Please God spare us the born-again atheists

James says:

08:27am | 16/09/10

I agree that Christian values have too strong an affect on our government. The separation of church and state is supposed to be maintained but rarely is this the case; in my opinion this is largely due to the intense passion and power of the religious voting constituency.

Rarely would atheist voters organise to passionately protest a new bill of social reform, largely because they aren’t united by a particular faith and aren’t violently incenced by a contradition of their belief.

But this article is mostly about the infuriating, loud, and ironic sanctimony of the modern “atheist movement”. I agree 100% with Mr Penberthy—atheists need to be cautious not to make a venomous campaign against other people’s faith.

Tristen says:

08:36am | 16/09/10

You can’t compare atheism to religion.

Without religion, there would be no atheism. I think you should remember that before you write another piece on atheism. Atheists only get coordinated and “in-your-face” in response to attacks against secular freedoms by organised religion. There would be none of this if not for organised religion in my opinion. Why not write from that perspective in future?

You also seem to think that atheism is some co-ordinated group who can control its members in order to put forward a unified front. Atheists come from all walks of life and all have different personalities. You are very wrong about that and just seem to be ranting your own disillusionment with the acts of some fellow atheists that have irritated you.

Also, attacks on Richard Dawkins and the like seem unwarranted. They argue exactly like this: militant atheism is necessary in order to make the world a better place and the world wouldn’t be as bad in the first place if it weren’t for organised religion is their and my view.

James says:

08:42am | 16/09/10

The low standards of others is a fairly thoughtless justification for your ranting Shane, wouldn’t you say?

ZSRenn says:

08:50am | 16/09/10

Does atheism supply

schooling to millions of children

hospitals for the sick

care for the aged

No

First comment and you summed the article up perfectly

Did you even read the story?

Righto says:

08:51am | 16/09/10

Or any other church for that matter.

The only reason people can’t lawfully terminate their own life is because religious people say that some book says you can’t.

Thankfully, (at least in NSW) a mother that has an unwanted pregnancy can termiinate it, but there are places on this planet where you can’t because some religious people say that there is a book where it says you can’t. Still, in NSW you need to come up with a reason from the only valid list of reasons given (the one we chose was financial hardship for the mother as she was “single” and unmarried - I was the boyfriend, I was the father, but I earned 6 figures…......).

Religious people stick their nose into everyone’s lives based on some book and a belief in a sky-fairy and seek to tell everyone else how they can live their lives.

They also try to assert that the only way you can have morals is belief in some book and a belief in a sky-fairy and that this cannot be developed from a personal sense of logic and a concept of not harming others in order to promote a well-functioning society.

With the billions of dollars that churches have you’d think they could eradicate poverty….........but no.

Time to get religion out of public life. Allow people to choose how they live for themselves.

Sean says:

08:58am | 16/09/10

You have a beef with the Catholic Church I take it?
Does Atheism have a political lobby group? - there are plenty of non religious political lobby groups and parties, The Greens for one
Does Atheism get a tax break? - no it is an idea, not an organisation. but non religious charities do just like religious ones
Does Atheism shove its compulsory Internet Filter - Labor thought this one up, so how is the Catholic Church to blame?
, Anti Abortion-  Anti Euthanasia views down your throat? - So the Catholic Church is consistent in its pro life views, what’s your point, Abortion is legal so I can’t see why you’re complaining.

Steely Dan says:

09:25am | 16/09/10

@ ZSRenn

Atheism doesn’t supply those things - because nothing, good or bad, can be done in the name of atheism.  Atheism is a lack of belief.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:49am | 16/09/10

@Sean. I have a beef with any religious organization that plays politics. They can worship any deity /s they like but when they start to impose their views on the general public via political lobbying, that’s when it becomes dangerous.

HappyCynic says:

10:06am | 16/09/10

@Shane from Melbourne

While atheism might not have these things, it doesn’t stop atheists and religious people alike from inflicting this “my philosophy is better than yours” evangalism on other sane, rational, reasonable people.

No philosophy is universally right or wrong, because there are no universal truths or universal wrongs.  “Better” or “worse” is decided by an individuals perceptions of the world.  Nothing, not even facts, can be held to be universally better than something else.

Hendo says:

10:23am | 16/09/10

Hey ZSRenn,
Our government provides schooling to millions of children, hospitals for the sick and care for the aged. And it’s headed by an athiest.

DG says:

12:11pm | 16/09/10

Tristen:
“Without religion, there would be no atheism.”.

Atheism is not a positive opposite to religion, but the absence of belief in deity at the head of theistic religions. There are atheistic religions such as Scientology and Buddhism - and there are others.
————————————-

ZSRenn:

While some religious groups do that, so to do non-theistic organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, governments, the United Nations and so on.

There are even organisations that provide aid without demanding that the recipients conform to the religious ideology of the donors (I refer of course to the work done by the Catholic church to prevent the spread of AIDS which, while commendable, could be more efficacious if the organisation were to provide full and accurate information, rather than information that is guided by ideology if preventing AIDS is really their intention as opposed to indoctrination) .

Shane’s criticism of tax relief should, perhaps, have been more direct.Perhaps eligious institutions should be treated no differently to other, non-religious, charitable services. Their link to a religious should not be a special exemption.  Surely if these religious organisations are completely benevolent their tax status will be unchanged by the setting aside of the religious exemption-and we will have made a step towards ensuring the separation of church and State. How could a charity possibly object to being granted a tax exemption linked to their benevolence rather than their expressed belief in the supernatural?

Peter says:

01:32pm | 16/09/10

Yes shane, non-religous organisation do get tax breaks. Unicef, World Vision, Ausaid, Red Cross or any other non-religious aid/charity services you can think of…..

Steely Dan says:

01:54pm | 16/09/10

@ Peter

These organisations earn their tax status because they can show that they are not-for-profit charitable organisations.  Some churches meet this criteria, but not all of them.

Jimmy says:

03:48pm | 16/09/10

Atheism is a religion, as it is a belief system. Plus, as DG says, there are many atheistic religions practised around the world.
Atheism is faith-based, in that it is a belief that there is no one supreme being, something that cannot be proved or disproved at our current level of human development, just like any other religious belief.

xyz says:

04:02pm | 16/09/10

Peter, the last time I looked World Vision was a Christian charity and they are very serious about that!

Steely Dan says:

04:17pm | 16/09/10

@ Jimmy

“Atheism is a religion, as it is a belief system.”
A lack of belief doesn’t need a ‘system’.

“there are many atheistic religions practised around the world.”
Only if you broaden the definition of ‘religion’ wide enough to include ‘Table Tennis’.

“Atheism is faith-based, in that it is a belief that there is no one supreme being”
No.  It’s a lack of belief in a supreme being.  There’s a difference.  And that position does not require ‘faith’.  Lack of evidence justifies lack of belief.

Interloper says:

04:24pm | 16/09/10

What disappoints me is the willful ignorance of some militant athiests. This thread is an example. The Bible is completely silent on euthanasia and abortion (and, indeed contraception). The Catholic church’s position on these things is not about following a book, it’s about an enunciation of principles and then a following of those principles to a rational conclusion. You can disagree with the principles, but don’t do it on the basis of an asinine Spaghetti Monster argument.

DG says:

04:29pm | 16/09/10

Jimmy,

I did not say that atheism is a religion. It is simply the absence of belief in a God or Gods. There are some religions which happen to be atheistic, but that does not make atheism a religion.

Atheism does not require faith - atheism simply adopts the null hypothesis. In the absence of evidence in support of the God hypothesis atheists conclude that there is no reason to believe that God exists.

In fact that is the basis of Pascal’s wager.

Atheism is the position held by any person who does not hold a positive belief in the existence of God. A person who DOES believe in the existence of God is a theist. By definition, the remainder of the population are atheist.

There has been some attempt to hijack the meaning of the word, and the creation of an “I don’t know” category (agnostic). However, I would suggest (based on the etymology of the words an agnostic person can not be a ‘theist’ as they do no have a belief in god. They are, therefore, by definition, atheist.

To suggest atheism is a religion based on faith is demonstrably false, and I would suggest that I have done so above. The purpose of this falsehood is to create a straw man that may be easily pulled down giving the illusion of a weakness in the position of atheism.

I put it to you that this falsehood, is exactly that and, when atheism is considered as described above, much of the criticism of that position falls well short of being relevant to the position of atheists.

Frank Zappa says:

04:30pm | 16/09/10

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

Jimmy says:

04:52pm | 16/09/10

@Steely Dan, you’re helping to make my case.

The evidence you refer to is your belief that your interpretation of the facts/world/whatever are truth/fact, which is the same any system of belief. It just means you rely on a particular method to verify or accept your beliefs, as other systems do. That’s why scientists (sensibly) call their verified/tested facts as “theories”, because they’re wise enough to know that they’re never completely set in stone, and can be challenged and changed by new knowledge and understanding. A scientist saying that there categorically is no god is just as unprovable as a priest saying there categorically is.

You can play semantics with “no one supreme being” and “no supreme being”, but it comes down to the same thing: atheists believe there is no supreme deity, catholics believe there is one true god, etc. etc. etc.. Each will say with as much conviction as the other that their beliefs are proven and valid, you just choose to accept one (or more) of them that makes the most sense to you. And this often changes for people over different periods in their lives.

P.S. FWIW, I’m an atheist.

Steely Dan says:

05:08pm | 16/09/10

@ Jimmy

“The evidence you refer to is your belief that your interpretation of the facts/world/whatever are truth/fact”
Facts aren’t relative.  I used reason to verify claims before I believe them.

“That’s why scientists (sensibly) call their verified/tested facts as “theories”, because they’re wise enough to know that they’re never completely set in stone, and can be challenged and changed by new knowledge and understanding.”
But that doesn’t stop anyone from believing that evolution (for example) happens.  Or not believing hypotheses that haven’t been backed by the evidence.

“A scientist saying that there categorically is no god is just as unprovable as a priest saying there categorically is.”
Who’s making categorical statements?

“atheists believe there is no supreme deity, catholics believe there is one true god”
Atheists do not believe that there is a supreme deity.  I know I’m harping on about it, but acknowledge the distinction, please.

“Each will say with as much conviction as the other that their beliefs are proven and valid, you just choose to accept one (or more) of them that makes the most sense to you.”
I don’t believe I’m right because of the strenght of my convictions.

“P.S. FWIW, I’m an atheist. “
Then I retract any criticism of your points and give you the secret atheist handshake.

Jimmy says:

06:58pm | 16/09/10

@Steely Dan

Fair enough, we agree on the same principles, but enjoy discussing the variations in our wordings

I do acknowledge the distinction you make and agree it is important - and that is worth “harping” on.

Secret handshake completed…

Alex says:

04:42am | 17/09/10

@ZSRenn, “Does atheism supply
schooling to millions of children
hospitals for the sick
care for the aged
No
First comment and you summed the article up perfectly
Did you even read the story? “

Yes it does! We have tons of “atheist” (secular) institutions that do a far better job than religious equivalents which shove nonsensical views of morality upon people.

Jez Kemp says:

06:09am | 17/09/10

From PZ Myers, just in case you missed it:

“You might be wondering what horrible crimes these atheists have committed, and who they are. Have they been issuing fatwas, condemning people to death for mocking them? Have they been decreeing that believers are not good citizens, and should have their right to vote revoked? Have they decided that theists are hollow, immoral people and parasites on civilization?

Well, no. He’s angry at Bobby Henderson for inventing the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He dares to mock religion!

He’s furious with that big bully Richard Dawkins, because he dared to interrupt Christians on a televised debate.

He’s really pissed off at Alex Stewart, who burned a few pages of a Bible and a Koran. His own books, not that he invaded a church or mosque and set things on fire, but simply because he was offensive.”

All I can add is that you, David Penberthy, are a spineless whining muppet. Why not do a little research into the crimes of religion and religious extremists, then get a little perspective.

Tolpuddle Martyr says:

07:37am | 17/09/10

I think Mr Penberthy would rather Atheists merely respectfully shut up rather than proudly announcing who they are. As P.Z. Myers rightly put it, he can go hide in his closet, snuggle with his blanky, and suck his thumb. Maybe Mr Penberthy’s central problem is that his Atheism is based on faith, that should ring alarm bells right there. As should the notion of any atheist worth his salt invoking God to spare them from anything. I’d wager that David is about as much an atheist as Bjørn Lomborg is an environmentalist!

James says:

03:37pm | 17/09/10

@HappyCynic - “No philosophy is universally right or wrong, because there are no universal truths or universal wrongs.”

Is the statement “there are no universal truths” a universal truth?

Peter says:

08:23am | 18/09/10

@ Righto, your probably a reason we shouldn’t listen to athiests. Now i will never seek to control another woman’s body, it’s her to do with what she likes, but what us religious types wouldn’t say is “thankfully” to killing an unborn baby… I think that’s the difference….

Perhaps you should here the stories i’ve heard about these unborn babies trying to pretect themselves when their life is about to be terminated, you might think a bit differently then.

But as i said, i don’t seek to control other people’s body…

Michael L says:

07:52am | 16/09/10

“It’s interesting, though, to note that some atheists who have great contempt for Christianity will go to lengths to defend Islam from criticism.”

Public athiests like Dawkins and Hitchens are more likely to go to great lengths to ridicule Islam and the eastern religions.

Sean says:

08:37am | 16/09/10

Actually Mark L, Dawkins has been upfront about his fear of criticising Islam
“I may refrain from insulting you. I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of your prophet. But it’s because I fear you. Don’t think for one minute that it’s because I respect you”

Fortunately for him and other critics, they don’t seem to have the same risks with Christianity.

Steve says:

09:41am | 16/09/10

@Righto if you earned 6 figures maybe you could have afforded contraception

Jon says:

11:23am | 16/09/10

Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins do justifiably go in hard on Islam. All religions and various strands are not equal in their contravention of universal human rights. Christianity did give Western society secularism and Sufi Islam is quite peaceful. However some of the loudest apologists for Islam come from the so-called left, liberals and large sections of the intelligentsia who for nearly two decades have managed to be stupefied by cultural relativism. They seem to have rejected enlightenment values, for example, and have given space and succour to the most potent anti-enlightenment forces. It’s no coincidence that in the past decade we’ve witnessed a rise of religious including Christian fundamentalism in the West, coinciding with a spike in jihadist violence.

Jon Underwood says:

01:00pm | 16/09/10

i believe hitchens has made some pretty direct insults towards islam, in the past and recently….

Robert says:

02:30pm | 16/09/10

Pointing out that religious organisations should be treated the same and have the same rights and that if Muslims wish to build say an Islamic school in Camden NSW, they should be allowed to is not the same as defending them. It’s simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Christian majority.

As an Atheist I would prefer that there were no religious schools but as the Catholic, Baptist and Anglicans already have numerous schools dotted around the country, they have no right to stop any other religion from building their own. That is not defending Islam, it is ensuring the same rules are being applied equally.

GalapagosPete says:

03:55pm | 16/09/10

“As an agnostic, twenty years ago I used to be very irritated by Christian evangelists, with their smugness and their insults toward disbelievers. Now, however, Christians seem a bit more humble…”

Which evangelicals are more humble than they were 20 years ago? I haven’t really noticed an increase in humility. Other than the dead ones, I mean.

“It’s interesting, though, to note that some atheists who have great contempt for Christianity will go to lengths to defend Islam from criticism.”

“Some” atheists? How many is that, exactly? Why is it significant?

Did you know that you can start any sentence with the word “Some,” name a group and make any sort of claim and it’s almost certainly true?

“Some people who claim to be agnostic are actually closet Christians who simply haven’t admitted it to themselves, or are pretending to be agnostic so they can make questionable claims about atheists and still look superior.”

See how that works?

Eric says:

06:27pm | 16/09/10

@GalapagosPete:

“Which evangelicals are more humble than they were 20 years ago?”

The ones I encounter personally. I cannot speak for those I have not met.

““Some” atheists? How many is that, exactly? Why is it significant?”

I am thinking of two regular commenters on The Punch, in particular. However, naming them might result in this comment being censored. It’s significant because it’s a hypocritical double standard.

JTK says:

12:37pm | 17/09/10

Name one.

GalapagosPete says:

01:51am | 18/09/10

“I am thinking of two regular commenters on The Punch, in particular. However, naming them might result in this comment being censored. It’s significant because it’s a hypocritical double standard. “

it’s only significant - maybe - if it’s true, and your unwillingness to name them is suspect. These are comments freely posted on an open forum, and if the posters don’t want their names used, they should not have posted them for the world to see. I stand by what I post - even the astonishing rare errors ;^) - and they must also.

I am not asking you to quote them, just name them and give me links to some of the columns where these comments appear so I can go look. Until you do, I cannot accept your assertion, which may be colored by emotional memory of exchanges you may have had with these posters.

Eric says:

06:17am | 18/09/10

I’ll name ‘em both. Dan and T.Chong.

Wonder if this will get through.

Castro says:

08:09am | 16/09/10

You are looking at this completely the wrong way Davido.  Even though federal and (to a far lesser extent) state funding does go to private schools, this is less money than the amount that would be needed to educated these private school kids in state schools.

In effect, parents who send their kids to private schools are subsidising the whole education system and without their input the entire system would collapse.  Furthermore, this subsidising of public schools by private school parents means that public schools are much better funded than their equivalents in the private sector.  Look at a local state high school and compare it to the normal (not Joeys or Riverview) Catholic school down the road and you will see that it has better facilities, more modern buildings, and much greater access to resources.

You need to get the 1950’s ‘Catholics ring the bell while the publics go to hell’ chip off your shoulder and thank these private schools, and in particular the fee-paying parents, for keeping public education alive.

Sean says:

08:46am | 16/09/10

Don’t blame religions for parental demand, you do realise that the reason for private school funding is because of the demand from parents, who are also taxpayers. If no one wanted to attend private schools they wouldn’t receive the government funding.

I would agree that the level of private school funding needs to be analysed to make sure that it isn’t overly politicised.

Charles Darwin says:

08:58am | 16/09/10

I’m sure fundamentalist Christians are equally upset that their tax dollars go to public schools that teach Evolution.

ZSRenn says:

09:18am | 16/09/10

They give the money to the schools because
it is cheaper than building a new school
and running it.

Not to mention the churches would probably
be a lot better off by pulling down the school and putting up
apartments on their owned inner city land. 

I cannot believe how many people have written comments

proving the article.

Davido says:

10:00am | 16/09/10

Castro your facts are incorrect.

As others have written about recently on the punch, any economist will tell you that the enormous government subsidies to private schools are both:
- a drain on the economy; and
- a distortion of an efficient free market.

The real facts are these:
- the TOTAL cost of educating a private school student to society is greater than that of a public school student; and
- a free market is an efficient market. By subsidising private companies you are creating inefficiency. Remove the subsidy and let the market decide the boundary between public and private schools.

There are social concerns too. This is basically a regressive tax which takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Most people agree that this is simply not fair. Arguably it is also destructive to the economy, regressive taxes are endemic in third world countries. The few take from the many.

As to your assertion that public schools have better resources and facilities, I can only laugh. My local primary school would have been demolished long ago if it wasnt so needed. I refer you to this article for your interest….

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/elite-private-schools-rake-in-profits-20100911-1561o.html

Tim says:

11:04am | 16/09/10

Ok,
lets say that religions lost their tax exempt status and started charging the government the true cost of all the services they supplied.
No voluteers either, they’d all have to be paid.
How much would that cost your precious tax dollar?

Tim says:

11:08am | 16/09/10

Wow Davido,
the richest private schools are better resourced than your average local primary school. Breathtaking.
Too bad the vast majority of usually Catholic schools are nowhere near as well funded.

Any economist will tell you that private schools have been shown to save the taxpayer money. C WAT I DID THRE.

Hamish says:

11:29am | 16/09/10

Davido, I must have missed those Punch articles, but how can you possibly assert that education in Australia is a free market? Firstly, it’s very hard to have a free market when the government controls more than two-thirds of it. Secondly, it’s very hard to have a free market when it’s largely funded through taxation (I pay for public schools and I don’t even have kids). Thirdly, almost all private schools are non-profit organisations, which can obviously exist in free markets, but it’s certainly not normal for free markets to be dominated by non-profit businesses.

Regardless of whether private schools are subsidised or not, the education market will never be free as long as there are public schools, so one really needs to analyse private school funding in the context of public policy. From this perspective it is obvious that private school funding provides better outcomes for students and their parents both in private and public schools.

Jon Underwood says:

01:15pm | 16/09/10

@Castro

that’s all very well and good, but imagine the outrage of the scientologists (i’m not one) wanted to build a school and get access to the same funding as xian schools.  or if they wanted to send chaplains into state schools.

or heck, if any non-mainstream religion wanted to do it.

Davido says:

03:34pm | 16/09/10

Hamish, I do not assert that there is a free market. Indeed I say the opposite.

I am saying, as an economist, that the subsidisation of private companies is an inefficient waste of resources. It costs more than public education, diverts resources to a few well off people and is basically unfair. And finally, it puts an inordinate amount of money into the coffers of tax exempt religions.

The fact that your taxes contribute to public education merely means you contribute - as every taxpayer does - to the economic infrastructure of this country. Take away public education and we are basically living in feudal times. Public education is a very good measure of how civilized one country is.

Tim - if you really think religions provide charitable services out of the goodness of their hearts, then you are kidding yourself. They do it to convert / brainwash stupid people. They also get tax exempt status and endless government bounties which more than subsidise them.

Tim says:

04:16pm | 16/09/10

Davido,
i’m not a member of any church but I see the good that my local churches do in the community.
If you honestly believe that churches do community work to convert/ brainwash people then you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I love these experts on church goals who probably have never even talked to a local priest/imam/rabbi.

Interloper says:

04:43pm | 16/09/10

” if you really think religions provide charitable services out of the goodness of their hearts, then you are kidding yourself. They do it to convert / brainwash stupid people. “

This is so offensive I don’t even know how to respond. Clearly, you don’t know people involved in providing charity. Whether or not you believe in God is up to you, but I suggest you need to learn about not-exclusively-religious concepts such as compassion and love for one’s neighbour. Try them. It might help you see the world in a more positive light.

Steely Dan says:

04:43pm | 16/09/10

@ Tim

I’m sure most churches do good work, Tim.  But those churches should be given tax breaks because of their charitable nature - not because they’re filled with religious people.  Profit-seeking churches should be taxed like any other organisation is.

Mema says:

07:23pm | 16/09/10

Ok a few points. a bit waffly but i make these points as I think I need to say them.

1.  Private schools like Kings College are in a totally different ball park to most schools. Regardless of their affiliation (secular or religious) they’re only for rich kids, ever, and shouldn’t get a single dinky dollar from tax.
2. Catholic schools are fee paying schools and people who aren’t religious perceive these to be better than public schools and that’s why they send them there.  Why are they better than public schools? They get more public funding. However, as a recipient of Catholic, outer suburban education I’d argue the CEO (Catholic Ed people) don’t really use it very well. Not to mention sex ed and other curricula are more backward and there is a lot of indoctrination.
In short, unfair tax funding is creating the demand for catholic ed.
3. charities are different.  some charities are very good, very open, very helpful. these are good people who do good works often at personal expense. however, the churches that run them seem to exploit their volunteers and staff and have more rights to discriminate who they employ or not than others.  that said not all choose to follow the big boy’s rules and instead love thy neighbour. likewise in the richer countries how religious charities behave is different to the poorer countries. many volunteers do wonderful things but some are encouraging awful things as well under despotic rules of places like Vatican. So it is not clear cut.

On the major point of this article, I agree with Penberthy. I am getting frustrated with “evangelical atheism”.  I think we need the critique of religion and the promotion of secularism (not so much atheism) more than ever. But I argue that our methods must not be hypocritical. And we must respect people and their right to choose but not their beliefs. This juvenile, mob mentality of some people is damaging and pointless.

However atheism is not a system of beliefs. It is a lack of a belief, a null hypothesis as someone said. Everything else varies. It’s not a belief in science. It’s not a belief in evolution, it’s just “I think the Gods are not real/I don’t think the Gods are real”. And that’s it.  This New Atheism crap is a distortion and Dawkins and so on, don’t represent me or what I believe. The only thing we share is “God isn’t real” and “religion does more harm than good”.  That’s it. On most other things I disagree with them…I do think the Pope should be arrested though…

If we are to succeed we must be critical at all points including of ourselves and our conduct.  Falling into the trap of arrogance is the common problem. Well said Penberthy.

Northern Steve says:

07:54pm | 16/09/10

@Steely Dan,
I’m not aware of any profit seeking churches.  What would they do with their profits?  Who are the shareholders to whom they distribute their profits?

Davido says:

09:56pm | 16/09/10

Tim, I don’t question that some churches can do good work. I just question their motives.

It was the Jesuits who said ‘Give me a child to the age of 7 and I will give you the man.’ Classic opportunism.

Once again I say, do not fool yourself. These charities are not charitable. They are marketing an ideology. An ideology for which the taxpayer bears the financial burden.

For your interest I refer you to the following….
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/kids-need-protection-from-ads—and-bible-bashers-20100620-yofe.html

Steely Dan says:

09:44am | 17/09/10

@ Northern Steve

“I’m not aware of any profit seeking churches.”
Are you comfortable saying that the Church of Scientology is so above board it would be rude to ask for them to file a tax return like everyone else?
“What would they do with their profits?”
Keep them.  Spend them.

“Who are the shareholders to whom they distribute their profits?”
Distribute?

Tedd says:

10:49am | 16/09/10

The logical flaws in religious thought must lead to significant cognitive discomfort, don’t you think?

Jon says:

12:42pm | 16/09/10

It’s not pointless, views can be changed one if looks for the facts and uses critical thinking to establish a truth. Most of religions that ever existed are gone or were amalgamated into new religions. One the strengths of Christianity was its adaptability. Many pagan rituals from the Roman era still exist such as Christmas and Easter for example. From one point view Jews, Christians and Muslims are just lapsed Atheists as we are all born without religion. So anything can change.

cc says:

01:13pm | 16/09/10

oh, there is very much a point to it. The more people who hear the truth, the more people will have the switch flick in their head and “actually, this doesnt make any sense” Sure there are rusted-on believers who wouldnt change their mind for anything, but when they try to impose their views and rules on the rest of the world via their various means the less footsoldiers they will have at their disposal

Dan says:

02:12pm | 16/09/10

I agree with Matt and disagree strongly with Ted, Jon and cc - can any of you recall a time in your life when you actually changed someone’s views about religion, politics or sex with a logic based argument? I believe that never happens. As to whether there is a God, noone knows, so why get so angry about it. Just take your best guess and off you go.

GalapagosPete says:

03:59pm | 16/09/10

“As to whether there is a God, noone [sic] knows, so why get so angry about it. Just take your best guess and off you go…”

...into a jet and into some towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

Because what harm can simple belief do?

Dan says:

04:19pm | 16/09/10

@Galapagos Pete - For starters, that is pretty much the opposite of what I said but anyway to address your comment, I don’t think 9/11 had anything to do with religion. In my opinion it was about the dispossession of Palestinians and oil politics in the middle east. Islam has been around since 800AD. Terrorists have been attacking the West since WWII. If it was cause and effect you wouldn’t expect the 1150 year waiting period…. and by the way I don’t believe in religion either. I just don’t like it when people who treat others like idiots because they disagree with them.

Jon says:

09:05am | 17/09/10

Dan@ Do you apologise for other religions or is it only Islam?

iansand says:

08:26am | 16/09/10

But, provided you are not affected, we should allow them their delusions if they derive comfort from them.

ABC says:

09:22am | 16/09/10

You have just proved David’s point.  Your “defence” of atheism (and I’m one) is nothing more than ill conceived invective.  Your religious or philosophical views should not be based on “hate” as you assert.  It should be based on recognition and acceptance that other people are entitled to peacably express their religious views or even believe whatever they like without having the need to defend what it is they believe. It is where relgions or views actually preach and incite hatred (and I include Islamofacism, militant pro-lifers,  and militant atheiests among these - be it physical, economic or spiritual harm) that we need to object.  But the simple holding of a belief in God should not be grounds for offense in the mind of any decent forward thinking individual. 

You have people that live close by that believe in creationism?  So what?  Why do you find their belief so offensive?  Because it differs to yours?  Who cares, or more to the point, why do you care to the extent that you find their belief’s offensive?  Why is this difference a basis for your intellectual haughtiness?  You’re belief that you are intellectually superior because you do not believe in god, fails to take into account that what you promote is pure and simple intolerance.

Steely Dan says:

09:47am | 16/09/10

@ iansand

“But, provided you are not affected, we should allow them their delusions if they derive comfort from them.”
Agreed.  I respect the right for people to believe what they want to.  But I’d be playing favourites if I didn’t snigger at all unreasonable assertions equally.  Religion gets no more or less respect from me than the theory that the moon landing was a hoax.

Phil says:

09:55am | 16/09/10

@iansand - “But, provided you are not affected, we should allow them their delusions if they derive comfort from them”

That kind of hatred and put down think you are superior is the only issue i have with atheists!! you are free to believe what you want but why do you feel the need to put anyone else who has a different belief down? what does it achieve apart from more tension between groups!!

iansand says:

10:35am | 16/09/10

But Phil - I happen to think that your beliefs are deluded.  I will allow you your beliefs if you will allow me mine.

Phil says:

12:47pm | 16/09/10

@iansand
Im not the one name calling, you are free to think or believe there is no God, thats fine with me as it doesnt affect my life.
What isnt appreciated is the name calling and rubbish, i accept that to you and other atheists there is no god, thats fine with me.
I dont then go on about how you are inferior, deluded or have any other questionable issues with your intelligence or mental state for thinking this - which is what most atheists do to anyone with a belief.

iansand says:

01:57pm | 16/09/10

But Phil.  Why do you think my beliefs are any of your business?  Why can’t I say that I think that belief in god is deluded?

Dan says:

02:17pm | 16/09/10

“But Phil.  Why do you think my beliefs are any of your business?  Why can’t I say that I think that belief in god is deluded?” Do you realise iansand that you just said - my beliefs are none of your business but I should be allowed to criticise yours at will? Where is the logic in that?

Jason says:

03:08pm | 16/09/10

@Phil - it’s not exactly by choice that atheists feel this way.  Logically minded atheists really struggle to understand how a (by all accounts) equally intelligent and thoughtful person could be sucked in by a fairytale with no proof.  I am equally appalled with the belief in deities as I am by people who smoke meth or drive recklessly - it makes me sad and upset to think people could be so dumb and makes me wonder if humanity is ever going to evolve into something better.

Much of the apparent anger and rudeness is just an external expression of utter amazement (and disappointment) that 21st humanity still has these dependencies on fictional deities.

Note: my use of the word stupid above is not an insult or attempt at name calling - I see the BELIEF and the BEHAVIOUR as stupid and illogical but it’s not directed at a person.  Really, believe what you want, and I’ll respect YOU., but never your misguided ideas.

iansand says:

04:11pm | 16/09/10

Dan - Where’s the criticism?  You Christian chappies are sensitive little flowers.  Perhaps a dictionary would help?  I think belief in god is delusional.

GalapagosPete says:

04:15pm | 16/09/10

There are people who really, sincerely, truly believe that eating a preparation of ground rhinoceros horn will make a man’s privates bigger and, ah, more potent. This is in spite of there being no evidence at all to support this. These people will pay big money for the product, and as a result, rhinos are becoming extinct.

This belief is sincere, and it makes them happy. Should we withhold criticism? Should we not call it the delusion that it is?

Delusional beliefs have real-world consequences. That is only one example, and that is why I criticize religious beliefs on forums like this one. It is my hope to live to see god-worship and all other superstition become insignificant in my lifetime. Happily, that seems to be the trend, at least in the West. I suspect that in more culturally backward countries, when they use religion to enforce their barbaric cultural mores, it will take longer.

And for those of you who think we must respect your beliefs, you are wrong. We must respect your right to have a belief, but the belief itself we may very well find ridiculous. And we may tell you so, in no uncertain terms.

Sven says:

05:23pm | 16/09/10

Ahh.. thats a terribly weak and circular argument. Science disagree with a literal interpretation of the bible, sure, but that doesnt mean that you can disprove religion using science. You say that people who say the world is 10, 000 years old are wrong? Maybe there is a god and he makes the world look older than it is. you seem to be assuming that there is no god, and using that assumption to exlain why there is no god..

GalapagosPete says:

01:44am | 18/09/10

Sven says:

  05:23pm | 16/09/10

  Ahh.. thats a terribly weak and circular argument. Science disagree with a literal interpretation of the bible, sure, but that doesnt mean that you can disprove religion using science. You say that people who say the world is 10, 000 years old are wrong? Maybe there is a god and he makes the world look older than it is. you seem to be assuming that there is no god, and using that assumption to exlain why there is no god..

Sven, Most religions include beliefs about the real world, and science can support or falsify those. Nor does science assume the existence of non-existence of gods; for their purposes it doesn’t matter. Scientists try to work out how phenomena occur, what are the mechanisms behind them.

For example, the claim the the world is 6,000 - 10,000 years old is a claim about the real world that can be checked. Scientists have checked, using ever-more accurate techniques, and the world is far older, right around 4 billion years.

So that religious belief *has*, in fact, been falsified - disproved, if you prefer.

Your attempt to call this into question by the argument that “Well, an all-powerful god could have *created* everything already old” is merely an example of the Omphalos hypothesis (satirized as “Last Thursdayism,”) the 19th century idea that an all-powerful god could have created everything with the appearance of age, without regard to what we know as the physical laws of the universe, so that therefore everything we think we know is simply wrong.

The problem with this idea is that, as with all other claims about supreme beings, it is completely unfalsifiable, so it is not acceptable as a refutation of anything in science.

So the world remains 4 billion years old, and those who choose to reject that are indeed, accepting a delusion in its place - a comforting one, perhaps, because it is a necessary part of their chosen worldview, but a delusion nonetheless.

Stublore says:

09:32am | 16/09/10

So you think the Taliban are amusing?
Or scientologists?
How about the religious police in Saudi Arabia who prevented young girls from being rescued by firemen when their school caught fire?
Or how about Fred Phelps?
Or the paedophile sheltering/enabling pope?
These are the sort of people you think are funny?

Steely Dan says:

09:53am | 16/09/10

@ JJJ

“People shouldn’t be so nieve that they think that just because they are convinced their belief is the ‘right one’ that everyone else is wrong.”
True, but I’m yet to find an atheist who has faith.  If you can show me one, I’ll be the first to ridicule them.  This is one of the major problems with religions - most promote the absence of reason as justification for belief.

Tinman says:

11:34am | 16/09/10

Stublore - Are you getting the Saudi thing from West Wing (CJ at the podium talking about allies in peace) because im pretty sure that happened in West Wing.  Have not heard it happening in life.  I love it when someone steals something from TV and uses it as evidence to proove their point.

Redeker Plan says:

12:25pm | 16/09/10

@Tinman.  No it happened in real life. Over a dozen young girls died when religious police prevented fire fighters from rescuing the girls from their burning dormitory; the girls were not permitted to be seen in their night clothes. Here is just one link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

Steely Dan says:

01:08pm | 16/09/10

@ Tinman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

“I love it when someone steals something from TV and uses it as evidence to proove their point.”
This is obviously a generalisation, but you’ll find that atheists are pretty good at distinguishing fact from fiction.

Matt says:

01:31pm | 16/09/10

Steely Dan:
“True, but I’m yet to find an atheist who has faith.  If you can show me one, I’ll be the first to ridicule them.”

There are two types of atheist. There are atheists who simply have no belief in god, and there are atheists who have a belief that there is no god. All of the latter do so entirely on faith, for what evidence can possibly be conjured to prove that god doesn’t exist. Refutes on the Koran or the Bible or any other religious text/idelogoy prove nothing, for there is always the possibility that God exists in some other form henceforth unconcieved by any man, woman or child.

You’ll now find yourself ridiculing most of the planet based on their faith I take it?

- an agnostic

Steely Dan says:

02:07pm | 16/09/10

@ Matt

“There are two types of atheist. There are atheists who simply have no belief in god, and there are atheists who have a belief that there is no god.”
Agreed.  The latter are usually called ‘antitheists’ or ‘strong atheists’.

“All of the latter do so entirely on faith”
I disagree.  Nobody can show that something absolutely doesn’t exist, but I believe it is reasonable assert that in all probability god is a product of man and not the other way around.  I don’t claim ‘knowledge’ of god’s non-existence, but I believe it’s as reasonable as asserting that there is no Loch Ness Monster.

“You’ll now find yourself ridiculing most of the planet based on their faith I take it?”
As I said, I’ll ridicule all faith, including any faith that god/s do not exist.  It’s evidence or nothing.

Tinman says:

02:14pm | 16/09/10

I stand corrected, my bad just had never heard of it in real life.

JJJ says:

06:16pm | 16/09/10

@ Sublore - firstly, the Taliban are not a religion. Secondly - yes, I do find religious extremists amusing. To think that anyone would behave the way they do because of a belief in something not tangible is beyond ridiculous. As for their actions (which are often abhorrent!) .. well - you can either laugh or cry about it. I chose to laugh.
@ Steely Dan - I never suggested that athiests have faith. I used the word ‘belief’. Very different.

acotrel says:

08:46am | 17/09/10

‘Dan - Where’s the criticism?  You Christian chappies are sensitive little flowers.  Perhaps a dictionary would help?  I think belief in god is delusional. ‘

Is religous mania a psychiatric condition recognised by the medical profession?:

Steely Dan says:

09:53am | 17/09/10

@ JJJ

“I never suggested that athiests have faith. I used the word ‘belief’.”
I know, I wasn’t suggesting that you had.  I’m just saying that justified belief is fine, unjustified belief is not.  In my experience, I’ve found that faith is an almost exclusively religious ‘virtue’.

Mark says:

09:01am | 16/09/10

Not at all Seano. What is (rightfully) looked down upon in our society is complete disrespect to others who hold differing views.

KH says:

09:37am | 16/09/10

Mark - you mean like burning them at the stake? Or perhaps stoning them to death?  Or do you not count that as disrespect….....

Tedd says:

10:10am | 16/09/10

Dawkins dominated because a lot of the questions were addressed to him, and because he is slightly verbose and passionate.

Roja says:

11:19am | 16/09/10

The lie that Dawkins was bullying started from moment Q&A finished, sure he was confrontational (hello, it’s a debate) when trying to get Fielding to answer one simple question - did he think the world was 10,000 years old. 

He never answered, because Family First is an arm of the evangelical church and he would lose his voter base if he said no, but would appear stupid if he said yes - even if it is his belief. 

Besides if Dawkins is a bully, so is Fred Nile, Tony Abbott or Paul Keating.  I would call them passionate.  You also might have noticed that 90% of questions were directed towards Dawkins because he is an intelligent, engaging speaker.  Bishop and Fielding, were not and were in fact way out of their league.

I went and saw Dawkins speak at writers week in Adelaide, where 90% of questions there were directed at him.  Of course to get in to that event I had to run the gammut of anti-evolutionaries that the police had to restrain out the front of the building.  Exactly how many times have the police had to intervene at church meetings because of protesting atheists?  Oh no, some people wrote some scathing books and said some nasty words - lets put them in the same boat as fundamentalist Christians.  What rot.

When atheists form up and invade the middle east slaughtering jews and muslims alike by locking them in their places of worship and setting them on fire, or conduct an inquisition of religious people, or set education back 100’s of years and destroy all evidence that contradicts their beliefs over thousands of years - then you can put them in the same boat. 

This poor attempt by Pembo that purports to represent Dawkins and Hitchens, should see him working on a current affair rather than attempting serious journalism.

Seano says:

05:47pm | 17/09/10

Mark disagreement, even passionate disagreement is not disrespect.

Tom says:

09:46am | 16/09/10

Ah, the inevitable T.Chong. What is it fella? If you can’t say something sensible, say something anyway.

Matt says:

09:56am | 16/09/10

A Catholic god “blue eyed , and fair haired”? Doesn’t sound like many (or even most) of the Catholics I know, who tend to have dark hair and dark eyes. If your point is that people construct gods in their own image, your choice of a blue eyed blond haired Catholic god is more revealing of your own prejudices that anything else

Susan says:

10:44am | 16/09/10

Buddhism isn’t a religion - its a philosophy, a way of life

DG says:

12:21pm | 16/09/10

Susan - To the extent that Buddhism believes in the supernatural (particularly reincarnation) I would suggest that one can rightly categorise it as a religion. It contains rules of morality and belief, it has the community of religious and even the ritual (in the form of meditation on the teachings of prophets that have passed to another plant of existence and found nirvana). Most significantly, it involves faith (belief in the absence, or in contravention, of evidence) in the spirit, in reincarnation and Nirvana.

Jon Underwood says:

01:19pm | 16/09/10

lol… the Muslim god rode a horse? wtf? ha!

i’m pretty sure half the basis for Muslim theology is to undermine anthromorphism.

Markus says:

11:55am | 17/09/10

Susan
Thervada Buddhism, the closest format to its original form, could possibly be argued as what you describe as a way of life rather than a religion. Given that it is an organised way of life with followers and places of worship I would still disagree.

But Mahayana Buddhism, which accounts for the majority of Buddhists, believes that Buddha was a God, and in following his path of enlightenment. You can not argue that this is not a religion.

Just Sayin' says:

04:42pm | 20/09/10

Markus, completely correct.  But I would add that it is POSSIBLE to be a Theravadan without being religious, while conceeding that the vast majority of Theravadans ARE religious.

(Speaking as someone who spent time in a Theravandan monastry)

Peter says:

08:03am | 16/09/10

“Up to faith to prove there is a God” Rob? It is self-evident to anyone with an understanding of English that Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. Once there is proof, there is no longer faith. And enduring uncertainty and doubt with the support of Faith is one of the key messages of the Bible. There is no obligation on Christians or other Faiths to “prove” anything to anyone. Persuade to embrace Faith, yes. Prove God’s existence, no.
Your logic is faulty Rob, not surprising given you think the best way to form an opinion about a book is to refrain from reading it.

ABC says:

09:28am | 16/09/10

No, what Penbo is arguing, is to express your views in a rational and considered fashion without resorting to childish name calling and vitriol.  The more high profile atheists (Dawkins and Hitchens) despite their prodigious intellectual and debating talents, have promoted a shouty, vitriolic, name calling defence of atheism, which has filtered down to all and sundry.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:45am | 16/09/10

Rob :  Clearly , you have no understanding at all as to what Faith means to those who believe in God on the basis of Faith.  As Peter has stated ” Faith and proof are mutualy exclusive ”  Believing does not require proof Rob , it rests on an indivuals Faith in the existance of God.
If His existence could be proved there would be no requirement to embrace Faith.
Perhaps you would be much more enlightened by reading the Bible .
Personally , i have found there is peace in embracing Faith , something i realise now , that i thought did not have until i searched inside myself .
It is within all of us to discover without going overboard into religious overdrive. Lighten up Rob , it’s easy to accept , all you need is Faith.

Jamie says:

09:53am | 16/09/10

How can you argue with people like Peter? ... this is why people like Hawkins, Hitchens and Penbos new atheists (I am one) get a bit feisty.

Steely Dan says:

10:01am | 16/09/10

@ Rob

“I watched Dawkins on Q and A he never shouted at anyone unless having a point of view of no faith is all of a sudden shouting.”
Good point.  And I distinctly remember a certain ALP politician dodging criticism of dogma by declaring that he was insulted that the topic was being brought up (as if he was shocked that Richard Dawkins might say such a thing on Q&A of all places).

@ Peter
“It is self-evident to anyone with an understanding of English that Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. Once there is proof, there is no longer faith.”
And then you say that Rob is being illogical?  I thought the lack of logic was a religious virtue?  Why does belief in god the one topic which gets given the ‘Get out of logic free’ card?

Peter says:

10:54am | 16/09/10

@Steely Dan. It seems you do not understand the meanings of the words faith and proof in the context in which I used them. Nor do you seem to realize that Atheism is as much a choice of Faith as is belief in a deity. God help you.
@Jamie: If you are incapable of fashioning a counter argument as you freely admit in your post, then the fault is clearly your own. Yet you seem to think your own failing is justification to direct anger at those whose views differ from your own. This must be an example of “The Atheist Delusion”.

Michael says:

11:37am | 16/09/10

@Jamie: “How can you argue with people like Peter? ... this is why people like Hawkins, Hitchens and Penbos new atheists (I am one) get a bit feisty.”

Now you understand why those poor islamofacists get so feisty too. It’s frustrating when people simply refuse to acknowledge your own personal truth.

Michael says:

11:49am | 16/09/10

@ Peter: “It is self-evident to anyone with an understanding of English that Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. Once there is proof, there is no longer faith.”

I do have a pedantic quibble on this one, in that proof and faith are actually different points on a continuum, not diamterically opposed.  In fact, proof of itself still requires faith, because all forms of proof are themselves based on faith to some degree.

Science at its most fundamental admits this—hence Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which, pursuant to scientific convention, remains a theory as to the universality of the speed of light simply because it admits it could be wrong.  That is so even though there have been many experiments which appear to corroborate the theorem.

At the most fundamental, though, unless you yourself perform the experiment, an acceptance of the scientific theorem the experiment is meant to demonstrate depends on you having sufficient faith in the integrity of the experiment’s conducter who then reports it to you.  Hence: proof still depends on your faith in the correctness of the proof.

Between religion and science it is merely the standard of proof which differs—i.e. that religion has a very low standard and science a very high one.

Steely Dan says:

12:04pm | 16/09/10

@ Peter

“It seems you do not understand the meanings of the words faith and proof in the context in which I used them.”
Then you should expand on it.  I don’t think my definitions of the words are exactly uncommon.

“Nor do you seem to realize that Atheism is as much a choice of Faith as is belief in a deity.”
That depends on how you define faith, apparently.

DG says:

12:32pm | 16/09/10

The point Peter makes is a good one. However, to the extent that the “God” in which he has faith, and the holy texts that he relies on to build his image of god, one may question his allegiance to the Catholic church or even any form of literal interpretation of the holy text. I, unlike many atheists, have read the bible I found it an interesting read. It was not evidence enough to convince me of gods existence, but that is my choice - I certainly would condemn no other for their faith.

I agree that there is no duty to prove in the existence of god, and also that proof denies faith. It is here that we enter a philosohpical debate about which is the ‘better’ way to view the world. Should we be limited by that which we can know or should we also experience the world through belief? Personally, I would choose the former, but I respect the right of others to choose the later.

That said, Peter’s position is indefensible, just as it is impossible to attack. As I posted in a previous day, I do not understand the need to attack his, or any other persons, belief. Why should we care what another believes?

I would posit that we should only be concerned with the actions of another and even then only to the extent that their actions are in contravention of the law established by our democratically elected government.

Rob r Charteris says:

04:55pm | 16/09/10

Peter says:08:03am; “Once there is proof, there is no longer faith” Bahahahahaha oh yeah that’s right it was god…. silly me. If so why would you need a bible

“There is no obligation on Christians or other Faiths to “prove” anything to anyone” maybe you should have said that to all the people the church has persecuted down through the ages. Besides I dont read Dolly magizine does that mean I cant have an opinion on my teenage daughter? bizaar logic you have there Peter but then again your concept of things doesn’t fit my reality. I have faith, have faith the sun will rise in the morning I have faith my pay will be in the bank when my employer tells me it will…. it is very logical you know. I have faith the All blacks will win the WC next year…. but I dont read any rugby rags. And the list goes on.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:09:45am; why would I need to “Lighten up” do you have to have no faith of the type you speak of to need to lighten up???

Rob r Charteris says:

07:55am | 17/09/10

DG says:12:32pm; “I agree that there is no duty to prove in the existence of god, and also that proof denies faith.” yes this is all very well but it is a cop out. It is these same people who want to push Intelligent Design as some scientific principal. They want to push that principal into the science classes of our children. So why should they free from scrutiny they should be out there proving what they believe. The change of rhetoric over the last 100 years has changed with the advances in science. What used to be law and you were killed for believing different now has change to “having faith”. The biggest enemy religion isn’t something called the devil it is science, besides how can something that doesn’t exist be an enemy.  As science has progressed God have slip further and further away from what was originally pushed into people’s lives. A child isn’t born religious it is manipulated. Faith being the cop out word it use to avoid being accountable. It says I can tell you all this gibberish but I don’t have to prove it.
Peter I grew up in the Baptist church and I figured out by the time I was 6-7 faith, god and church was BS. In fact we used to be picked up in the little Sunday school bus and as soon as we arrive my brother and I would start the walk home. So I have heard all the stories in the Bible many years ago now. So I am not as ignorant as you might think. If this rubbish is going to be put out there I have every right to freely push my point of view. Atheism is no less if it chooses not to stay in the closet, and why should it.

Peter says:

09:42am | 17/09/10

@Rob r Charteris: You certainly seem to enjoy contradicting yourself Rob. First you said atheists, and you are one, don’t read religious tracts. Later you say you are familiar with the bible, although you qualify that by explaining that this familiarity was gleaned through Sunday School when you were a six or seven year old child. Then you say you and your brother didn’t attend the classes once you worked out it was BS. That must have made it difficult to thoroughly familiarize yourself with the book’s contents. Yet you say you are happy to live by a decision you made as an ignorant child. That says more about you than it does about religion or atheism.
Now, your sweeping generalization “these same people who want to push Intelligent Design as some scientific principal”  demands correction.
This seems to be an assumption based on the view that everyone who believes in God has an identical position on the entire gamut of yet to be answered questions about human existence. Personally I reject the theory of intelligent design and as I wrote to the eminently reasonable DG, I believe in God and science. Just like Galileo. If you can’t understand how the two positions are reconciled, read more. And widely. And God bless you.

DG says:

10:09am | 17/09/10

Rob -

Peter’s point (as expressed in his post of 08:03am | 16/09/10) made no reference to creation science, only to his duty to justify his faith.

At no stage did I suggest that his faith was justified, or that the things that he believes in are real. When we talk about things that should be taught in the science classroom the situation is clear. Science must be taught - science based on evidence, observation, hypothesis and testing as well as proven and tested (but falsifiable) theorem.

Not all Christians want creationism to be taught in schools and I agree, those that do want creationism taught should be required to provide the same standard of proof that is required for other scientific theory.

But it is the desire to have the material taught as fact that is worthy of critique, rather than an individual persons belief.

Patrick says:

08:58am | 18/09/10

Peter, I thought Benedict said no Christian could have faith, or hope, because to do so you must open oneself to God, or some other such dribble? So why are you describing us atheists as having faith, when I would call atheism a complete lack of faith, and only relying on evidence to make one’s world view.

All those who are saying the burden of proof is on atheism to prove there is not a god, far out. Go look at ANY scientific theory, and see what angle they take. The person who proposes the incredible must provide incredible proof. I am yet to see any angels or demons, any water turning to wine ( Except when Penn and Teller do it) or anything, at all, that proves anything written in the Bible is correct.

Besides, I told God ages ago, if he wants me to believe, just send me a duck on my back doorstep. Check it every morning, still haven’t found it, so I believe the physicists as to how this world was created.

Rob r Charteris says:

02:45pm | 19/09/10

Peter says:09:42am; “And God bless you” What? why would you say that to someone like me except to provoke a reaction. The reality is you just lowered yourself to the same level as that bloke last week tearing pages out of holy books and using them to make cigarettes. How very intelligent of you. I think you should stick to manipulating your ignorant children, since you believe children don’t have minds of there own.

Rob r Charteris says:

02:59pm | 19/09/10

Peter says:09:42am; Being read stories as a kid as opposed to claiming not to have personally read stories is not a contradiction. And having heard enough stories to make my own mind up what was being pushed as true was in my opinion BS is also not a contradiction. You of faith have a funny way of bending things. It is no wonder you believe in imaginary friends.

Rob r Charteris says:

03:22pm | 19/09/10

Patrick says:08:58am; They like to change the rules whenever it suits them, well that’s how they try to justify it to themselves. A few years ago George Bush stopped rangers in the Grand Canyon from telling visitors of the 250 million years old geological history… the ridiculous just keep getting more ridiculous.

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=428

These conservative like to push this I don’t have to prove anything dribble but they like to push their views on others.

Hermano says:

10:09am | 16/09/10

Absolutely spot on.  What people seem to be missing is that atheism does not hold any beliefs which it forces upon anyone, however there are billions of people in the world who’s lives have been affected by government policies which have been directly influenced by religion. 

Also from Penbo’s analysis of “The God Delusion”, it doesn’t even sound like he understood the book at all.  Dawkins methodically analysed different aspects of religion and why it exists, why humans feel the need to embrace religion, and also looked at some of the historical aspects and its effects of children.  It was an extremely well constructed and well written book, although I’m guessing Penbo just read the first couple of chapters, was angered at his lack of understanding of the content, then threw it in the bin dismissing it as another piece of atheist garbage, and assumed the rest of it contained “schoolyard teasing of the flying spaghetti monster variety”.

Austin 3:16 says:

08:28am | 16/09/10

Live and let live ? You’re kidding right? Dunno where you’ve been for the last few centuries but generally speaking the motto of the various churches has been “live as I tell you to live”

AdamC says:

09:23am | 16/09/10

I couldn’t agree more, Peter. I often say that, to me, it seems that only very rarely do you find Christians (or other beleivers) exhibiting the same degree of dogmatic arrogance and intolerance that have become essentially synonomous with atheism. On making this assertion, I am usually accused of being a Christian, which I presume would render my opinion worthless. But, of course, it is supposedly only the religious who ‘force’ their views onto others and disregard contrary opinions!

In reality, I am a non-believer who is sympathetic to religion, and have a strong philosophical connection to Christian ideas, beliefs and (yes) institutions. I simply don’t see the need to ridicule away other people’s spiritual convictions. Neither should the atheists. 

And that whole spaghetti monster thing may have been funny once - it certainly isn’t anymore.

Steely Dan says:

10:09am | 16/09/10

@ Peter

“That live and let live attitude seems to have been supplanted in recent years by a more sinister tone, one characterised by the strident denunciation of any believe system that does not accord with the Atheist’s own.”
Have a look at Pell and Jensen’s Easter addresses this year.  Would you like being compared to Stalin or Hitler by people who are considered moral authorities by huge numbers of people?  And it’s the atheists that are being ‘sinister’?

Hamish says:

11:21am | 16/09/10

I don’t quite understand your point Steely Dan. If atheists are allowed to make sweeping and at best semi-factual assertions like ‘religion has killed more people in history than any thing else’ then surely religious people are allowed to point out that atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc, managed to rack up a pretty big body count in a very short time?

Personally I think believing there is no God is just as baseless from an evidentiary perspective as believing there is one.

Austin 3:16 says:

12:41pm | 16/09/10

Hey Hamish, from an email I received the other day some bloke in Nigeria is willing to cut me in if I help him move a very large sum of money out of the country.

Now is not believing that email just as baseless as believing it ?  I’m willing to dismiss such emails out of hand without a second thought, how about you?

Steely Dan says:

12:45pm | 16/09/10

@ Hamish

“If atheists are allowed to make sweeping and at best semi-factual assertions like ‘religion has killed more people in history than any thing else’ then surely religious people are allowed to point out that atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc, managed to rack up a pretty big body count in a very short time?”
They’re correct in saying that.  Atheists have been responsible for atrocities, just as theists have been.  They run into trouble when they say that atheism (not atheists) is responsible for the atrocities.  Nobody can be inspired to commit an atrocity simply because they have rejected the assertion that a god exists.  Similarly, nobody has ever been inspired to do evil simply because they believe a god exists.  Religions (which claim that both a god exists and that there are moral implications to the god/s existence) can and do inspire, demand, justify and contribute to evil acts all too frequently.

“Personally I think believing there is no God is just as baseless from an evidentiary perspective as believing there is one.”
Atheism is simply a rejection of the assertion that a god exists - not an assertion that gods don’t exist.

Hamish says:

01:51pm | 16/09/10

Um, Austin, you dismiss them out of hand due to the mountains of evidence that such scams are dodgy. If you have such evidence about the existence or otherwise of a God, please enlighten the rest of us.

Austin 3:16 says:

02:44pm | 16/09/10

Hey Hamish, there have been about 4000 gods throughout history. You’d probably agree that about 3999 of those didn’t really exist. I’ve just gone one better. 

Or do you think that they all exist? Take Thor for example, a great god one of the best. What’s your viewpoint on his existence ?

Hamish says:

03:34pm | 16/09/10

Austin, I don’t believe in the existence of a God or Gods and I don’t believe in the lack of existence of one. If people want to believe one or more Gods exist, that’s fine. It’s no more irrational than dismissing the existence of God(s) when there is no evidence either way.

I’m not religious in case you were wondering.

Tim says:

04:21pm | 16/09/10

Steely Dan,
Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
It is an assertion that gods don’t exist.

Steely Dan says:

04:59pm | 16/09/10

@ Tim

“Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
It is an assertion that gods don’t exist.”
No, that’s antitheism (or ‘Strong Atheism’).  ‘Atheist’ simply means that the person is not a theist.  Technically it’s not even an ‘ism’, even though it ends with that suffix (the same way ‘asexuality’ is not a sexuality).

AdamC says:

06:05pm | 16/09/10

Steely Dan, I am not exactly sure what a ‘theist’ is (it seems to have become a rather fashionable neologism though) but don’t agree that an atheist is merely someone who doesn’t believe in God (or equivalent). Those people (like me) are usually referred to as ‘agnostics’ or, as I prefer, simply ‘non-believers’.

The distinction betwee atheists and other non-believers is not so much that atheists are stronger in their non-belief, but that they are philosphically defined by it, and therefore often vocal and (increasingly) even evangelical about it. This puts them quite at odds with many non-believers (like me) who, while we don’t believe in God, are not hostile to the idea.

And, of course, we don’t spuriously go blaming every evil in the world on religion as many atheists so tiresomely do.

Steely Dan says:

10:19am | 17/09/10

@ AdamC

“I am not exactly sure what a ‘theist’ is”
Really?  I knew that term before I knew what an ‘atheist’ was (and I’ve never been religious).

“but don’t agree that an atheist is merely someone who doesn’t believe in God (or equivalent). Those people (like me) are usually referred to as ‘agnostics’ or, as I prefer, simply ‘non-believers’.”
You are an atheist, an agnostic, and a non-believer.  Like myself.  Atheism and non-believer are synonyms (as long as the topic of conversation is religion, not UFOs or anything else you might not believe in).  ‘Agnostic’ means that you don’t claim ‘knowledge’ of your position.  Of course, how you define ‘knowledge’ is its own separate can of worms. 

“...but that they are philosphically defined by it, and therefore often vocal and (increasingly) even evangelical about it.”
I’d describe myself as ‘evangelical’, but not about my non-belief, about my criticism of religions.  Lots of theists do the same thing, but just exclude their own religion from criticism.

“This puts them quite at odds with many non-believers (like me) who, while we don’t believe in God, are not hostile to the idea.”
I’m not hostile to the idea of a god, but I am hostile to bad reasoning.

“And, of course, we don’t spuriously go blaming every evil in the world on religion as many atheists so tiresomely do.”
Not many atheists I’ve encountered believe it to be the source of all evil (Richard Dawkin’s TV series on religion ‘The Root of All Evil’ was named by the BBC, not Dawkins himself).  But I do believe it to be a major agitator of existing conflicts, an excuse for atrocities and occassionally the sole source of wrongdoing.

Austin 3:16 says:

08:34am | 16/09/10

It does seem like more of a pointless question than a big question to me.

Who cares why we are here. Life is an experience , not a puzzle to be solved.

Brendan says:

08:59am | 16/09/10

You should read more Hawking.

Stublore says:

09:37am | 16/09/10

Why are we here?
That’s easy, but something the religious seem to have a problem dealing with:
SEX!
Mummy and Daddy did it!

the apologist says:

09:44am | 16/09/10

Hmmm, athiests and reason. It’s interesting.
They rely solely upon the possibility of predictability and reason to establish their viewpoint.
The funny thing is that their viewpoint (the naturalism you’ve just described) ultimately asserts a universe of chaotic random chance. How can conformity, reason and scientific process exist in the Darwinian universe of chaos?
The scientific process and the possibility of repeatable and reliable reality is soundly historically based in the Christian worldview, and only in that worldview does it make sense.
In the Darwinian universe, the possibility of uniformity and reason do not propoerly make sense. Intellectual schizophrenia at its best.
The possibility of reason and logical process is established by faith in God.
Anyone who uses reason to denounce God is clearly not recognising that reason is a nonsense concept in the athiestic naturalist worldview.

As for why a why? why not? why is at the centre of all intelligent inquiry. We seek to understand the why behind everything, and that is ultimately how knowledge itself is validated, practiced and meaningful. So why not ask why to the most significant aspect of reality that we know - our own existence.

Steely Dan says:

10:17am | 16/09/10

@ Chris Deal

How is asking the question ‘Why does there have to be a why’ a “new resolve of faith”?  ‘Why’ questions are inherently problematic because they are frequently based on the implicit assumption of a ‘who’.  I’d really like you to expand on why asking that question is unreasonable.

Steely Dan says:

10:24am | 16/09/10

@ the apologist

“They rely solely upon the possibility of predictability and reason to establish their viewpoint.”
Yep.  That’s science and reason for you.
“How can conformity, reason and scientific process exist in the Darwinian universe of chaos?”
Evolution.  And how is chaos ‘Darwinian’?
“The scientific process and the possibility of repeatable and reliable reality is soundly historically based in the Christian worldview, and only in that worldview does it make sense.”
So to accept the scientific process you have to deny it?

DG says:

12:45pm | 16/09/10

Chris Deal:

When you ask “Why are we here?” you are making a major un-stated premise. You assume that there is a purpose, you are not asking for a causal, scientific question, you are assuming that ere must be some purpose to life.

On what basis do you make this assumption? I can, by reference to scientific research, explain why we are here to be here as a species on a rock spinning in space in the sense that I can show how it came to be thus. As we have recently read, Hakwing has explained how it may be that things came to exist, and from there we can show a cause and effect relationship right up until today with sciences such astrophysics, geology, organic chemistry and evolutionary biology, show how we came to be here today. it explains Why we are here. We are here because of all of the things that have happened before, from those things happening just a moment ago, to those things a minute or more, then an hour and so on through all time. That is why we are here.

But you still have given no basis for your assumption as to your reasoning for concluding that there must be a purpose. In fact, by your very question you posit a being outside of the observable existence that had this purpose in mind at the time of creation. It’s comparable to asking “Did you stop beating your partner?” - I assumes that you do beat you partner - by responding in either the affirmative or the negative you are confirming that unstated premise (that you were beating your partner).

So, in order to answer your question first you must establish why there must be a purpose to all existence. Your presumption is, presumably unintentionally, intellectually dishonest.

Chris Deal says:

05:15pm | 16/09/10

Austin, you really think pondering the meaning of life is a pointless question? You better get that memo out, the psychology industry is about to collapse. I agree though, life isn’t a puzzle, but surely you can agree that every single person on this planet has contemplated death and been met with the brick wall of not being able to prove in the slightest what comes next? If this were at all provable, we wouldn’t even be having these conversations.

DG so the why is because “stuff came before other stuff which came before other stuff etc etc”? I see what you are saying - why assume reason when no such thing exists. But again, it seems to be that the quest for a reason is what has driven science from the very beginning. If there was no reason, why does science even bothering to disprove this non-concept? Why are you even bothering to write back? Why am I bother… yeah.

The faith that athiests display is the assurance that they all know for sure that life has no purpose, and that after death there is nothing. It is that which I find just as arrogant a position as a religious fundamentalist.

Oh but I forgot, Hawking just proved that God doesn’t exist so… forget everything I just said.

Austin 3:16 says:

06:19am | 17/09/10

Hey Chris, funnily enough I have family who work professionally as psychologists.  And you know what - they don’t deal with “meaning of life” questions in their professional life at all. They get along fine helping people deal with day to day issues, not theological angst.

After death - either something else happens or it doesn’t. Again who cares, why worry about something beyond your control ? And why is the meaning of life condensed into what happens after you die? What you do on this earth might be far more important. Maybe your issues aren’t everybodies issues ?

Chris Deal says:

08:48am | 17/09/10

And there we have it. It interests me, and it doesn’t interest you. I’d just sooner live in a world where we all accept that no one has the faintest clue what we’re talking about, with neither theological or atheistic angst.

DG says:

10:31am | 17/09/10

Chris:

The quest for reason does not require purpose, it only requires causation. Indeed we, as story-telling apes, try to build a purpose into such things whether or not such a purpose exists.

This is a common mistake that is made by some people who dabble in evolutionary biology. They assume that bird have evolved feathers for the purpose of flight, but this is not evolutionary thinking. Evolution is not driven by purpose, but by the continuation of traits that are conducive to survival. Birds have bred, and cross bred, such that they have developed feathers and are, accordingly, capable of flight. It is unjustified to conclude that the purpose of that evolutionary process was to create feathers.

The questions of science are: what can be done, how can it be done, what has happened, how did it happen. In science the “why” question is a function of the how and what, not of “For what purpose did that happen”, “What is the purpose of our existence”. The later two are philosophical questions, rather than scientific.

Steely Dan says:

10:38am | 17/09/10

@ Chris Deal

“You better get that memo out, the psychology industry is about to collapse. “
What is it that you think psychologists do, Chris?

“The faith that athiests display is the assurance that they all know for sure that life has no purpose, and that after death there is nothing. “
Life has no god-given purpose until somebody shows that there is a god.  I derive meaning from life itself.  I’m sorry to hear that you don’t.  Re life after death: no evidence = no reason for belief.  But that’s not a denial of the possibility.  Remember, possibility is not probability.

“Oh but I forgot, Hawking just proved that God doesn’t exist so… forget everything I just said.”
He said that god is not required for the universe to exist.  Why didn’t I just agree?  Damn my intellectual honesty!

“It interests me, and it doesn’t interest you.”
Box office records show that Batman villains interest people.  But they don’t worry people.

Austin 3:16 says:

11:17am | 17/09/10

Hey Chris yep and if it the topic is of interest to some and yet not the slightest interest to others then it hardly qualifies to be “the big question” now does it ? It’s your question, not “the” question. Big difference.

Chris Deal says:

06:02pm | 20/09/10

DG,
That’s quite interesting.

“In science the “why” question is a function of the how and what, not of “For what purpose did that happen”, “What is the purpose of our existence”. The later two are philosophical questions, rather than scientific.”

That’s more what I’m getting at. The big question, “what’s the point?” What’s the point of life? Austin, that’s the big question to me, and I’m sorry if you don’t find that interesting, or that you’ve already answered it through scientific method and come up with 42. Bad-dum tish.

So when we talk about atheism, would you say that it is a philosophy, or is it “the truth”? Which leads back to my pithy remark about the psychology industry. Ah, you guys probably aren’t even reading this anymore. What’s the point eh? Bad-dum tish part 2.

Austin 3:16 says:

05:09pm | 21/09/10

Hey Chris, I kinda see atheism as the null state. It’s what everybdoy is until they choose to beleive in a god or gods of some kind. All you need to be an atheist is lack a belief in a god. Simple as that, you don’t kneed any other kind of attributes.

Maybe there is no"grand” purpose to our existence, it dosen’t really bug me. The sun will ‘rise’ tomorrow regardless.  Further I don’t see the point of going along with a religion or a belief system just ‘cause it tells a nice story about why we are here and what will happen after.

Sam says:

06:46am | 17/09/10

Well, I think there’s few people who don’t think the environment exists.  Of course, some theists think it isn’t particularly important to maintain for one reason or another.

I would also point out that when the religious proselytize they also often want laws changed to favor their religion.  Vanishingly few atheists would insist there should be no prayer on TV, but there are numbers of theists who would push for no blasphemy on TV.

KH says:

09:48am | 16/09/10

Which makes faith delusional.  I can’t provide evidence that Superman exists.  But if I went around proclaiming he did, I would be ridiculed, and rightly so.  I see ‘gods’ as no different.

Sludger says:

11:18am | 16/09/10

That was the point about name calling.  What you are saying is in your opinion faith is delusional, and you are entitled to that opinion.  The thing is, I believe the exact opposite.  You are free to believe in Superman, if you wish.  Would you be ridiculed?  More than likely.  So what?  I choose to believe in what I believe and I really do not care what anyone thinks of that choice.  Why is it so upsetting for some athiests that other people have faith?

Hamish says:

11:45am | 16/09/10

KH, how about providing evidence that a God doesn’t exist? Until you do, atheism is just as delusional as faith.

Gavin Hodge says:

12:06pm | 16/09/10

Faith isn’t delusional. You place faith in your partner/parents/friends without any way of knowing that they will always do right by you, and do so everyday.

Preaching to anyone who will (or won’t) listen in the belief they will come around to your universal view IS delusional. Sludger above has made it clear that s/he keep his/her faith to his/herself and dislike evangelicals of all persuasions yabbering in his/her ear.

Austin 3:16 says:

12:28pm | 16/09/10

Hey Sludger, what if I told you that due to my belief in Superman I should be getting a huge tax break from the government? More than that I should also be able to influence government policy as I believe in Superman further people who use the sceen name Sludger should have certain civic rigfhts denied to them because it offends Superman.

Steely Dan says:

01:27pm | 16/09/10

@ Hamish
Atheism is not believing a god, not a claim that anybody can prove that there isn’t one.  The burden of proof belongs with the person making the claim.

@ Gavin Hodge
“Faith isn’t delusional. You place faith in your partner/parents/friends”
I place trust in them, not faith.  I trust these people because they have a track record of not hurting me.

Reg says:

01:40pm | 16/09/10

Gavin you’re confusing faith with trust. You place your trust in someone on the evidence of his previous performance. The evidence of God’s previous performance suggests you NOT trust him.

Hamish, if we believed everything was true for lack of evidence to the contrary.we’d have no such thing as organised religion. Disorganisation would be the catch-word. Non-god-scrips and science believe in organisation so how can a vague religious concept be worth selling your “soul” or your life for? The price is too high considering the rag-tag specifications. Not that I’m going to demand access to the pulpit to declaim this.

Hamish says:

01:42pm | 16/09/10

Steely Dan, that’s only true if you assume there’s no God in the first place. if you come from an assumption that there is one you would obviously reach the opposite conclusion.

If you can’t prove there is one and you can’t prove there isn’t one, concluding that there definitely isn’t one is just as unreasonable as concluding there is one.

Both positions are inherently based on an assumption of faith or lack thereof.

Steely Dan says:

02:22pm | 16/09/10

@ Hamish

“that’s only true if you assume there’s no God in the first place.”
Not at all.  The burden of proof is with the person making the claim.  You don’t have to believe the opposite is true to dismiss a claim as unsupported.

“If you can’t prove there is one and you can’t prove there isn’t one, concluding that there definitely isn’t one is just as unreasonable as concluding there is one.”
I agree.  I don’t hold that there definitely isn’t a god.  I hold that the claim that there is a god is not backed by evidence, and I reject it until such evidence is provided.

Faith is not required to reject a claim.  Say two people walk past a high chain wire fence.  On the other side is a metre cubed box, out of reach and closed up.  Person A says that there’s a cat in the box.  Person B says since neither person has looked in the box and they can’t hear any noise from it, there is insufficient evidence to say that there is a cat.  Is Person B acting on faith here?

Gavin Hodge says:

02:45pm | 16/09/10

Steely Dan, you say “The burden of proof belongs with the person making the claim.” There is absolutely positively no burden of proof required to have a personal belief. None at all. Our thoughts, beliefs and personal values are not open to question or scrutiny; only our actions are. I will say, however, that there is a burden of proof when arguing that something exists to a person who does not believe such to be true.

Austin 3:16 says:

02:51pm | 16/09/10

Hey Hamsih - tosh that would only work if both sides of the equation are equally probable. There might be a small purple troll hiding under my kitchen table, there might not be, But if I go with the conclusion that there is no troll I fail to see how that’s just as reasonable as that there is a troll.

And here’s the thing, you might think that you’re luck enough to have found the one true god. The one out of the thousands of gods which actually does exist, but really when it comes down to it your god and my purple troll are about the same. And both can be summarily dismissed.

Steely Dan says:

03:15pm | 16/09/10

@ Gavin Hodge

“you say “The burden of proof belongs with the person making the claim.” There is absolutely positively no burden of proof required to have a personal belief.”
That’s very true.  But that doesn’t make these beliefs rational, and it certainly doesn’t mean that those who reject these beliefs do so because of any presupposition on their part.

“Our thoughts, beliefs and personal values are not open to question or scrutiny; only our actions are.”
Your thoughts are open to scrutiny if you voice them, opinions are not sacred.  But you’re correct in saying that you have a right to voice your beliefs and values, but not necessarily a right to act on them.

“I will say, however, that there is a burden of proof when arguing that something exists to a person who does not believe such to be true.”
Agreed, the onus could only be switched to the atheist if they were making a positive claim that a god does not exist (not all atheists assert this).

Hamish says:

03:40pm | 16/09/10

Austin, again you are assuming that the existence of a God is less probable than the lack of existence of a God. What makes you come to this conclusion?

Austin 3:16 says:

05:00pm | 16/09/10

Hey Hamish, well for a few reasons. 1) the lack of evidence for gods.  2) Gods are by their nature supernatural entities, the supernatural is improbable. 3) Gods are also by nature miraculous entities, miracles are also improbable – that’s the nature of miracles, if they were probable they wouldn’t be miracles. 4) the odds – as previously stated there have been about 4000 gods. They can’t all exist simultaneously so even if there is one “true” god the odds are a minimum of 4000-1 against his existence. 4000-1 is reasonable improbable.

By “God” I’m referring to the Christian God or any other deity that is interventionist in it’s nature. It’s possible that there is a god of some kind who’s existence is based on ‘hiding’ or otherwise being undetectable. If so who cares ?

If I state that there is no purple troll under my kitchen table would you also question that conclusion ?

Your name:Muttley says:

10:03am | 16/09/10

Your comment:So you’re using the old excuse “well they did it to me and so now its my turn”. Well thats a mature, well thought out stance!

Roja says:

11:52am | 16/09/10

“well they did it to me and so now its my turn”

It sure is a poor excuse, but a common one.  Just ask why Muslims still call westerners crusaders and have a long held hatred based on fear.

In fact ask the pope, it was all done in his name. 

Also organised atheism is relatively new - it’s taken thousands of years of human existence before we have been able to congregate and speak in public.  We used to get horribly tortured and killed by militant regilious types.

Jason says:

11:19am | 16/09/10

Actually, there are arguments in either direction (I am only familiar with the atheist ones). Atheist ones I know are:

1) using principles of Occam’s razor (the simplest explanation is often the best), there is no need for a deity / creator of the universe(s). This is because in order for a creator / deity to have existed, they too must have been created at some point (using the whole complexity = intelligent design “logic”) and we have an infinite regress of creators. So, Occam’s razor in this instance would suggest that there actually is no creator god for our universe.

2) String theory (or some theory along these lines) also, according to Stephen Hawkin’s interpretation of it, says there is no need for a creator / deity to have created the universe(s). Again, we are back to the Occam’s razor principle. Why invoke a creator / deity when one is not needed to explain the universe(s) existence?

So no, I believe you are incorrect that sane people would say it is unknowable / unknown that a creator of the universe(s) deity exists. I think sane people would be at least able to assign something of a probability to it and for me, that probability may well be close to 0. You are perhaps right that we can’t definitely know but a probability close to 0 or 0 is almost as good / as good as knowing.

Michael says:

12:56pm | 16/09/10

Jason, your response does not hit the mark on Jane’s arguement. The two examples you mentioned are theories, and simply that. Well researched by intelligent people, given, but still theories.

I think the big issue in this whole debate is people, religious and non, arguing pointlessly about something none of us are intelligent enough to know for sure. String, Einstein, Jesus and Hawking included. Existance is just too big for our limited intellects to know and understand. Much like micro-organisms will never be able to understand the world the way we do.

iansand says:

10:11am | 16/09/10

The bad news is that those beliefs are crazy. 

You can believe in Creationism, but to attempt to shoehorn that belief into some sort of scientific framework is, sadly, plain nuts.

the apologist says:

11:05am | 16/09/10

iansand, you’ve just done the same thing as David did.

iansand says:

12:08pm | 16/09/10

@Apologist - Perhaps, but your problem is that by espousing a “scientific” basis for your particular belief about the creation of life you are demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of what science is. 

Can you outline one experiment or observation that positively establishes the validity of divine creation as the source of life on Earth.  Make special note of the word “positive”.  Criticising, or inability to accept, natural selection is not positive. 

If you cannot devise an experiment or point to an observation what you are doing is not scientific.  That does not mean you cannot believe in it, but the basis of your belief is something other than scientific observation and analysis.  As it is not scientific there is no basis to teach it as science.

the apologist says:

04:48pm | 16/09/10

@iansand:

I said nothing about scientific process as being the sole basis for establishing the Creationist position – which is what you are suggesting to be/should be the case. I merely said that there was such a thing as the Creationist position, and that it was not being adequately recognised as a position.

So when it comes to your request of me - to try and establish the Creationist position in purely scientific terms, your question already presupposes that your paradigm is the only legitimate approach (your paradigm apparently being that the only legitimate form of knowledge is that which is derived from the scientific process). For me to try and answer my case on your terms is already a failure, because answering it on your terms denies the necessary presuppositions for the Creationist position to remain true to itself (i.e. an intrinsic aspect of the Creationist position is that scientific process is not the only possible way of establishing true knowledge).

That said, naturally there is a significant scientific aspect to the Creationist perspective – and if you can’t accept the Christian theory of knowledge as legit, you can at least observe the merit or otherwise of the science conducted to demonstrate the consistency of physical reality with a Creationist perspective.

When it comes to the practice of science specifically from a Creationist position, as I said before, the position is not comprehensively established upon science. Nor does it pretend to be. What it does do with science is seek to establish scientific evidence that proves that observable reality is consistent with the Biblical account of creation, and that evolutionary theory can not be possible because of them.

From this framework, I think that there is some pretty compelling science favouring the Creationist position, and leaving some very serious problems for evolutionists.

One such example (and there are a number of others) is the scientifically observable argument of irreducible complexity.
Simply explained (although I believe we’ve had this discussion before) it is this:

a) it is undeniably scientifically verifiable that living organisms, down to the basest molecular level require a vast number of inter-reliant systems and components to function and for life to be possible; b) if you remove given parts of the structures, they cease to function and life is no longer sustainable (much like mouse trap doesn’t function without all it’s parts – except life is infinitely more complex); c) if it is true, evolutionary process should be able to scientifically verify and trace complex life-forms as they exist back to the point where life started on a cellular level i.e. there should be a scientifically ‘trace’ from cellular life to human life as we know it; d) since it is scientifically established that human life as it exists is irreducibly complex (i.e. you can’t remove ‘bits’ and maintain life), evolutionary theory faces a serious problem, and life is observably consistent with the creationist account.
Even on the simplest level, cells are virtually infinitely complex, and do not function without all the parts simultaneously working together. Evolutionary theory cannot account for the simultaneous formation of such complexity – it requires the gradual ‘adding’ of parts.

But it is scientifically, irrefutably clear that the sum total of the parts cannot function unless all the parts are simultaneously present. This is consistent with creation and contrary to evolution.

iansand says:

06:00pm | 16/09/10

Apologist - You ignored this bit “As it is not scientific there is no basis to teach it as science.”

You can believe what you want about how the Earth came about.  Just accept that is based on faith, not anything remotely resembling scientific investigation.

And your crap about irreducible complexity is just that.  You look at a complex system and say that it will not work without this or that.  What you should be doing is looking at it from the corrct perspective.  Could the simpler form perform a function?  If so, there is no surprise that a more complex form could perform the function better (or perform a different function).  All your argument does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of evolution.  Can I recommend Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins?  Or The Ancestor’s Tale by the same author?  To quote Darwin “There is grandeur in this view of life.”

the apologist says:

08:19am | 17/09/10

@ iansand:
You said: “What you should be doing is looking at it from the corrct perspective.  Could the simpler form perform a function?  If so, there is no surprise that a more complex form could perform the function better (or perform a different function)”.

But this is just the point, the simpler form can’t perform a function.  If you simplify it, it ceases to function, and life is no longer sustainable. Indeed, the simpler form often requires the absent ingrediants of the ‘complex’ form to remain a ‘form’. That’s why it’s been termed irreducible complexity. If you think you can take a cell, for example, remove bits, and show me that it still functions, i’d like to see you try.

You also said: “Apologist - You ignored this bit “As it is not scientific there is no basis to teach it as science.”
It seems that I might also accuse you of having a misunderstanding of science. Both creation and evolution are theories about what happened in the past. Science is the testing and observing of repeatable, verifiable phenomena in the present.
We cannot scientifically observe what has happened in the past. Therefore, science is the practice in the present of science to attempt to verify a theory of the past. In this sense, evolutionary theory isn’t strictly science based either. Evolutionary science is the present practice of science to demonstrate the truth of a theory about the past. Creation science is exactly the same - present day science to verify a theory of what is not presently observable. There is not necessarily some one piece of science that fully verifies either position.

iansand says:

01:53pm | 17/09/10

Apologist - Go and read the books.  You are dead set, flat out wrong.  And incorrect as well.  If you can’t read a whole book try this http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html - an early result on a google search for irreducible complexity. “Irreducible complexity” is another way of saying “I have no imagination”.

Those funny little sites you frequent are not about giving you answers to convert the heathen.  They are all about convincing you that evolution is some vast atheist conspiracy.

the apologist says:

02:41pm | 17/09/10

@iansand
Just calling me wrong is a pretty poor mode of debate and reduces a meaningful exchange to meaninglessness. If I was so clearly wrong, you wouldn’t have to resort to that, you would clearly and logically argue your knowledge to me.
Although I do appreciate that this is a discussion which we cannot properly give justice to here - added to the fact that neither of us seem to be scientists.
Thanks for your exchange, and I will scope out some of the books that you mentioned.
As a parting note, I would encourage you to have a closer look at just how incredibly complex the structure of a cell is (much less more complex forms of life) - it’s a far more intelligent invention than anything the human mind has come up with. You could probably do worse than reading ‘Darwin’s Black Box by Behe too, although I confess I have only read summaries of his work.
All the best

iansand says:

05:58pm | 17/09/10

Apologist - The problem is that you manifestly do not understand evolution and appear to display no desire to educate yourself.  There is simply no point in debating you until you find out about what you don’t accept.  It’s pretty simple.  You regurgitate crap from creationist sites like a parrot. They are just silly.  Do some reading and get back to me.  I have recommended a couple of books.

Dan says:

02:06pm | 20/09/10

As a molecular biologist I feel compelled to say you are both right. There are parts of evolution that are baffling. Take for example photosystem II in plant cells. This is the first step in photosynthesis and it is a complex of over 40 proteins - meaning 40 different genes. From an evolutionary perspective it is baffling in some ways how 40 genetic mutations could happen spontaneously. But there are also reasons why it could have happened. Without getting too technical - perhaps the proteins that absorb light energy were never meant to turn that into electrical energy in the cell. Perhaps they were just there to protect the DNA from damage from UV radiation (remembering that before photosynthesis there was no ozone layer). So they would have had a function. Perhaps the next evolution was for proteins to remove that energy in a way that didn’t cause excess energy to build up in the cell. Finally the cell evolved a way of capturing that light energy and turning it into electrical/chemical energy. So when we look at the 40+ proteins, what we are seeing is the end result of a series of steps - not one single event!

Judas says:

10:07am | 16/09/10

Having a belief does not necessarily entitle a person or their belief to respect.

By your logic, it then follows that those who believe that their God tells them that women who dare to venture out in public without being clad from head to to in black sackcloth should be stoned to death are entitled to respect.

Nicole says:

10:46am | 16/09/10

I gather you’re referring to muslims Judas. Do I like the religion? No. Do I respect the religion? No. But I have respect for those who do believe, and that is my very point.

Judas says:

12:51pm | 16/09/10

You are entitled to respect whomever you wish Nicole. You shouldn’t however, insist that others do the same merely because you feel that it is the way that things should be.

Personally, I could never respect someone who believed in or adhered to a system that insisted on or at least encouraged, the marginalisation or intolerance of any section of society.

It isn’t just the Muslims. Christianity has a rather chequered past when it comes to intolerance and misogyny.

The difference between you and I appears to be that I am not demanding that because I don’t respect these people, that everyone else should also not afford them respect - and that it *my* very point.

Reg says:

03:09pm | 16/09/10

Nicole I’d like you to quantify the threshold beyond which a religion or a philosophy is not entitled to respect?

If someone does something that is abhorrent to you, would you still respect his right to be respected? To ostracize someone or to make them feel inferior is hardly being respectful, except to the philosophy to which you personally subscribe. A faulty belief should be challenged if it has serious implications, as I am challenging yours.

Is it true that Judas was a Greek?

rja says:

03:27pm | 19/09/10

There’s a difference between having some respect for a concept, and showing some respect to another human being.

I don’t respect the idea that the earth was created in a week, and some of the other strange little excuses that are used to explain how fossils and carbon dating fit into that worldview. I think it’s batty. But when I encounter someone who does believe in that, I don’t feel the need to jump all over them in a discussion and start flinging insults.

Steely Dan says:

10:32am | 16/09/10

@ God-Fearer

“I would hope all you atheists and non-believers will forgo your Christmas Holidays and presents”
Why?  I work for my holidays, and buy presents for my friends and family with my own money.  Do you feel hypocritical every time you see religious people decorating a tree in traditional heathen style?

“...and send all minetary gains to the poor and needy”
I send some (not to Ethiopia, currently it’s Bangladesh).

“...in Ethiopia which used to be a God Fearing country until the muslims took control”
Meaning it’s a god-fearing country!

“...also to the all the drug addicts and Hedoistic types”.
Like Ted Haggard?

“Secular Humanismhas come to the same level as communism and in time will prove to be a dismal failure”
Nice prediction.  But will the Rapture happen first?

iansand says:

10:40am | 16/09/10

I have Saturnalia as a fallback.

Michael says:

02:11pm | 16/09/10

I’ve always thought it’s important to eat vegetables, though.

HappyCynic says:

10:36am | 16/09/10

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive combatants though.  Nor does logic, rationale and reason require an absence of faith.  And free thought isn’t restricted by faith but by dogma, there is a big difference.  Hope is also futile and ultimately useless should we declare that as “no longer mattering” as well?

Also how I choose to waste my life (or not) is my business not yours.  For the record I’m not religious but a constant “Devil’s advocate”, I’ll argue against all positions because none of them can ever be true.

howy says:

11:04am | 16/09/10

Well the birthrate for the atheists and humanists of the inner city would be about 1.0 child per woman - in the Bible belt or Koran belt areas it would be up to 5 children per woman. So I don’t think the atheists will take over the World anytime soon. The rise in the people of no faith is obviously due to the historic level of prosperity we’re in at the moment - but with climate change and the economic shift to Asia and the decline of the USA and Britain the people of Australia will need to have a strong faith when other nations set their sights on our land and resources.

Michael says:

03:03pm | 16/09/10

Dr Opkick, MY free choice IS to have my faith.

KH says:

10:04am | 16/09/10

All these christians spouting their ‘peace and love’ drivel make me sick.  It wasn’t that long ago that people were tortured, burned at stakes, beheaded, outcast from society and more, by the so called ‘christian’ faiths.  The christian faiths have a long history of violence, corruption, intimidation and various other crimes against the world, which they like to conveniently distance themselves from, proclaiming how they bring ‘peace’ to the world now (although you could argue that an institution that has actively covered up child abuse, and argues against contraception in over populated, no resources available third world countries is hardly ‘peaceful’ or ‘good’).  Anyone remember the ‘inquisition’?  How about ‘the crusades’? Anyone for a good old ‘witch burning’?  They were no better than extremists of today - there is just better technology that can do more damage on a greater scale.

Matt says:

10:10am | 16/09/10

Self professed and “evangelical” atheists, wishing to spread their creed, were responsible for the biggest human tragedies in the 20th century in China and the Soviet Union. At the same time, many people who professed a belief in religion were performing many acts of human charity. See, it’s easy to cherry pick data to make a point ...

People who look for reasons to commit evil will find them just as easily in humanistic and atheistic creeds as in religious ones. I am an atheist as well but I find it quite silly to think my lack of belief in the supernatural makes me any more (or any less for that matter) morally upright than a religious person.

Elphaba says:

10:21am | 16/09/10

“Self professed and “evangelical” atheists, wishing to spread their creed, were responsible for the biggest human tragedies in the 20th century in China and the Soviet Union.”

That wasn’t atheism.  It was an ideology.  Someone decided they wanted to be worshipped like a God.  It’s religion by a different name.

Atheism (proper atheism), isn’t looking to worship anyone - man or divine.

AdamC says:

10:31am | 16/09/10

KH, you are aware that those excesses and evils you happened (at least) several hundred years ago. Indeed, have you ever actually met any Christians who promote burning heretics or launching a crusade to retake Jerusalem from the infidels? It looks to me that you are merely projecting your own prejudices onto others.

Mattt, I congratulate you on your sanity. It seems to be lacking among these comments.

Matt says:

10:39am | 16/09/10

“That wasn’t atheism.  It was an ideology”

Communists were specifically atheists. It is part of the essential core of the ideology, that religion was the “opiate of the masses” Defining away the parts of atheism that you don’t like is as much of a cheat as saying the Salem witch trials is not “real Christianity”.

Those acts were performed by a professedly atheist society and if today’s Christian society is to be held accountable for the Crusades et al. then atheists need to own their own atrocities. Neither religion or atheism has clean hands and an atheist society is just as likely to be bloodthirsty as a religious one.

Elphaba says:

12:16pm | 16/09/10

“Communists were specifically atheists.”

And Mao, and Lenin, and others, commanded unwavering, unquestioning faith and belief.  It was religion in sheep’s clothing.

I fear we shall disagree here, but those ideologies have more in common with religion, than the atheist lack of belief.

Steely Dan says:

12:26pm | 16/09/10

@ Matt

“Communists were specifically atheists. It is part of the essential core of the ideology”
All true.  But as relevant as the fact that Stalin accepted gravity.

“Defining away the parts of atheism that you don’t like is as much of a cheat as saying the Salem witch trials is not “real Christianity”.

Here’ s the difference - theism makes claims, atheism doesn’t.  Of course most Christians aren’t lunatic fundamentalists, but the vast majority of all Christians hold that a collection of ancient texts is the inspired word of God.  This assertion leaves the door open for nutbags to take the bad, weird or confusing parts of the Bible and intrerpet it as a call to oppress others.  No religion = no religious fundamentalism.  That’s why I can’t wait for religion to go away.

Atheism cannot inspire evil as it makes no claim - except that god claims are unsubstantiated.  It’s also true that atheism alone cannot inspire good, and being an atheist does not make you immune to stupidity or evil.

“Neither religion or atheism has clean hands and an atheist society is just as likely to be bloodthirsty as a religious one.”

A regime that outlaws religion is just as bloodthirsty as one that enforces it.  This is why I’m a secularist - not a theocrat or a Stalinist-Marxist.

Hamish says:

01:04pm | 16/09/10

Elphaba, suggesting that utopian political movements and atheism are mutually exclusive is a stretch…look at The Greens for a less extreme example.

Have you never heard the phrase ‘those who believe in nothing will fall for anything’?

Zac says:

01:18pm | 16/09/10

Atheists are not blowing people up defending their non-belief. Atheists are not cutting peoples heads off defending their non-beliefs,. Atheists are not crashing planes into tall buildings defending their non-beliefs. Atheists are not systematically raping children and then covering the fact up and dismissing it as idol gossip in an attempt to promote their non-beliefs.>>>>

Really???? Check this out Darvio, it may open up your eyes…

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Atheism, not religion is the force behind the mass murders of history

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

A Dose of Reality says:

01:13am | 17/09/10

Zac, you isolate so much of history.  Religious violence has far more to answer for than the inquisitions and the crusades (by the way, the misdeeds of the crusaders, when realised to a percentage/per-capita ratio compares very horribly to the misdeeds of the personality cults of stalin and mao.  They were responsible for the slaughter of innocents from the middle east up to the polish coast over centuries). 

And the very difference is that religious violence is just that - violence committed in the name of religion.  Violence committed by the non-religious can be for any reason, including economic ideology .  Although at this point it is important to know that stalin (and hitler) were actually religious. 

Your very question is flawed and skewed to your point of view.  Ask yourself “how many people have died because someone else demanded they believe in a certain god?”  and then compare that to “how many people have died because someone else demanded that they not have a belief in any god?”.

Checkside says:

01:03pm | 16/09/10

I’m not terrified that I have got it wrong. No evidence for either God or an afterlife, you see. If I am wrong in denying the existence of god - anyone’s god - and choosing to promote atheism as a rational path forward for humanity, then that god can show himself to me RIGHT NOW and punish me. Waiting ... waiting ... Right. There’s your answer. That’s why religions should stay in churches and leave us all alone.

Michael says:

03:33pm | 16/09/10

I agree Checkside. I also believe that Atheist preachers such as Dawkins should get down of the pulpit and leave us alone.

Scarlett Street Rocker says:

09:50am | 16/09/10

“Dawkins is in the money making business” unlike religion of any ilk.

Zeta says:

09:50am | 16/09/10

Even for those of us who do believe in God, it doesn’t detract from Dawkins’ genius. Sure, he might have taken the atheism thing a little far, but his theories in the Selfish Gene actually inform a belief in God and give it some psychological context - the notion that an idea as complex yet alarmingly efficent as God spreading unspoken across millions of brains is just as much evidence of the divine as a bro in a loin cloth with a flaming sword.

Steely Dan says:

03:24pm | 16/09/10

@ Scarlett Street Rocker

Of course, if people make money from something they do that makes them untrustworthy on the subject.  That’s why when my mechanic said that my brakes needed replacing I ignored him.  That vile moneygrubber!

cameron says:

10:10am | 16/09/10

I think i’ll worship jamie and his/her ability to have certainty in an article without reading it.  very impressive. why read when you know the answer.

Jamie says:

10:36am | 16/09/10

No need for sarcasm Cameron. I just found the article and read it.  As it turns out I was right ... no suprises there though really.  The thing is Cameron and I dont know what side of the fence you fall on ... maybe you dont - maybe you just sit in the middle and fire off un funny/insightful replys to both sides ... but when it comes to matters of faith as the term suggest the fundamental point which religious nuts have to come back to is “faith” regardless of the intricacys of their arguements.  And you can not argue that intelectually… there is no counter arguement other than: “you’re an idiot .. go away”.  You can argue intelectually against things like what the bible says or what the Koran says or the rediculous claim that anyone group of people are the ‘chosen’ ... but their fallback position always has to be “its a matter of faith” which includes where we go when we die, how we got here in the first place, why the earth moves from left to right and why horrible floods killed lots of people ... hence my comment Cameron.

Feel free to pay me a visit Sunday morning for my sermon on “Abraham and why he shouldn’t have consumed the magic mushrooms”

Joe says:

11:31am | 16/09/10

Jamie,
Ernest Hemmingway wrote : If a writer knows enough about what he is writing about, he may omit things that he knows. The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one ninth of it being above water.

This means that you shouldn’t try so hard to explain yourself. You will tend to get lost in your own arrogance. Be confident that fewer words will do an even better job.

Like this…ehem…religion is a crock. Done.

Cameron says:

06:35pm | 16/09/10

It was light-hearted sarcasm, but that’s neither here nor there.  I do the same occasionally.

But it does highlight the reason why no coherent or useful argument on religion versus atheism occurs (a generalisation i realise) and that is; Religion’s strongly identify with faith while atheists consider this to be un-arguable grounds (other than science is proof and faith is not). 

Religion is belief/faith based.  You may not question things like ‘why are we here, where do we go when we die, where did life come from etc’ but many people do and many people find the answers in religion.

Tolerance and respect from all sides is critical.  Simply writing off another person’s point of view is akin to the degree of ignorance exhibited by many religions when considering other religions.

Let’s not pretend this is a discussion.  It’s a “you’re stupid for thinking what you think” argument.  You don’t burn something that is important to someone else in order to initiate sensible discussion.  To think that action would do anything other than offend lacks commonsense.

PS I sit on the Christian side and I don’t see how science in any way reduces the validity of my faith.  Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, just not as organised (that’s not a criticism).

Elphaba says:

10:05am | 16/09/10

a lack of wonder at the unknown.

Not true.  I don’t have to believe in a deity to feel wonder at the unknown.  I see beauty and wonder in APOD, for example…

I don’t try to explain the unknown, or particularly want it explained - I just don’t believe ‘a higher power did it’.

iansand says:

10:22am | 16/09/10

Theists do not wonder.  Their curiosity stops at a simple phrase - God did it.  That’s the end of the inquiry.  The antithesis of wonder.

Hamish says:

11:53am | 16/09/10

Zeta, you really are a weird bro, but this pretty much sums it up for me. Atheists are a bunch of boring trolls at best and Marxist butchers at worst.

That cigarette thing is spot on. I was waiting for a cab last night, decided to light up a smoke and bang, a taxi appeared. Maybe there is a God after all.

Roja says:

01:11pm | 16/09/10

Zeta - It is not a cigarette, it is a wand of taxi & bus summoning.  You were invoking the mystic arts of magic rather than invoking any sort of theistic intervention.  The trouble here is, mass produced cigarettes are just not as effective as your standard rolly or the ultimate in transport intervention - the spliff.  The latter is more effective as if it fails, your creative mind can entertain yourself by imagining even more interesting modes of transport to whisk you away.  Sadly I don’t think any form of hallucinogen will allow to create a more interesting array of gods as I am pretty sure thats how the first 40,000 or so were dreamed up.

Also if you are considering conversion to Norse theology, might I instead recommend Loki, the god of mischief - to me he seems more up your alley.

HappyCynic says:

01:05pm | 16/09/10

Ummm monkeytypist, an idea is neither good for the world nor bad.  It’s what is done in the name of that idea combined with how people perceive those actions that decide if it is good or bad, but even these actions don’t actually define the idea in any way.

Thinking in just black or white (good or bad) is just juvenile and primitive.

monkeytypist says:

02:59pm | 16/09/10

The thing is, nobody does things in the “name” of atheism.  Atheists and rationalists take pride in their action in the name of evidence, in reason and in careful analysis.  That is always - and yes I am going to make a definitive statement - better than simply going on the basis of preordained societal prejudices back up by fantastic stories.  You can reach the wrong result with evidence and with good reasoning.  But you’re much more likely to reach the right one than with a system that, for example, thinks scientific research is less important than prayer.

HappyCynic says:

04:00pm | 16/09/10

Monkeytypist, that’s a little clearer but I still have issues with your argument.

Actions in the name of evidence, in reason and in careful analysis are not mutually exclusive to atheists or rationalists.  I can be religious if I choose and still take actions based on these qualities, ideally neither contradicts the other.  Also not all religions believe prayer trumps scientific reasoning you’re colouring your view of religion by the Christian viewpoint only and even then based only on a few sects of Christianity.

Finally actions in the name of evidence, in reason and in careful analysis seems a bit limiting and cold.  Humans are not just dispassionate, logical machines, we’re illogical, uneven tempered and wildly unpredictable as well.  It’s part of what makes us both great and ferociously destructive at the same time.  Changing the world to atheism or rationalism will do nothing to change that or even minimalise it… unless you’re requiring a mandatory cyborg implant upon conversion (I kid, I kid) 

Judas says:

10:30am | 16/09/10

As opposed to the hypocrisy of the religious nutters who preach tolerance and acceptance when it suits them; yet demonise homosexuals, and made continued strident attacks on Julia Gillard during the election campaign because she was an unmarried, childless atheist?

A Bob says:

12:15pm | 16/09/10

Lee, the FSM is indeed a joke. That’s the point. Any argument that can be raised against the FSM can be equally applied to any other deity.

Matt says:

10:51am | 16/09/10

“Religion ... is also the core of all the hate in this world”

Seriously? ALL the hate? Don’t hold back now ...

Reg says:

02:06pm | 16/09/10

How can you possibly submit that religion, based on spiritualism, is selling humanitarianism? The basis of religion is that you’re better off dead. No sitting on the fence there.

Now let’s see you march an army through a mine-field as a demonstration of their faith in God rather than in their Country. As the dreadful Stalin said, “It takes a brave man not to be a hero in Russia” and I think that might apply to those who stand against dizzy religious beliefs.

Matt says:

10:43am | 16/09/10

Hear hear, Phil. My sentiments exactly, especially the last sentence. I think I will describe myself as a “mild mannered atheist” from now on!

howy says:

10:45am | 16/09/10

You can add the 42 million people who lose their life in the abortion clinic each year to your list, or do mild mannered atheists not consider this extreme even if imaging technology shows the baby is active from the beginning, and that 93% of abortions are due to social reasons.

N says:

12:52pm | 16/09/10

Howy; let’s not bring the futile abortion debate into this. I think it’s pretty clear the last thing the world needs is an additional 42 million unwanted individuals annually. If you want to keep going tit for tat, we could consider the anti condoms stance in Africa and the affects it has on the AIDS epidemic; how many million is that tallying up?

Frankly I subscribe to the adage; “With or without religion, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.” Look around the world today and you’ll realise what a true statement that is….

Judas says:

12:57pm | 16/09/10

@howy

“42 million people who lose their life in the abortion clinic each year”

I hadn’t realised that the fundamentalist Christian attacks on clinics had been so successful…

Why haven’t these 42 million murders of doctors and nurses at abortion clinics by morals crusaders received any publicity?

You do realise that a foetus is not a person don’t you?

Jon Underwood says:

01:12pm | 16/09/10

you’re forgetting the conversion to christianity by fire and the sword of pretty much all of eastern europe from eastern germany through to the ukraine and north into the baltic.

war after war after war - horrible, savage stuff, all specifically done in the name of converting the heathen.

these crusades then go on to inspire the crusades against the greeks and muslims, the reconquesta (oh, the cathar crusade prior to that)...

Roja says:

02:52pm | 16/09/10

You don’t even have to go back to the crusades, just look at the extermination of the indigenous people in Australia in the 20th century.  The church was compicit in these activities as they were not christian, so they didn’t count. 

Now they proclaim the sanctity of life with regards to a foetus, what hypocrisy in light of two thousand years of murder.

Nick says:

10:53am | 16/09/10

“child abuse inherent in faith”..obviously you have some deep seated issues when presuming that faith and child abuse are some how connected.The fact that priests have been found to be child molesters does not preclude that it has something to do with their faith.Lets keep the debate rational.

Scarlett Street Rocker says:

11:21am | 16/09/10

We are stardust. Nothing more, nothing less.

Reg says:

08:47am | 17/09/10

Nick, with the assumed permission of Elebenty, I’d like to suggest that the child abuse to which he/she refers is the religious mind bending that so many infants are subject to as part of what some parents regard as their religious duty. Rationality is in the mind of the beholder.

Although I would like to know why he/she separates out Judaism for specific condemnation.

MK says:

04:29pm | 19/09/10

Thanks, one of my pet peeves is Atheist who claim to lovge logic, evidence and reason ,a the espouse that religion is the root of all evil, cause of all wars BS, completely disregarding logic and evidence.
People are inherently evil(if you care for that term),
they will find some reason or another to kill and do harm to each other,
and may not need reason at all.
You can try and argue organised relaiogn made it worse, but the root cause is still people.

AdamC says:

12:35pm | 16/09/10

Economist, I see you are trying to be even-handed (and I agree with your broad philosophical position) but I don’t agree that you can compare the agenda of militant atheists with that of believers in terms of public policy.

The atheist movement appear to be pursuing a line that amounts to persecution, on the basis that they should have ‘freedom from religion’. Ideas like ceasing public funding of religious schools and ending the charitable status of churches cannot be justified on the basis of promoting pluralism and diversity - their effect would clearly be to reduce both.

Meanwhile, while the views of some opponents of an internet filter and/or gay marriage may be inspired by their religious beliefs, it is just as likely to be based on their conception of effective social policy. I am not religious and am certainly sceptical of gay marriage.

You don’t seem to be comparing like with like here, Economist.

Economist says:

02:36pm | 16/09/10

Adam C I disagree. Athiests can argue that their ideas are a “conception of effective social policy” as well . For example education arguments could be: ceasing public funding of religious/non-government schools would strenghen the public system as there is an exodus of talent to the private sector; why should your choice be subsidised? you potentially get a greater return from public education as you are forciing the education of our most disdavantaged; and the $6.6B subsidy results in little or no savings to the tax payer from a purely economic perspective. I will add that I don’t agree with all these statements and personally believe that private education has a role. Just demonstrating the arguments.

Similarly taxing religion, the arguments not about removing charitable status, this is an exaggeration, but about taxing business activities and investments. The Anglican church lost $170M playing the stock market, Hillsong run Gloria Jeans coffee, how are there profits taxed. Churches have effectively become businesses, which can be justified on the grounds that through business investments that can provide ongoing income without solely relying on donations, but what taxes should they pay? 

I suspect like me you enjoy the writings of Ayn Rand who was a big influence on my favourite author, Terry Goodkind, however I’m not going to take on her ideas with religious fervour. I think that there’s a role for government, but it has to be effective and efficient, this doesn’t mean market oriented. Can I suggest you watch the doco “the Trap” by Adam Curtis, though the presentation is very leftish.

etton says:

01:59pm | 16/09/10

why do you assume that most athiests have never read the bible? I think you will find that most of us were forced to sit through hours of Sunday school and church and it was only thanks to being born with inquisitive minds that we didn’t blindly believe the rubbish being sold to us, but instead chose to question the inconsistencies in the bible.

god is supposed to be an all loving being, and Jesus believed in looking after children, however every day, thousands of children are raped and murdered and god sits by and watches and does nothing to stop it. Now christians will say that this is just man being mean to man, NO it is not. That is a cop out. If you saw a child being raped and you did nothing to intervene then you would be just as guilty….just as god is.

If god does exist I want nothing to do with him, as how could someone casually watch on while innocent children are being harmed???

But off course he doesnt exist, and that is the real reason that the children arent protected.

Peter says:

03:09pm | 16/09/10

@ etton, i say that because sometimes you read comments about how Noah threw Dinosaurs off the Ark, things that make it quite evident that they have never read the bible..

Yes this natural disaster thing is a conundrum for us religious types, but maybe God wants to see how we react to help our fellow humans beings perhaps? Take the Pakistani floods, i think most of us (myself included) have not really given the impact it has had on these people much thought.. I have it in mind to donate money to unicef, but it seems my own selfish desires have gotten in the way of making time to do it..

I can not answer that question for you…

In terms of death, maybe it’s not the big deal to God that we percieve it to be. If there is an afterlife, then those victims are surely there…

iansand says:

04:17pm | 16/09/10

etton - I think it is the christian creationists that tie themselves in knots about reconciling dinosaurs and the ark.  We heathens don’t believe in the ark, so have nothing to reconcile.

iansand says:

04:18pm | 16/09/10

Whoops.  Last comment was meant to be directed to Peter.

Peter says:

07:40pm | 16/09/10

@ iansand. Not at all. The dinasour thing does not send me into a tail spin, it’s just silly comments made by others..

Also, while im on the subject of not believing evolution, i should add that i have doubts about our dating technices as well…

iansand says:

03:40pm | 17/09/10

Peter - I’m glad to see that we both agree that creationists make silly comments.

Peter says:

01:30pm | 16/09/10

Gillard is a confirmed athiest and does not support gay marriage. Can we not blame religion on not supporting gay marriage. This is a social issue as well, not just confined to people of faith..

Marriage aside, i know gay people who do not support same sex parents.  They had a mum and dad too.

People aren’t obligated to support gay marriage, and like the athiest thing, we shouldn’t be called idiots for wanting kids to have both a mum and dad. That philosophy is not so radical….

Re the 2 planes into skyscrapers, when athiests commit criminal acts, should we blame their non-belief in God? You can’t have it both ways…

Jamie says:

02:04pm | 16/09/10

Actually you can have it both ways.  Christians oppose abortian and gay marriage and enjoying sex and self abuse and stem cell research becuase their told to by the bible and in the name of god.  Fanatical Muslims crash aeroplanes, order fatwas, stone adulterers to death and peform female circumcision becuase the Koran tells them to and they believe they do it with Allahs blessing.  Radical Jews believe they have the right to slowly invade and move Palestinians out of their homeland becuase God gave them the land 10000 years ago ...

Gillard opposes gay marriage becuase its not politiocally expedient. Atheists commit crimes becuase they want to ... neither of these two examples require a word from god.

AdamC says:

02:19pm | 16/09/10

I agree, Peter. Atheists often overstate the role of religion in many things, but notably wars and social issues. Many opponents of gay marriage are not at all religious. Just like not all wars that have occurred between people’s of different religions are religiously-inspired.

Peter says:

08:20pm | 17/09/10

Considering that a lot of masturbation takes place in front of people’s computers these days, it’s probably a good place to start that campaign..

Checkside says:

01:06pm | 16/09/10

Our morality and laws are derived from humankind’s desire to find ways of living harmoniously with others. Religions have tried to codify those rules over millennia, but they are not unique to any one religion. Religions don’t own morality, though they try to.

Austin 3:16 says:

12:38pm | 16/09/10

Well if you’re going to make an argument based on 1) probability and 2) the universe coming into existence from nothing. Then I’ve a couple of questions:

1.How probable is God? What are the odds of his existence. We’d need to establish the probability of God in order to have a basis for comparison.

2.What material did God use to create the universe with, what was his building materials ? Creating something out of nothing sounds like a very good description of genesis to me.

DG says:

12:51pm | 16/09/10

Maybe this atheist did not understand the notion of a singularity, of M-theory and of the fact that space and time are necessarily connected. If there is no space there can be no time. Time needs a place in which to occur. More importantly, we know that there is space because we are in it, had there not been a space in which time could occur then there would be no ‘us’ to discuss it. The singularity is a very neat way of explaining how all ‘modern’ things began, and also of how it is impossible (and irrelevant) to know what happened before that.

Checkside says:

12:55pm | 16/09/10

Are you saying you believe in a magical sky fairy who clapped his hands and made everything appear in seven days? Or that praying to dead people - Saints - cures disease? Atheists do not believe in supernatural causation. They believe in evidence. And though atheists do not have all the answers, they look to rationality, evidence and science for clues. Religion relies on doctrine and the words of superstitious people written down thousands of years ago. So who are the smart ones?

Budz says:

12:58pm | 16/09/10

I would have told you that it’s more likely than a man coming back from the dead!

Jon says:

01:12pm | 16/09/10

Sounds a lot like Douglas Adams Infinite Improbability drive. However the donkey pooh may be more probability than some of the many explanations we have from religions. Strangely though some religions did worship pooh, but I’m not sure if it was donkey.

Robert Webb says:

01:39pm | 16/09/10

“Why is there anything?” is a great question, and neither science nor religion has an answer.  Atheists don’t necessarily believe it appeared out of nothing.  There are scientific theories now which go back past the big bang (M-theory can do this).  Religion does not have an answer though.  They say “God did it”, but fail to provide any explanation about how something as complex as god just happened to exist.  Highly improbably events, as the start of the universe may be, become inevitable given enough attempts, which there may have been, provided the probability is not exactly zero.  God’s existence however is supposed to be magical and not due to endless trial and error, hence they need an incredibly improbably event to occur out of just a single attempt.  Saying he’s always been there, or has been there since the start of time, does nothing to explain how we can be so enormously lucky that he just happens to exist.

Science doesn’t know how the universe started, but at least we see creation as going from the simpler to the more complex, whereas religion places the most complex thing of all at the start.

HappyCynic says:

04:29pm | 16/09/10

@What the??

Using “statistical improbability” has long been a favourite amongst creationists as a legitimate argument against Evolution and the Big Bang.  The biggest problem with it is they’ve over simplified the argument and got it completely wrong.

Mathematically speaking, given a long enough timescale, the probability of anything occurring might start near 0 but will eventually approach 1, hell even the probability of G-d coming into existence is possible if you give it a long enough time (so long as there is a probability in the first place). 

Therefore there is no such thing as a “statistical improbability”.

Dean says:

01:33pm | 16/09/10

In this day and age some people just need something to hate, for no reason at all, and those with no religious upbringing or understanding choose religion to hate.  Or more specifically, christians.  I highly doubt your claim that christians thought the earth was the centre of the universe.  Care to back that up anywhere or have you personally asked every single christian in the world?  And yes, I’m sure they still think the earth is flat - that makes as much sense as your entire comment…

Michael says:

02:40pm | 16/09/10

@ Dean: Darvio’s talking about the Ptolemaic model of the universe which both scientists *and* the Church thought was an accurate model of the universe up until the time of Galileo: that is, that the Earth was the centre of the universe because everything seemed to revolve around the Earth.  That was because the planets from the point of view seemed to move around the Earth and the Earth did not move.  Therefore, since stars, suns, moon, and planets appeared to move, even orbit around the Earth, while the Earth did not, the Earth therefore must be the centre of the universe.

The problem was that the Church had grabbed this theorem and postulated it as a fact supporting their belief that God had ordained humans as the highest point of his creation and that it stood to reason based on Genesis that the Earth must be the centre of the universe.

Galileo disproved this by demonstrating that the Earth in fact orbited around the Sun, which the Church took as an attack not just on the Ptolemaic view of the universe but also an attack on their belief that it supported the Book of Genesis.

Having said that, Darvio is being intellectually dishonest.  The Ptolemaic model dated back almost to before the birth of Christ and had been in place up until Galileo’s time in the late middle ages.  You were talking about a completely different time and technology, when God was still believed, for a lack of scientific knowledge, to be intimately involved with human beings across the board.  Christians haven’t believed Earth was the centre of the universe for a very, very long time; the 1992 announcement was simply a formal occasion for something that had been known for centuries; Galileo’s books were taken off the banned list in the Church in 1758.  Pope Pius XII in 1939 called him an audacious hero of research.

Darvio’s ridicule of the Catholic Church is also a little precious given Galileo, in fact, was not right about how the universe worked.  He was right that the universe did not orbit around the Earth.  Instead, he believed the the universe was heliocentric—that the entire universe orbited around the Sun.

P. Darvio says:

03:13pm | 16/09/10

Quote: “Darvio is being intellectually dishonest” - m’mmm - but factually correct - it took the Vatican 13 years of formal investigation up until 1992 to be sure they were wrong and Galileo was right. Only 13 years !!!

1.15 Billion Catholic Christians are required to follow Vatican policy without question - so that was official policy until 1992 - that is not being “intellectually dishonest” its just stating the truth.

Damm!! So the Sun is not the centre of the Universe…….D’ohhhh

Peter says:

04:03pm | 16/09/10

P Davio, what passages of the bible says, the earth was flat, the universe revolved around the sun, or any other scientific claims..

You tell me where those scientific claims are… These just sound like statements that would have been made by crazy scientists at the time who probably happened to be Christian as well…

Michael says:

05:28pm | 16/09/10

@ Darvio: your lack of theological knowledge, at least so far as Catholicism is concerned, is apparent.

Incidentally, I’m not sure where you get the 13 years from, but it probably took a while given the Catholic Church does have other things to do with its time than reopen historical cases nearly 300 years old and which everyone except the raving anti-Christians seem to have forgotten about.

I assume you are using the word “Christian” as a shorthand for, in fact, the Roman Catholic Church.  The two are not the same, of course.  There are Protestants, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, and several other Christian groups which do not recognise the Pope as the head of the Christian Church.  Eastern Orthodox in particular would be rather miffed at the suggestion that because the Vatican says something, they must follow it; that’s the main reason they broke away from the Catholic Church back in the 1300s or so.

Catholics are not required to follow all Catholic policy or fall into sin.  You are confusing the curiae (the hierarchy) of the Catholic Church and its policies with the religious dogma set out for all believers, laity and priesthood alike, of the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Catechism sets out the beliefs of a Roman Catholic.  The Catechism does not, and has not for a good 300 years or so if at all, contain the required belief that the Earth is the centre of the universe.  Ergo a Catholic is not required to accept that proposition.

But I do stand by my assertion you are being intellectually dishonest, because you are asserting a false premise (that Christians believed until 1992 that the Earth was the centre of the universe) in support of an assertion that Christians are stupid.  Do your research first, champ.

Reg says:

10:02am | 19/09/10

It seems that some resent quotations from Dawkins, but quotations from a so called holy book are not a problem. In fact Dawkins has greater veracity than any of the unqualified scribblings which some accept as inspired. It would also appear they regard quotations as the realm of the tediously religious.

The outstanding history of the :“movement,” by which I assume you mean religion, is that for ages the challenging of religious faith has been met with violence of such extreme that even today people are led to fear the wrath of “the church.”  In fact one only needs to be pointed to the current religious situation in Iran to recognise the foolishness of your assertion.  18 is my guess.

cc says:

01:21pm | 16/09/10

@Ray

“Thiests are essentially one-eyed. They rely on the assertion that God does exist, as they have no scientific proof to back them up.

They have no hesitation in playing god, by asserting how they think God thinks and acts. “

There. I fixed it for you.

Peter says:

01:36pm | 16/09/10

@ cc. Athiests have as much scientific proof as Religous people do. What religous people don’t do is what athiests have been doing these days, things like, observing exo-planets and saying that is proof of no God, or looking at old bones and claiming that is proof of no God.

Anything an athiest scientist looks at, is proof of no God aparantly…

Science does a great job of proving nothing when it comes to the existance or non existance of God….

Bobster says:

02:54pm | 16/09/10

@ Peter,

Well you can’t prove a negative but it’s safe to say Genesis has been pretty solidly debunked at this stage.

Evolutionary science has proven how life came to be (don’t give me that theory rubbish unless you’re going to argue with gravity as well) and as such, the rest of the Bible falls down around it.

In a nutshell, God did not create Adam and Eve. If God did not create Adam and Eve then it follows there was no tree and there was no snake. If there was no tree and there was no snake then there was no original sin and no good reason for God to spend the next several centuries on a murderous rampage.

So, here we have a meaninglessly malevolent God and the realisation that Jesus Christ did not exist.

If God is malevolent with no good reason then the christian account of him is false so is the entire New Testament.

As mentioned, with no Adam, Eve, tree or snake then there was no original sin and no need for the wrathful Old Testament temper tantrum.

Now, if there was no original sin, exactly what reason did God have for sending Jesus to Earth to die in atonement for our sins - given they never occured?

So, we’re back to meaningless malevolence as the only logical explanation for God’s actions because, even if Jesus did exist, his father tortured and murdered him for nothing.

Science has proven christianity completely baseless with evolutionary biology alone, because, even as the existence of god remains in question the motive given for his behaviour have no basis and thus, belief in a loving god has no foundation in science or theology.
QED

DG says:

03:01pm | 16/09/10

Ray -

The null hypothesis to the question of god is “There is no evidence to support the claim of God, therefore there is no reason to conclude God exists”. That does not mean that there is positive proof of the absence of God, only that there is no positive proof for the assertion.

Accordingly, there is no basis for attributing any act or power to this unknown ‘thing’ - this is the Logical fallacy known as “God of the gaps”. Not knowing how something is done or why it happens is not a basis for concluding that there must be God. It is a basis only for concluding that I do not know how/why it happens.

I am curious what you mean when you say atheists “play god”? Do you mean that they carry out acts that you would consider godly?

Peter -

Please try to avoid ascribing to all atheists that which is done by the minority. it has no more justification that those who ascribe the crusades to all Christians, terrorism to all Muslims, Nazi atrocities to all Germans and so on.

For the vast majority of Atheists old bones are proof of things that have lived before and have died. Nothing more nothing less. They may be used to refute biblical claims such as the creation story or Noah’s ark - but they do not comprise proof that there is no God - only that the story in a book is demonstrably false (and only then if taken as a purported factual report).

Science does a great job of proving how things came to be - demonstrating causal relationships, observing all manner of matter, the forces of nature and the effects of time.

Everything that a scientist looks at is proof only of that which is observed and the hypothesis which it supports, or the new hypothesis that is spawned from the observation.

Roja says:

03:20pm | 16/09/10

@Ray - “Yet they have no hesitation in playing god, by asserting how they think God thinks and acts. “

Do you understand that atheists don’t believe God exists?  So the flaw with statment is that we don’t assert how god thinks and acts, we assert that he neither thinks nor acts because he does not exist.

Science isn’t about proving something doesn’t exist, it’s above proving that something does.

Peter says:

03:29pm | 16/09/10

@ Bobster, if you believe in the theory of evolution then creation has been debunked to you. I do not. I believe in the literal creation of earth as described in the bible. No science has convinced me otherwise.

As an evolutionist, you are asking me to take a leap of faith, that i am related to bananas, peanuts and fish. The evolutionist THEORY and it is just a theory sounds pretty crazy to me. Science has proven nothing in this regard, athiest scientists have just just onboard in the vein hope of one day enlightening us stupid souls that we were created but were just a ten trillion trillion billion trillion to one chance of existing..

There are athiest scientists out there they don’t believe in evolution either. These people sound like independant thinkers to me…

Facinating part in Genisis is when Adam and Eve did eat from the tree of knowledge and God appeared to them and they hid themselves realising they were naked, and God asks “how did you know you were naked, did you eat from the tree of knowledge”? That’s quite a powerful statement.

Anyway, im sure i am not going to convince you of anything, but to say that science has debunked Christianity is plain wrong. Theories don’t debunk anything….

DG says:

03:58pm | 16/09/10

Bobster:

Peter did not suggest a “loving god” as you put it. While his criticism of the behaviour of a few atheists and expanded to all atheists was intellectually dishonest (especially given that atheism is not a system of belief or even a common philosophy).

Your dispelling of the loving god was moderately effective but is completely dependent on a literal interpretation of the Bible. This literal interpretation is certainly not supported by the Vatican - The current Pope even acknowledges evolution (even though some Catholics do not). 

Further your statement:
“God did not create Adam and Eve” is not based on fact. There is certainly no evidence to support that position, but that does not mean that it is false. Why is it not possible that God created two humans in the garden of Eden that he then Banished to be with the other Humans (who had evolved) in the land of Nod?

Certainly there is no evidence to support such a claim, but that absence of evidence does not make the claim untrue - it simply means that it is unproven. And I, like you, do not think that there ever was an Adam and Eve created directly by God (because there is insufficient evidence to support the claim), but that does not make it impossible. Once we establish that Adam and Eve not impossible, but simply unsupported by evidence the rest of the story may well stand on its own.

Even if you do not accept the above, disproving the story in Genesis does not mean that there is no God, only that the author of Genesis got it wrong - which is completely understandable given the time of the writing relative to the time of the events so recorded.

Unlike Islam, in which the Koran is taken to be the Word of God as spoken by the prophet Mahmoud, there is no part of Christian doctrine that provides that the Bible is a 100 percent accurate statement of fact (although some take it as such), it is simply a story told about God. About the witnesses to Jesus life and the struggles of early Christians. At no stage does the dogma require the Bible to be taken literally, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that all Christians do so or that disproving the literal story of Genesis disproves the God about whom it was written.

If one is to read it literally, Genesis provides that there is more than one God - because God talks to “them”. I doubt that you’ll find a Christian that will take that as literally correct.

Bobster says:

03:59pm | 16/09/10

@ Peter

The old “theory” chestnut. Gravity is a theory as well but we’ve had some quite useful inventions using that one.

Well mate if science is such tripe, let me ask you; do you believe in the computer you used to type that or is that some divine manifestation as well?

Bobster says:

04:17pm | 16/09/10

@ DG,

I believe I acknowledged the argument does not disprove God but it certainly disproves the “loving god” and the existence of Jesus Christ.

It necessarily follows that the entire christian mythology is false because to necessitate Jesus Christ then the goings on in the Garden of Eden must be taken as literal truth.

The Pope’s acknowledgement of evolution means he has also acknowledged the rest of the story has fallen over.

The rest of the humans in the land of Nod were unjustly punished, there was no need for Jesus and as such the christian version of god cannot exist, even in a metaphorical sense.

It also undermine the religion’s entire moral foundation because its deity must be assumed to be unjust and cruel based on its behaviour, therefore offering no moral example, especially in the absence of Jesus.

Without Genesis, the Bible, Old and New Testament, has no foundation morally and must be questioned in its entirety.

If you accept evolution, it follows you must, in the words of Spencer Tracy, abandon the pleasant poetry of genesis and, in my own words now, everything that follows from it.

DG says:

04:18pm | 16/09/10

Peter,

I try hard to defend you when others put words in your mouth, but when you make claims that are demonstrably false you are opening yourself to criticism.

What could convince you that Genesis was not true?

If the answer is “nothing” then there is no debate or discussion to be had. By definition your view is dogmatic - it is not based on fact or evidence, it is not based on what is real and observable - it is based on nothing. You believe in defiance of evidence to the contrary, and without reason for holding that belief.

There is a mountain of evidence that can be used to disprove various parts of the Genesis creation story - if any evidence can be provided, I will endeavour to provide it. If it is a literal interpretation I would point to the second creation story in genesis - which provides that things occur in a different order.

As for your criticism of the “theory of evolution”. You are correct that it is a theory, but your are mistaken if you impose your own meaning on the word “theory”. The term theory (in context), has a very specific meaning, you treat it as a hypothesis (again, in context) and I would direct your attention to scientific texts that will explain the difference in far more detail than I can in this short space.  Importantly - to be awarded the title of “Theory”, a hypothesis must meet a number of criteria including - explaining a phenomenon, making predictions and being falsifiable.

I agree, a hypothesis is of little value in the absence of corroborating evidence, and would not effectively disprove any other theory or hypothesis. Only an observation that does not fit may disprove a hypothesis (or theory) - or may require minor modification.

While I will agree that there is some discussion about the theory, it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that because a small number of people disagree with a theory that it must be false. Further, the criticism goes not to the nature of evolution or even to the mechanism of natural selection, but to the classification of certain species and their position in the tree of life.

If you can direct me to a peer reviewed study that disproves evolution, please, direct me to it. I will read it with interest, I will learn and I will research further to understand whether this is a valid criticism or whether it is based on flawed logic.

I would love to know why you believe the literal interpretation of Genesis, and what that belief is based on.

Peter says:

05:47pm | 16/09/10

@ DG, i don’t walk around with pen and paper and reference anyone and everything i hear to prepare myself for these types of forums, but generally i’d like to think i keep things pretty honest and do not try to put words in people’s mouths, although im not sure what point it was i made to make you say that. Let me know.

With regards to Genesis, i believe it purely because of my faith. (There are 2 Peters writing on this today).. Anyway, my life experience has shown me that the story of Jesus is true, absolutely 100% true. I can’t offer one statement that will give you a “kapow” moment and prove to you that i am right, however for me to go into detail about my own experiences, it’s really something i’d discuss to someone in person, I will ramble on here forever if I did, not that i am dismissing what you are saying.

As to what scientific process I used to come to the conclusion that creation is true, simply just my faith, it makes more sense to me than evolution. I believe in a higher power, a creater, a God. I know it’s not science, i can’t pull out a compass, test tube, a ruler and a bunsen burner to test my case, but isn’t my faith enough for me?

It’s not that I choose to not believe in evolution, it’s just that i find it difficult to believe, perhaps like you do with Creation.

As i said in a previous post here, when i first read the bible 20 years ago, i couldn’t get past any page with saying “bullcrap” to myself. 20 years later not only do i believe the story, I am absolutely convinced by it.. I think we sometimes look to much into our external world and don’t focus on our inner selves. I believe a lot of answer lie there and we’d all be wise to explore that every now and then.

No science will ever disprove God, just as much as my faith may not convince you that God exists..

But if you’ve never read the new testament, there is no harm in reading and if you feel like i did 20 years ago when i first read it, then nothing has changed for you and you can be happy with your own beliefs.

As long as you are a good person, that is what ultimatly counts. These discussions are meaningless unless we all strive to be good people. We don’t need science or religion for this….

cc says:

08:16pm | 16/09/10

@Peter

You’re right, science cannt disprove the existence of God. However it neither seeks to nor does it have to, it is the deists who are asserting the existence of a grand creator, and the theists one who who listtens to your prayers, watches you while you sleep, and punishes you for all eternity for not playing by his rules. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the deists and the theists to prove their bold assertions, and they cannot.

End Of Story

Bobster says:

10:19am | 17/09/10

@ Peter

That’s fine, you can believe whatever you like but your position means you, and those that subscribe to your beliefs, have absolutely no right to attempt to influence public policy.

Your beliefs have no bearing on the rest of us because they are unproven and unprovable and as such they have no place in the public debate.

DG says:

12:13pm | 17/09/10

Peter,

Sorry, I was unclear - I was suggesting that other had put words in your mouth (in relation to the suggestion that god must be kind - which was not, insofar as I can see, something that you had claimed).

I appreciate that these posts are simply top of the head posts and responses, mine are also and as such may contain errors (however, I do my best to avoid errors or inconsistencies).

Fair enough, it an experience based feeling. That’s a plausible basis for making a decision (and I mean that most sincerely, it is the basis the we use for many things, from what we will eat to whom we will marry and what career we will pursue). It’s not scientific and is very much in the nature of Gould’s “Non-overlapping magesteria”. There is certainly no obligation to base every decision on science for there is certainly unexplained material out-there, we all have our ‘sacred cows’.

My position against creation is not so much that I think it is implausible (there are plenty of things that are implausible yet have been proven to my satisfaction), rather it is that I think the evidence of carbon dating, evolution, biology and carbon chemistry create provide an alternative that is observable, testable and has been demonstrated repeatedly. Further I believe that this position is incompatible with the literal creation story and as such conclude that the creation story must be false (in the absence of evidence similar to, or greater than, the evidence for the big bang and evolution).

I have read both the new testament and the ‘Hebrew bible’, as a matter of personal interest. I think there is much to be derived from Christian philosophy which can be obtained without a literal reading of the texts. One can derive philosophy from any number of books without believing the story to be true (consider the philosophical implication of “The Tortoise and the Hare” - I need not believe that the race took place to appreciate the philosophical message of the risks of overconfidence).

“As long as you are a good person, that is what ultimatly counts. These discussions are meaningless unless we all strive to be good people. We don’t need science or religion for this…. ” In that you have hit the nail on the head - it matters not what we believe, it matters how we behave.

Peter says:

12:32pm | 17/09/10

@ Bobster, your beliefs have no place my world. I was not a fish. If you wan’t me out of your world, well i want your out of mine. Your crazy world were you have guys in white lab coats picking up rocks and claiming that is further proof of no God and you believing everything they just because you want to prove only to yourself that your right, well, i can’t help you.

I did not seek to intrude in your life, but by virtue of you trying to shut people of faith out of public debate, the world doesn’t need people like you.

Your athiesism seems to have turned you into a dictator… Every dictator eventually get rejected..

Bobster says:

01:05pm | 17/09/10

@ Peter,

Sorry mate, but if you’re arguing from a platform that says you choose not to believe in science then you’re out.

You can have your say all you want on real world matters, you can argue about health, employment or education until the cows come home - it’s your democratic right.

But, if your position is laws should be made (or not made) to accommodate you because you hold unfounded beliefs, then you’re arguments are invalid.

If you want your beliefs to be imposed on the rest of society you’re going to have to do better than faith. You’re going to need proof.

I could argue that I have a deity that insists it’s a mortal sin to pay tax - perhaps I should if it’s likely to create a set of circumstances that would absolve me from that responsibility - but I’m pretty sure people will insist on solid evidence if I want the law changed.

You’re in the same boat with your beliefs.

No one cares what you think about the origins of the universe because your beliefs are utterly invalid in terms of public policy - so when it comes to abortion, euthanasia, marriage or any of the other areas the religious like to bleat about, the “god doesn’t like it argument” has no standing.

P.S, A quick note on dictatorships: What would you say to a human leader who insisted you declared eternal love for him under threat of eternal torture if you did not?

Peter says:

01:21pm | 17/09/10

@ Bobster. God gave you free will to do as you please.

If your science is based on the type of university students i imagine that would spend all day brushes dust off old bones (probably smoking a few reefers along the way), telling us it 250,568,423 years old and pronouncing that stuff as proof of no God, then it’s your just clinging to anything to adhere to this new religion i call athiesm.

In the 1800’s if you were totally devoted to science you would be screaming until you were blue in the face that the sun was made of coal.

Science is not the ultimate truth in the matter and your just repeating those same mistakes scientists made in the past. Unless you want to tell me that science is the one and only, 100% perfect, no fault, can’t argue truth. Is that what you are saying?

Bobster says:

02:09pm | 17/09/10

@ Peter,

In a sense I suppose I am saying that, but not for the reasons you assert as you appear to basically misunderstand what science is.

Science is simply the method by which we find things out, and given that the scientific method has given rise to objects such as the computer you are presently typing on, I think there is sufficient evidence to say there is substance to it.

The same can’t be said of religion and least of all the Abrahamic religions which lifted even their moral philosophy from pre-existing cultures.

But, if yuo are really suggesting I need to explain what science is to you, then I think it’s fair to say you are the sort of person that rejects and refuses to engage with any position that does not agree with their own, which again, makes you an inferior contributor to any public discourse.

I have read the Bible (several times) but it appears you haven’t bothered to engage in the same level of research simply because you made a prima facie decision that you don’t want to hear arguments you don’t agree with.

Peter says:

04:00pm | 17/09/10

@ Bobster, science has a place for understanding certain things, and spirituality is a path for understanding other aspects of life. If you don’t feel like a spritual being that doesn’t affect my life. But i won’t be denounced by people who pretend that science has in someway disproved God, when it simply hasn’t.

Obviously by your logic and blind unquestionable faith in science, your not worthy of contributing to this debate either, especially as you have gone out of your way to display yourself as the typical person Penbo writes about. But i won’t be told to shut up because my views don’t match yours.

Also, re the earth is flat was a religious thing, can you tell me where it says that in the bible? or was it an early silly scientific claim which scientists are running away from now and blaming the other side as coming up with that one?

Also in this natural selection world of your, why did nature select humans? Was it so we can redirect rivers? Plunder resources? Destroy ecosystems? Burn a hole in the ozone layer? To kill each other for money? I just don’t see what role we play in this natural world of selection you talk about….

Be Well..

Steely Dan says:

04:57pm | 17/09/10

@ Peter

“Also in this natural selection world of your, why did nature select humans? Was it so we can redirect rivers?... I just don’t see what role we play in this natural world of selection you talk about….”
Does the existence of gravity imply that our ‘role’ is to be pulled towards the centre of the earth?  Natural selection is a naturally occurring process - not a script that we play a part in.

Peter says:

08:08pm | 17/09/10

@ Steely Dan. “Does the existence of gravity imply that our ‘role’ is to be pulled towards the centre of the earth? ” Yes.. Is this a trick question or are you now telling me that the existance of gravity is further proof of no God? Next you’ll be telling us cornflakes is proof of no God because you observed them. Perhaps it was that science test you did in school where you discovered that cornflakes absorb more milk than ricebubbles..

The 2 most flamable gases in the world, hydrogen and oxygen combine to make the worlds best fire extinguisher, water. A bit of humour from God? Just an accident? I really don’t know, but because i observed this,it it does not stregthen my case at all..

Patrick says:

10:41am | 18/09/10

Peter, we’ve been through this before. We’re not fish-peanut-mutants, irreducible complexity is a load of horseshit, and believing words written 2000 years ago by - to us - morons, rather than the collective works of thousands of people, and hundreds of years of scientific investigation as to the origins of the universe and Earth, is pretty arrogant and dismissive of people who worked their entire lives to prove their one little piece of the puzzle was right.

Your version just takes the word from a few hundred people who decided what went in the Bible and what was dumped in the Dead Sea, and says that everyone else’s observations are null and void, because OBVIOUSLY gods just tricking them.

Peter, radiocarbon-dating is not just picking up a frigging rock and saying “DUH THIS LOOKS OLD”, or making a sweeping statement about anything. It’s about proof, and that’s a basic concept many religious people find hard to accept, because your view of the world requires the very absence of proof, the utterly retarded view of “faith” against all evidence.

Steely Dan says:

02:48pm | 19/09/10

@ Peter

“Yes.. Is this a trick question or are you now telling me that the existance of gravity is further proof of no God?”
Wow.  Does that mean that we’re pissing off god if we jump or fly planes?  If natural selection occurs (and it does) we don’t play a ‘role’ in it any more than we play a ‘role’ in tectonic shifts or gravity or bird migration or tides.  Sometimes they affect us, sometimes we can affect them.  These are natural processes - they are descriptions, not prescriptions.  Do you understand?

Satan says:

02:44pm | 16/09/10

If you’re that clever how come I exist?

Believer says:

04:11pm | 16/09/10

@God, I still haven’t heard back from you about that Lottery thing.  Or, for that matter, the Rolls.  No hurry.  After nap time, perhaps?

Peter says:

04:02pm | 17/09/10

@ Believer, if every lottery wish got answered, the weekly jackpot would be about 27 cents…

Tedd says:

03:39pm | 16/09/10

and Pol Pot was educated for 7-9 years in a Catholic school, the Ecole Miche, in Phnom Penh

GalapagosPete says:

04:18pm | 16/09/10

“I doubt the Pope would send birthday greetings to an Atheist every year (he doesn’t send one to me each year).”

That’s because you never call, you never write…

P. Darvio says:

07:24pm | 16/09/10

I’ll send HIM a letter now…...

Jon says:

04:37pm | 16/09/10

I saw that Q&A and felt the same way. Burke, Bishop, Fielding and Jones made me cringe.

Mayday says:

05:52pm | 16/09/10

Totally agree.

Richard Dawkins was almost “pope like” in his demeanor, as a guest on the panel he was treated with contempt and the naivety displayed by the host and fellow panel members was indeed cringeworthy!

Reg says:

03:16pm | 16/09/10

Lovely,  except for your starting point.

Tedd says:

03:35pm | 16/09/10

You’re dead wrong, Sam.

Other (rational) Sam says:

06:46pm | 16/09/10

Nope.  In death, we are either incinerated or we rot away. End of story. No revelations.

Peter says:

01:12pm | 17/09/10

Athiest’s (the minority) want people of faith out of the picture entirely. Just read this forum. It’s not about rocking the boat, it’s about telling everyone to get stuffed, it’s our way or the highway…

Dawkins is a very clever man, why doesn’t he lay out some old bones for us and explain why that is proof of no God.

I have in image in my head about what university students who studied brushing off sand off old bones, and i reckon they have smoked one too many. How old was that? 3,768,423 years old… Ok

v says:

05:27pm | 16/09/10

Everyone suffers from events, often perceived as negative, in life.  The existance of God has nil affect on whether sh*t happens to you or not.  Why should your friend “accept his grace and ask forgiveness”?  If my mother died and I believed in a meddling god, I’d be angry too. 

Lucky for me, I have a rational understanding of the world and an ethical world-view which serves me well most days.  It is, of course, up to the individual to deal with these sorts of life events the best way they can.  As for you, delusion is obviously a wonderful thing.  When you can prove to me that there is purpose in all the terrible things that happen in this world, I might start to believe.  I won’t hold my breath. 

A far more rational explaination for most of these things is people’s quest for power and wealth ... and organised religions are not immune from this quest either.

Reg says:

06:32pm | 16/09/10

Evolution thrives on imperfection, why should anyone expect otherwise, it is not logical. He who rails at imperfection will find the happiness he seeks.

Perfection is stagnation.

Sam says:

06:35pm | 16/09/10

Sally says:04:38pm | 16/09/10
A family friend spat invective at me when she raged against ‘God killing my mother when I was only 5’
She had held this rage for 60 something years. But what intrigued me was that she clearly believes in Him, that she is just angry at Him. She didn’t see it this way, so
she either is angry at the one true God or
she doesn’t believe He exists in which case she can drop the anger.
because there is no-one to blame.

Actually, I would love to know how any of you god-botherers know that yours is “the one true god”, when there are so many to chose from.  You can’t all be right, so therefore the majority of you are plainly wrong.
You then went on and accidentalloy stumbled on the truth when you said “because there is no-one to blame.” You are so right. There is no-one out there to blame. You are a mental midget who needs an emotional crutch to get you through life. You are like a heroin addict. You have no free will.

As long as religion has a bearing on the laws of the land (who I can marry, my taxes support the tax free status of churches, euthenasia to name but a few areas), I feel no respect for and I feel justified in speaking out against religion.

On the question of athiests in general critisizing bible bashers, maybe you noticed a recent election campaign where your mob abused Gillard throughout for being an athiest.  What goes around comes around.

Just sayin' says:

06:40pm | 16/09/10

“she could accept his grace and ask forgiveness”

If your god exists, I think the onus is on that prick to ash her forgiveness.

Max says:

12:40am | 17/09/10

Because if god existed and were really omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, there would be no bad things, especially not ones that occur outside of human control. If god were perfect, how/ why would he create something that is imperfect?

Also, why does god threaten people with infinite punishment for a finite crime?

flamin hypocrites says:

06:51pm | 16/09/10

SlimJim, if you have any idea about the history of the world over the last thousand years or so, you would know that your form of christianity (catholic) is one of the worst. They educated the moslems in murder and torture with their crusades, and today we are reaping the rewards. As in ‘what you sow, so shall you reap’

cc says:

08:11pm | 16/09/10

If all Theists were like you, Atheists would need be no louder than you. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Reg says:

09:41am | 17/09/10

I agree with you H. Augustin but this is an antagonistic situation where the non-religious have only recently felt motivated to challenge the power of religion. There is still a social price to be paid for doing this because the religious see such criticism as a personal affront and depict their critics as attackers and enemies.

For Christians and all the rest with the assumed “Power of God” on their side, all “attackers” are dismissed as the evil enemies of God who at one time would have been justifiably killed. Is it any wonder we needed to devise laws to restrain eager groups of the gods of various fantasies. 

The over-riding problem is, can we afford the risk of turning such fanatical people loose in our halls of government?

hot tub political machine says:

10:24am | 17/09/10

The non-religious have only recently felt motivated to challenge religion? See this goes back to my first bugbear with the new atheism – just no knowledge of the history, this is not new its thousands of years old, and its much less violent than it used to be

Sherekahn says:

09:47am | 17/09/10

The ONLY God is NATURE.
There is ample evidence everywhere, even as far as the eye cannot see!
it has no vice or beneficense, it just IS.

Jon says:

11:41am | 17/09/10

Thanks Anna, atheist seems to be loud because when they use verifiable historical facts, reason and logic in discussions with the religious, it can make the faithful look a little foolish, even when it is sincerely unintended.

Peter says:

08:41pm | 17/09/10

Yes Robbo, us religious types are so stupid. We’ve been programmed and you’ve been deprogrammed. What special environment did you live in that the rest of us “programmed” types didn’t.. My parents never took me to church, never bible bashed, my mum is a big doubter, my farther is a believer.

Ok Robbo, we are all brainwashed except you athiests because you know everything. My God i never knew i’d live in the day and age where human beings know everything like Robbo, Dawkins and that other drunk guy…. Ummm let’s see if history even remembers these people in let’s say 50 years just to be generous…

Jesus Lives On… and on and on…..

Pi Guy says:

11:08pm | 19/09/10

@Peter:
“Ummm let’s see if history even remembers these people in let’s say 50 years just to be generous…”

I’ll take that bet. My counter: let’s see if they remember that Jesus lives on and on and on….............. (and you sure like ellipses - eh?)

“My God i never knew i’d live in the day and age where human beings know everything like Robbo, Dawkins and that other drunk guy….”

You don’t have to know everything to know that, when a believer accuses non-believers of “knowing” and then assert that “Jesus Lives!” with certainty, the argument is over because you’ve inserted the first non-truth. You lose.

2nd coming of Robbo says:

05:01pm | 20/09/10

Dear Peter
when I first read you, (the comment not the Gospel according to), I thought nice sarcasm. Not the “stupid”  bit (that is possibly true) but the part where you accuse others of knowing everything when in fact you already have the answers. (Except that point about me being an atheist. I am in fact agnostic, hence the almost prophetic little joke in the brackets) 
Since I have just confessed that I don’t know what to believe I was hoping that you might help.  But alas true to “faith” you will just believe without proof (being remembered in 50 years does not suffice).  For me “Programming” at least explains how otherwise intelligent and coherent people can hold and even promote “Faith” in all its illogicality.  Since you go to some lengths to say that you have it without being programmed then I can only conclude that you are neither.  (Though it is sad that you were not close to your Dad.)

Yes Faith in whomever will live on and on in the minds of those who have been programmed to believe it.  That is only logical.
Oh yeah and thanks 3.14159265 ...... see ellipses can be useful

Steely Dan says:

02:36pm | 17/09/10

Yep, equally mad.  I’m not as concerned because the spiritualists tend to 1) convert from traditional religious backgrounds and 2) not be as keen to force their beliefs on others as traditional religions.

Zatnikatal says:

03:05pm | 17/09/10

I am. I have faith without God, working out pretty nice. I studied history and came to rational conclusion that religion is created by people for a whole lot of reasons. Religion is the issue, faith and the spirit should be kept out of it.

Reg says:

07:42pm | 17/09/10

Give us a clue Owl. Do you mean Hillsong or some other variant of ostentatious consumption? The ones who believe democracy is evil?

I suppose you could call that Spiritual but I’m more inclined to see the traditional material pursuits as found in everyday life.

Japples says:

03:39pm | 17/09/10

Or perhaps they believe that the other’s worldview negatively impacts on the world, and are attempting to mitigate the perceived threat.

And that “interesting phenomena” which you mention seems to conveniently assist in the increasing of the power of one’s organisation. A coincidence that the world’s most powerful religions follow such a creed?

Tedd says:

03:33pm | 17/09/10

You are your own Dad.

Jesus says:

01:09am | 18/09/10

This religion stuff blows your mind doesn’t it

Sickemrex says:

03:49pm | 18/09/10

Ah, “show me the evidence”.  That’s why we’ll never win.  There is the remotest, tiniest, slightest possibility that some sort of god exists and he/she/it chooses not to provide evidence of him/her/itself.  So there is the same miniscule possibility that one day, a believer will be able to prove to us that god exists.

However, we can’t prove god doesn’t exist.  We just can’t.  Yeah, I know, the onus of proof is on the believers, Celestial Teapot and all that, I’ve tried that one in civilised conversation with some believers I know.  They don’t have to prove anything to anyone because they have faith which it is apparently rude to question or challenge because it’s their faith.  And you can’t disrespect the faith, man.  Twisted kind of logic isn’t it?  We are wrong because we can’t prove something doesn’t exist.  Too many negatives for one sentence but there it is.  So ironic the pope said yesterday that it’s the church’s job to shine the light of reason on stuff.

I tried really hard as a kid in a revivalist Sunday school to believe but just couldn’t manage it.

Glad to see Mr Penberthy left Bertrand Russell alone.

xyz says:

02:09pm | 19/09/10

Good on you Zoe… keep those rose coloured glasses firmly attached to your face!

Reg says:

03:35pm | 19/09/10

Zoe, some may regard you as fortunate to have stayed on a plane of child-like trust with expectations of something better to come, but others will regard you as constrained by the limitations of your unfounded religious beliefs. I’m with the latter.

Merely looking around at the plethora of belief each with tissue thin foundations should cause you to wonder if you’re on the right track. Foundations, I should point out, that most religions work to stiffen with Earthly edifices. Even your observations come into this category as you work to stiffen your resolve my Earthly observations.

Logical criticism is not mocking, but to hold firmly to your beliefs without any prospect of modifying them is self-mocking and calls into play all sorts adjectives that you would find offensive.

Having been through the hoops several times I have decided that god and religion are the products of human frailty that illustrate how easily some are seduced by whimsical thoughts. The peace I have found in coming to this decision far exceeds anything religion ever offered.

But while it’s nice to paint religion is colours of the rainbow and the sentiment of child-like innocence, this denies the distraction, tragedy, violence and hate it has engendered and continues to engender.

All in all and on Earthly observations, religion offers very little except a distraction to those who would otherwise be quite bored. No mocking.

zoe says:

08:18pm | 19/09/10

Not mocking, Reg? Just slightly patronising then.  You assume that I have never strayed from my child like trust.  I question constantly I have studied other religions and bible history and always come back where I am.  There was a time when I even walked away because I was swayed by the likes of Dawkins but I came back.  Because I realised that they have even less answers.  Do you really think a world without belief in God (keep it separate from religion) would be better?  Do a bit of history and you’ll find there’s a huge number of horrors committed against Christians, they were in those concentration camps as well, people have been killed in China for possessing a Bible.  The atheists are always so tolerant.

If you actually knew as much about Christianity as you purport to you could not truly think that atrocities committed for religious reasons were seriously committed by real Christians.  Love your neighbour as yourself ring any bells? if we are meant to follow that command then we really shouldn’t be killing them.

Austin 3:16 says:

09:03pm | 19/09/10

Hey Zoe, in this world of ours that we currently have the USA rates as the most Christian 1st world society that there is.  There is not a developed nation on earth that has as a higher proportion of believers in God than the USA. However it doesn’t rate (on any measure) as the best society that there is.  (See the works of Zuckerman, Paul or the like).  Whereas some of the societies with a much lower belief in God rate as better places to live.  So if societies with a lower belief in God can be ‘better’ than one with a higher level of belief then why wouldn’t a world with lower belief in God also be better ?

Your evidence in God also seems a little lacking, remember the good ol days when God could raise the dead, knock down city walls, raze cities of the face of the earth, summon killer bears all that great stuff. Must make it tough on the believer nowadays to have to look at a forest and pretend that’s down to him. You’re getting gypped.

xyz says:

11:25pm | 19/09/10

Zoe, you do realise that Hitler was a Catholic Christian, don’t you?

DG says:

09:56am | 20/09/10

Zoe -

In response to your criticism of the trials faced by Christians at the hands of atheists I think that it is worth nothing that atheists are not united in their beliefs.

Their only necessary commonality is the absence of belief in a deity. Trying to bind a non-group by their lack of belief is troublesome. You, presumably, do not believe in Zeus, there are plenty of others who do not believe in Zeus and have done horrific things - should you be grouped with those people? Clearly this is not an appropriate categorisation. It is clear that the belief, or lack there of, in such a case is not relevant to the behaviour of that few.

You see evidence of God “everywhere, in my children, at the beach, at the snow, in beautiful rainforests, in every single individual in the world.” because you make the default presumption that there is a god. Your argument is essentially “Beauty, therefore God”. Beauty not more explains or confirms the presence of God than death proves the existence of the Grim Reaper. The personification of nature has a long history, however such personification is not based on anything more than the desire of the witness to seek meaning - Where you look and see “God”, Wiccans see “Life force”, the Aboriginal dreamtime (and various others) sees Mother nature or Mother Earth.

That said, this is not intended as mocking - simply the observation that your logic is circular. You state that you see evidence of God yet fail to explain how this confirms the presense of Yahweh. I could conceded that it is not inconsistent with a Deistic approach to the world - but that is still a long way short of this very specific deity.

You, somewhat indirectly, suggest that your belief in God is linked to your need for a purpose to life/existence/the world. I ask, why does there need to be a purpose? Not why do you need there to be a purpose, but why must there be a purpose? You are seeking a purpose but can not explain why you believe that such a purpose must exist.

I, personally, see no need for a purpose. Life exists, it is simply a series of chemical reactions that can be observed and that can be controlled and changed by the application of other chemicals and may be terminated by the administration of, or denial of access to, yet other chemicals. The ‘purpose’ of each entity is determined by the experiences of that entity - perhaps deriving from something as base as “I do not want to be like my parents”, and as fine as “I want a [brandname] [model] car”.

This is based on the null hypothesis that, in the absence of satisfactory evidence of a deity, there is no evidence to support a ‘purpose’. A purpose requires a sentient being to have determined it. However, the personal purpose determined by experience is demonstrable almost universally. Ironically, the fact that most persons share a religion with ones parents or the local community is consistent with the ” individual purpose derived from experience” hypothesis.

I would be intrigued to hear from you why there must be a purpose to life, the universe and everything (without a circular argument that presumes the existence of a Deity), and secondly, if such a purpose does exist - how does it relate to the existence of the God of Abraham that you worship.

I have, at this stage, refrained from asking questions regarding your particular flavour of Christianity as there are so many that it is impossible to discuss without one’s interlocutor defining their image of God.

Just Sayin' says:

04:49pm | 20/09/10

We atheists shall take your failure to disprove spaghetti monsterism as proof of his existence.  It’s only fair…

(Yes, I appreciate that failure to disprove existence is not proof or non-existence and that the burden of proof is on those who claim existence.  You can write off spaghetti monsterism as ‘amusing’, but it is designed to illustrate a very important logical point - that just because failure to disprove existence is not proof or non-existence, it doesn’t mean that every crazy claim has merit)

austin 3:16 says:

11:56am | 21/09/10

Ahh yes Atheism is a religion, much like not-playing-tennis is a sport. I myself have not won over 50 davis cup matches for Australia by not-playing-tennis. Yet that Hewitt fella get’s all the attention.

What’s the matter with faith that so many of the relgious are so ashamed of it that they must point to the athiest and exclaim “But he has it too ”

Pi Guy says:

08:09am | 20/09/10

“Truly, it’s only if we take the time to really listen to the real person and their life story that we earn the right to make any meaningful pronouncements.”

Are _you_ listening to anything that the non-godbots are saying? Sounds like NOT.

“I think your argument from beauty and aesthetics is far deeper, more potent and powerful than many realize… “

Sure. Because, if it’s beautiful and aesthetic, it _must_ be because goddidit.

Solid case for - what, exactly? Here’s why anti-theists discredit it belief: because it relies on belief. You have to believe first. There’s no reason to believe other than that you believe. Circular argument. Logic: epic fail.

Fortunately for believers, you two are not the vanguard of hope for spreading the word. You’ve done nothing even remotely convincing.

DG says:

10:06am | 20/09/10

James -

I like the apparent distinction between atheist and anti-theists.

Hopefully this distinction carries on further and then those of us that are atheists can get on with not caring what others believe in so long as they comply with the law.

Reg says:

12:24pm | 20/09/10

Last I heard, beauty and aesthetics were in the eye of the beholder so I guess the - solid case- Zoe makes is totally from her perspective. Superficiality in the extreme.

“Real person” and “life story” are not legitimate components in the god equation which is supposed to be universal.  But hang on, it is Zoe who is making pronouncements based on her colour receptors and the particular white balance in her vicinity. I repeat, very superficial observations upon which to “pronounce” there is an infinite god.

DG says:

10:04am | 20/09/10

PI Guy -

You are assuming that atheists are some sort of group with common reasoning, common philosophy and common objections to religion.

Not all atheists have an objection to religion. Many are simply apathetic to religion or give no thought to the existence of a God.

Equally, I imagine that I am not alone in caring where people derive their personal morality from and, in a democracy, if the majority wish to based their rules on a religious ideology they may. If the Christians wanted to get together and make adultery a criminal offence they could do so. They can derive their idea of the world from tea leaves if they so choose, and they can vote accordingly in elections.

In summary -  thing things that you mentioned are the things that fire you up. They may also fire up other people, but they are hardly the position of “atheists” when the only thing that atheists have in common (necessarily) is the absence of a belief in a Deity.

Just Sayin' says:

04:31pm | 20/09/10

Pi Guy - Penbo gave away the fact that he was not really an atheist in his first sentence:  “My faith in atheism is being tested by born-agains”

Atheism is not a faith position, Penbo.  It is the absence of faith.  If you have faith in ‘atheism’, you’re just weird.

Evengelical atheists?  When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door on Saturday morning to share the word of not -god with you, and to try and sell you a copy of “The Selfish Gene”?

PS ‘Evangelical atheist’ is an oxymoron.

Snowtiger says:

01:53pm | 15/10/10

I can see how you feel Cara and I agree with you mainly but why do you feel that your only option is attack?

“When those people try to dictate MY life choices because of their religion,  what are my options but to attack?”

I wanted to respond to your reply because it sounds very honest and simple and not aggressive. Which is a relief to find in a debate/ discussion.

It seems like there’s nothing like getting our ‘blood to boil’ then talk about our most precious beliefs. And I agree why can’t we feel comfortable with others views, beliefs and opinions? Why can’t we learn to respect our own cherished views and offer others that same respect? And what do we do when we feel some one has violated those sacred boundaries? Whether we believe in a God or not?

Do we need a God in order to be moral? Isn’t it enough that moral behavior makes us feel whole as a human? Whether that wholeness comes from God or from our reasoning?

But I will leave it open as I too wouldn’t know how to respond if someone tries to cross MY sacred line of personal beliefs.

Thank you for your reply…

dephlogisticated says:

09:21am | 22/09/10

No, Jo. It has to do with using logic and reason as a guide to knowledge and wisdom, instead of mysticism and revelation, like you.

Oh, and by the way, take a course in Ethics. You know Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Hippocrates, to name a few; the Stoics, the Hellenics, the humanists, the secularists, and hence, the atheists. Do you know about any of this? 

They came up with all of that 400 years before your Jesus was a twinkle in Mary’s eye.

And I know that anthropology is way beyond you, so I’ll give that one a rest.

Dennis says:

07:57pm | 22/09/10

Jesus is only mentioned in two historical documents that are contemporary or near contemporary to the life and death of Jesus: the bible and the writings of Josephus. The entry in Josephus seems to have been added when it was copied well after the original was written. This is based on the radical change in writing style. In reality there is little evidence outside the bible that Jesus did walk the Earth. Some scholars even go as far as to suggest Jesus was an amalgum of a number of messiahs wandering around Palestine at the beginning of the first millenia.

In reputable dictionaries, there are two definitions of the word theory. The one you are using in relation to evolution is that it is an approximation or even a guess. Scientists, which include those who study evolution, use the word theory to describe an explanation for a phenomenon that has been used to predict the results of tests and discoveries. There of proof that life forms evolve, and yes humans began to evolve from that sludge you would probably want to wipe off your shoes about 4 billion years. I do, however, congratulate you on not claiming evolution says human evolved from monkeys; we just have a common ancestor.

The argument for a first cause is a common logical fallacy. When a scientist hears this she simply enquires, if a god were needed to create the Universe, who created the creator, then who created that creator etc, etc. In his latest book Stephen Hawking states clearly that science can now explain the Universe without the need to call on a creator.

Also, I might be wrong, but wasn’t there a mere four days between Jesus dying and his mum claiming she saw him leaving for heaven. Further, according to the bible, only his mum and perhaps some close family saw this alleged event. If you want to read a devastating repudiation of the bible with its contradictions, incitement to kill, support for slavery and degradation of women, read Dan Barker’s book Godless. Dan was a former evangelical Christian before he lost faith in faith and became an atheist.

I could go on, but, frankly, I am getting bored.

I note you quoted Matthew, but I would focus more on Ezekiel 23:1-22

Austin 3:16 says:

09:17pm | 22/09/10

Gravity is also a theory Matthew, how’s that working out for you ? And a folk tale from the middle east, written decades after the subject of the tale died, is not awfully convincing.  Maybe he was just a fiction, not the Lord (which he didn’t actually claim now did he)

Malcolm says:

08:32am | 23/09/10

Hello chaps, again I think you are missing the point of my initial statement. I am not trying to discredit your belief or, if your like lack of belief, I am asking you to consider the full body of evidence.

I agree that religion has done a lot of harm and this is in the name of God. But I believe this if because man is inherently evil in his core and needs an overseer to guide him. When man is left to his own devices and power he builds the tower of Bable, he tries to conquer the known world, he commits genocide, he starves the poor whilst he sits in luxury… it goes on. Religion is man made! God created man for relationship, love for love… if you have experienced the love of a fellow human and reciprocated that love you would know that you would be will to do anything for that love, maybe even sacrifice! But look again at the article above:

“The God Delusion starts off promising a reasoned and scientific examination of why there is and can be no God, but soon descends into schoolyard teasing of the flying spaghetti monster variety.

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

The irony here is that the thing which has always fired up atheists, such as me, is a dislike of the righteousness which many religious people display.”  - David Penberthy

Mr. Penberthy has hit the nail on the head. When atheist, sceptics, agnostics etc.. meet a real Christian, not a religious follower but a Christ follower, they can only resort to ‘schoolyard’ tactics and anger at the righteouness of their changed lives.

I encourage you to google a guy name Tony Hoang and see what a relationship with Jesus has the power to do.

Austin 3:16 says:

02:40pm | 23/09/10

Hey Malcom,

“The tendency of man’s nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards. Now by striking water and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead, and, by damming
and leading it you may force it up a hill;—but are such movements according to the nature of water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are made to do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in this way.”
Mencius

If man was inherrently evil our society would cease to exist in any kind of coherrent form. 

Before I sought out a relationship with Jesus wouldn’t it make more sense to work out if Jesus actually exists or not. Further if you actually read that ol bible you’d notice that God isn’t always a very nice fella. Sometimes he’s downright sociopatic.