of Rights) in order to create a Right-Wing Christian-centered society for EVERYONE. Seems to hold a frightening amount of power over both major parties in federal parliament.
Futher Reading:
Their official site: http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/. Read some of thier policies and ideas, it would be rather amusing if they weren’t so influential.

Hope you learnt something today

Peter says:

01:27pm | 08/07/10

The laws we have off line should be identical to the on line world. If this is all the filter is going to do then I support it 100%. The internet should not dictate what our laws would be. Who cares if a bomb making video is barred from the net? Who needs to see it? What if there was a DYI abortion video, should we allow that to be distributed despite the harm it might do?

I don’t agree with secret black list though and would want to have more oversight…

Reg says:

01:40pm | 08/07/10

Thanks LC, we’ll have to stop using these abbreviations they’re a little obscure for we old guys. Australian Christian Lobby, wow, there’s a worry. At least they should have called it The Australian Protestant’s Lobby Limited, now that we know Catholics are not Christians. And it’s certainly LIMITED.

Fortunately I could never be part of an Atheist’s Lobby, it would be far to convenient for the Australian Protestant’s Lobby Limited to target.

Mandatory Bible classes…holy shit, next it will be mandatory non-believers classes. Ummm? I do hope everyone has viewed the “Warning from History” program about how the big H really came to power. I see echoes of this in some of these dangerous lobbies with Sheila as a prospective contender for the leadership. QQ Thank heavens (plural) for the centre left, even if Conroy is not one of them. Perhaps his conscience will drive him to change sides and join the venerable Monseigneur and Abbott of the North Shore.

LC says:

11:53am | 19/07/10

Peter, I do not belive it’s a good idea to go into the net filter debate in futher detail here, as that runs the risk of taking this thread off-topic.

I however, will provide you with some links which may help to address the points you are making:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/top-ten-internet-filter-lies/
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/has-conroy-just-rolled-on-the-net-filter/
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/dont-believe-the-myths-on-the-isp-filter/

Davo says:

01:39pm | 30/07/10

How can one disbelieve in God more or less?
You either do or don’t , surely?

You’ve also ballsed up lines seven and eight. It would be much more accurate to say of ignorant people that:

‘Once they come in contact with something they can’t comprehend they then: attribute it to a God’.
Can’t wait to vote for that ‘Shameless BItch’ with all of the other ‘gooses’,
even if its only to counter your vote.

Davo says:

02:55pm | 30/07/10

Line one is a bit ambiguous. Funny, though.
Interesting idea, Joe, having an atheist clean up corrupt religions on behalf of the truly religious.
It would be be interesting to see how Julia Gillard achieves consensus on that one. Perhaps you could offer your services as head of a People’s Commitee , just to make sure she gets it right.
The Peoples Commitee for the BANNING of things. Chairman Joe, presiding. You may be able to claim your pulpit as a tax deduction…

What a marvel the internet is! You get to see points of view and opinions that would never make it into the papers.

Ron says:

01:06am | 07/08/10

Oh dear.
How can anyone say they do not believe in God? It is impossible to prove that existence one way or the other. Agnosticism I can understand. Personal conviction about God…yes. But no God? Perhaps there is no Prime Mover universally and personally understood by we thinking mammals on planet earth…but to have faith in the unprovable? I do not get it. Why was it important to ask a mere politician the question anyway? Moral values are held by her and most of us in Australia and, yes, many come down to us from the moral sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. So?

xyz says:

10:40pm | 10/08/10

Ron,

agnostics don’t believe in a god or god(s), and morals have been around for a lot longer than 2,000 years.