Mathematicians have released a study that made for great headlines, including:

(A fairly tenuous link but a mention of religious songs, and I’ll take any excuse to listen to Tim Minchin)

Faith no more! From New Zealand to Canada, religion ``to become extinct’’ in nine countries.

Study Finds Religion May Be Heading for Extinction in Parts of World.

Researchers Predict the End of Religion.

The US researchers had used a mathematical model to declare that organised religion is dying out in Austria, the Czech Republic, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Switzerland - and Australia.

Their basic argument, unveiled at an American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, is that people who claim no religious affiliation are the fastest growing religious minority in many countries throughout the world. (Note that they define people with no religious affiliation as still being a religious group).

Their modelling of social systems shows that people tend to gravitate towards being in the majority - a sort of conformity black hole effect where people find it more useful to be the norm rather than the exception.

Or, as the mathematicians say: ``A single parameter quantifying the perceived utility of adhering to a religion determines whether the unaffiliated group will grow in society’‘.

Hmmm.

There are some clear limitations in what maths can tell you about people. They may tend to join the majority, but that doesn’t logically mean the remaining minority will vanish.

If that were true, no one would use Apple desktop computers or non-Apple smartphones, no one would eat meat in India, the Baha’i would not exist in Iran, and Christian minorities in the Middle East would have gone the way of the dodo.

So ``extinct’‘, then, is a clumsy overstatement of the otherwise very interesting findings that add to a growing amount of research showing that people are turning off organised religion.

But while membership of established churches may be declining, God is not yet dead.

In today’s secular(ish) society fewer people would tick the religion that they were born into as a matter of course - so they may still believe in God and go to church for weddings and funerals, but not necessarily identify as Christian.

The more interesting part of this research, then, is that people choose the path that is more useful for them, and they are no longer finding organised religion as useful as in the past. This will mean fewer defined religious spaces. What would that look like?

I’m in an optimistic frame of mind and would like to think that even with less mainstream religion people would volunteer for and donate to non-government organisations and charities, most of which have a religious basis.

That is another argument for sorting out the tax system so churches do not get tax exemptions merely for existing, but only for their charitable works.

The worst effect, I imagine, would be that so many people depend on the church for a sense of community, for solace, for friendship and other support.

Churches play a cornerstone role in otherwise disparate communities - a role that secular organisations have not yet filled.

While I would argue until I’m blue in the face that religion, and the magical thinking that often accompanies it, have no place in our legal and political processes, religion is - at this stage, but maybe not forever - still useful in society.

245 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • True Believer says:

      05:35am | 29/03/11

      Man-made religion is certainly emptying denominational buildings. Too much of man, not enough of the good Lord - where He is, people flock, when He withdraws denominations become dry and without life.  But Tory the Living God will never die I can assure you of that, much as atheists would like to have the “magical thinking” that He is has/will. :0) 

      There is an upsurge of new Christians are every day in countries where people are not so overwhelmed by materialism and rationalism that they have lost sight of their true reason for living.

    • Michael K says:

      06:50am | 29/03/11

      Is the ‘Living God’ a Seahorse in a Snow Globe? I would flock to a seahorse living in a shelf ornament!

      Where people are not so overwhelmed by materialism and education, Christian religion is burgeoning? I’d wager that in countries where there are high-levels of food security, plenty of employment, and robust educational opportunities, people have time to be rational and ponder “their true reason for living.” On the other hand, if I was in the midst of food scarcity I might look to the “Seahorse in the Snow Globe” - or its other magical “Living God” equivalent - to solve my many ills, if only for a lack of more rational options.

    • Seano says:

      06:59am | 29/03/11

      “There is an upsurge of new Christians are every day in countries where people are not so overwhelmed by materialism and rationalism”

      Or education.

    • Kevin says:

      07:07am | 29/03/11

      “Where He is, people flock”.  Islam, being the fastest growing religion, must be “where He is”.  Sorry TB, you’ve been listening to the wrong voice inside your head.

    • Tubesteak says:

      07:48am | 29/03/11

      People like True Believer prove that there will always be naive, ignorant, vacuous and desperate people who need to believe in fairytales to get them through the day because they can’t face reality without something to cling to.

      They’d be a laughing stock if they hadn’t infiltrated many parts of society and frighteningly dictated many facets of our lives for centuries.

    • Flied Lice says:

      08:05am | 29/03/11

      The new style of Born Again christians are a business, not a religion TB.
      Your ignorance is blinding, don’t you know that Scientology is the only true faith. Become a thetan not a cretin.

    • matthew says:

      08:45am | 29/03/11

      Man made religion??? as apposed to what, naturally occurring religion??

    • TheRealDave says:

      08:56am | 29/03/11

      Man Made religion - as in Christianity, a wholly man made construct that lifts nearly all its basic precepts from religions that came before it.

      That kind of Man-made religion you mean?

    • Wix says:

      09:25am | 29/03/11

      There will always be religion.  It’s obvious that many who roundly condemn religion, in particular, Christianity, are those now bowing down to Gaia and the Global Warming religion.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:43am | 29/03/11

      Yeah…no Wix. Plenty of us who ‘condemn religion’ do so because we can actually think critically for ourselves and don’t have the overwhelming need to fill voids in our lives with ‘belonging’ to something…no matter how patently absurd

    • Michael N says:

      11:12am | 29/03/11

      Man Made religion sounds clumsy… Can we call it Anthropogenic Religion or AR for short?

    • mike j says:

      11:13am | 29/03/11

      You sure pick some controversial topics for someone who doesn’t like hearing other people’s opinions, Tory.

    • True Believer says:

      01:31pm | 29/03/11

      @Seano

      Education is one thing and useful at that, but Wisdom comes with knowing the Living God. That is true Wisdom. Human wisdom comes to with age and experiece, but it is a poor replica to the real thing knowing Him brings.

    • True Believer says:

      01:31pm | 29/03/11

      @Seano

      Education is one thing and useful at that, but Wisdom comes with knowing the Living God. That is true Wisdom. Human wisdom comes to with age and experiece, but it is a poor replica to the real thing knowing Him brings.

    • Seano says:

      02:18pm | 29/03/11

      What a load of wishy washy claptrap. Subjective rhetoric about a magic super friend isn’t wisdom any more than the thousands of other unsubstatiated beliefs about fictional characters are about wisdom.  It’s about giving up your ability to think critically or taking personal responsiblity for your own successes and failings.

    • Seano says:

      02:19pm | 29/03/11

      Oh and isn’t wonderful and telling that the more educated people become the less relevant religion becomes.

    • True Believer says:

      02:31pm | 29/03/11

      @The Real Dave

      Jesus is not religion and religion is not Jesus.  Denominationalism may be man-made - I am not talking about denominations though. I realise you are unable at this point to understand the difference. One day you will. :0)

      Perhaps you could enlighten us about what “things” fill the void in your life. Do they bring, divine love, hope, peace, joy, assurance??????

      @Michael K
      Your comment is so childish and rude it is barely worthy of an answer.  You need to look beyond the end of your nose to find out what is really real.

      @Kevin

      I am not talking about “religions” as Islam is.  I am talking about Jesus and you have no idea the growth that is taking place with people turning to Him across the world.  The Western World has thrown the baby out with the bathwater so numbers dwindle, but there are still more Christians here than Muslims I assure you.

      The allusion to “voice in my head” is a crude use of other’s suffering (mental illness) to insult. Sorry that is very immature. Just shows you know nothing about psychiatry nor about Christianity. Talk to me when your education for life is more complete.

      @Tubespeak

      You talk such nonsense if only you realised it.  I understand it is currently beyond your comprehension so you resort to atheistic insults. Your problem, not mine.

      @Flied Lice

      The fact you make that erroneous comment indicates you have no idea what being born again means.  Such ignorance.  Broaden your horizons. :0)  There is much more to know.

      @Wix - I don’t know about religion as such but Jesus is not going anywhere. He will be there long after you and I have popped off the mortal coil.  Thankfully I am going to be with him, where will you be????

    • Kevin says:

      02:57pm | 29/03/11

      Selection of quotes from True Believer -
      “I realise you are unable at this point to understand the difference.”;
      “Your comment is so childish and rude it is barely worthy of an answer.”;
      “that is very immature. Just shows you know nothing about psychiatry nor about Christianity”;
      “You talk such nonsense if only you realised it”;
      “you have no idea what being born again means.  Such ignorance.”.
      And then this:
      “so you resort to atheistic insults”.  LOL
      You, mate, have a lot to learn about “christian humility”.

    • Greg Kasarik says:

      03:05pm | 29/03/11

      I’m a bit concerned about the ability of the “Living God” to get his message across. After 2000 years of violence and repression, he only has about 30% market share.

      Microsoft managed 95% market share after barely 10 years and AFAIK didn’t have to kill anyone to do it.

    • jf says:

      03:11pm | 29/03/11

      “I am not talking about “religions” as Islam is.  I am talking about Jesus”

      Jesus Christ is a prophet in Islam. Ironic that you criticise others for their ignorance.

    • HappyCynic says:

      03:22pm | 29/03/11

      @Greg Kasarik

      Just goes to show if you want something done properly, far better to rely on a man to do it rather than whinging to your respective gods smile

    • Chris L says:

      03:39pm | 29/03/11

      TB you get your only knowledge of this character called Jesus from the bible. Granted you don’t need to follow an organised religion to patron this tome, but the end result is a person who believes that the stories and claims in this book are literally true (if you took it as metaphoric I expect you would have acknowledged Jesus as likely being a similar metaphor, unless you hadn’t thought of that possibility).

      There has been no evidence collated to back up the claims of this book and it has been caught out in contradictions (eg. differing birth stories) factual innacuracies (no census in history required people to return to the town of their birth) and endorsement of barbaric actions (especially, but not limited to, deuteronomy).

      In the end the atheist will regard your standpoint the same way as organised religion. Unverifyable claims bereft of logical progression and any correlation to what has been observed of the natural world.

      All that is fine, however, if we all agree to let each other follow their own path without lobbying for laws and bans designed to modify each other’s behaviour.

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:59pm | 29/03/11

      @True Beleiver - Its simple - My family. And they provide far more joy, love, understanding, happiness, acceptance, companionship etc than any sky fairy and bunch of happy clappers ever could dream of providing.

      If I didn’t have them, then I’d have my mates. The same ones I have had for decades who are still part of my life.

      If I didn’t have them then I’d have myself and the large parts of the daily world I enjoy.

      Not hat many of us are so devoid of happiness, meaning, companionship etc we need to latch onto fairy tales and cosmic ‘you’re a dirty rotten sinner but it all gets better after you die’ crap.

    • True Believer says:

      08:41pm | 29/03/11

      @ JF

        ” Jesus Christ is a prophet in Islam. Ironic that you criticise others for their ignorance.”
      I know what Islam says about what Jesus is to Muslims. I follow what Jesus said about Himself, that He is the Son of God, the Messiah.  He was, is and ever will be much more than a prophet.

    • True Believer says:

      10:12am | 30/03/11

      @Chris

      I had never read the Bible until I met the Author - it only makes sense if you know the Author.  One has to be born again by the Holy Spirit of God by accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour.  Do not talk about things you cannot understand it is foolishness.

    • Horse says:

      11:30am | 30/03/11

      ” .. I met the Author”

      Yeah, ssurrre.

    • True Believer says:

      12:43pm | 30/03/11

      @Horse

      Your point being????

      Are you calling me a liar????

      You do not understand something so you sit in judgement of someone who does understand it - is that it?

    • LC says:

      10:00am | 31/03/11

      @ True Beliver

      The bible is a compliation of stories from hundereds of authors. Which one(s) did you meet?

    • cybacaT says:

      08:51am | 04/04/11

      Well said True Believer.  It’s amazing the disconnect between reality and the warped views of the haters.  The massive volume of good work that Christians do in God’s name is ignored, so that haters can engage in their sport of mockery and sarcasm.  One of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had is when a hater (not just an non-believer, but someone who actively goes out of their way to hate christians) actually opens their mind and God comes in.  It’s brilliant watching the transformation in the lives of these people as they become happier, better parents, better friends, better members of society and less hateful.

    • Horse says:

      10:29am | 04/04/11

      Yes, a lot is done “in Gods name”, but not as a result of interacting directly.

      Now get off my [high] back.

    • True Believer says:

      02:05pm | 06/04/11

      @Horse

      You have much more to learn - so much more. You do not yet understand these things, but one day you will.

      @Lc

      Many people wrote it down, but there is only one Author.

    • Pete says:

      06:23am | 29/03/11

      “There is an upsurge of new Christians are every day in countries ”  ????  Is this happy clapper speak?

    • True Believer says:

      10:07am | 30/03/11

      @Pete
      No it is fact.

    • cybacaT says:

      08:56am | 04/04/11

      The numbers of new Christians in the world - every day - is massive!  I have family in India and China who get to see this first hand.  Christianity is the world’s number 1 religion, and the 2nd fastest growing religion.  Atheism on the other hand, remains a fringe, extremist sect for haters.  I can understand and respect Agnostics, but anyone who has the bare-faced arrogance to claim they know there is no God has some bigger problems going on in their life.

    • Jason Todd says:

      05:52pm | 05/04/11

      cybacaT, with respect, anyone who has the bare faced arrogance to proclaim the unknowable with certainty has some bigger problems going on.  Speak to some more atheists. It is neither fringe, extrimist or ‘for haters’. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, in the sense that I recognise that the question will likely always remain unanswered, however my assessment of the evidence leads me to believe that there is no god and to live my life as such.  I don’t stand on street corners loudly proclaiming to ‘know’ there is no god. Merely that an assessment of the available evidence indicates the existence of a supernatural, omnicient and omipotent creator and caretaker is not the most likely option.

    • True Believer says:

      02:39pm | 06/04/11

      @Jason Todd

      That is what sets the Christian Lord apart - He can be truly known, it is His gift to those who receive Him.  No other god can be known like this.

      I understand where you are coming from, I was once there - but now I know differently and enjoy fellowship with my Creator.  You can know Him too.  He longs to have you get to know Him.

    • xyz says:

      11:16am | 07/04/11

      True Believer…. how is it that you know god but many good people like me don’t? If, as you say, he longs to get to know us, then where is he?

      I’m like Jason Todd, an agnostic atheist (after being brought up as a Christian), so I can’t understand how you can say that you have a knowledge of something that I don’t… it sounds like you have won the lottery and I have been sentenced to eternal damnation just because I don’t believe in your god… a bit harsh don’t you think?

      I’m not saying anything bad will happen to you, but you are saying that something terrible will happen to me… that’s not very nice of you!

    • True Believer says:

      11:57am | 07/04/11

      xyz

      I don’t recall having said anything bad would happen to people. That is between the Lord and them.  He is the judge, not me. If people choose eternal separation from their Creator that is their choice.

      You say you were “raised a Christian” - I assume by that you mean you were raised in a Christian home. No-one can “raise” a Christian.

      To become a Christian, born-again of the spirit as Jesus said we must - (that is our spirit becomes alive to the Holy Spirit and Jesus is revealed to us) one must accept His gift of life by repentance of sin and inviting Jesus to be Lord and Saviour of our lives.

      God does not have grandchildren.  It is up to you to come to Him and ask for that relationship. That is all I did. Perhaps you should give it a try?  You will never be disappointed I can assure you.

      God said to us “I put before you life and death, choose life” - Jesus says “I stand at the door and knock” - perhaps my friend it is a case of “you have not because you ask not” as Jesus told us.

    • True Believer says:

      11:57am | 07/04/11

      xyz

      I don’t recall having said anything bad would happen to people. That is between the Lord and them.  He is the judge, not me. If people choose eternal separation from their Creator that is their choice.

      You say you were “raised a Christian” - I assume by that you mean you were raised in a Christian home. No-one can “raise” a Christian.

      To become a Christian, born-again of the spirit as Jesus said we must - (that is our spirit becomes alive to the Holy Spirit and Jesus is revealed to us) one must accept His gift of life by repentance of sin and inviting Jesus to be Lord and Saviour of our lives.

      God does not have grandchildren.  It is up to you to come to Him and ask for that relationship. That is all I did. Perhaps you should give it a try?  You will never be disappointed I can assure you.

      God said to us “I put before you life and death, choose life” - Jesus says “I stand at the door and knock” - perhaps my friend it is a case of “you have not because you ask not” as Jesus told us.

    • xyz says:

      03:33pm | 07/04/11

      True Believer…. how is it that you know god but many good people like me don’t? If, as you say, he longs to get to know us, then where is he? Why has he chosen not to show himself to me? Keep in mind that I can’t suddenly decide to believe in something for no reason.

    • True Believer says:

      01:28pm | 09/04/11

      @xyz

      Thank you for your question.  It is not a matter of believing we are “good” in our own eyes or those of other human beings. I thought that too, so I do understant. The truth is, “all fall short of the glory of God”
      so it is not our “goodness” or lack of it. It is His righteousness bought for you and me on the Cross that makes the difference. Why do I know God and you do not?  Once I realised my “goodness” was not recognised by God, no matter how hard I tried I could never be “good” enough in God’s eyes - I repented and askd Jesus to be my Lord and Saviour, to be the Lord of my life. That is when I came to know God. It is very simple, but so many miss it through the deception of human pride.

    • xyz says:

      04:24pm | 09/04/11

      True Believer, thanks for your reply but it still hasn’t answered my question.  How did you know to speak to Jesus when, as you say, you did not believe in him?

    • Tedd says:

      06:28am | 29/03/11

      Humans are generally social and altruistic individually and in groupings.

      We seek groupings and like to see caring.

      These things are happen outside the domain of religions.

    • Pete says:

      08:06am | 29/03/11

      whats caring got to do with religion? I’m assuming you are talking about concern for others. The only caring you see in religion is about the mighty dollar and in some cases the satisfaction of the clergy’s predatory appetites

    • Ash says:

      09:23am | 29/03/11

      @Pete you are just ignorant as the bible bashers. Is democracy bad because it fails in some instances? Maybe do some research into theology first. Don’t be moronic and try to answer complex questions with simple answers.

    • Pete says:

      01:09pm | 29/03/11

      @ Ash,  whats complex about an organisation(s) created by man extracting millions of dollars out of people because they are short of funds, yet the leaders never appear to be short of lifestyles.  What’s complex about pedophiles preying on young kids and it being covered up by senior clerics.  If you believe in all the lies and deceit.  Democracy as you state, isnt perfect, yet you all proclaim your god to be perfect so why arent religions perfect. After all they are the PR firms of God. So why does a perfect God allow himself to be represented by a less than perfect organisation(s) staffed by beings who were created in his image. Were’nt they. 

      This is supposed to be an all caring god, so why all thecrap in the world?  More like a god with a sick sense of humour. I dont see any complexity in people taking advantage of people.  Perhaps it is you who doesnt grasp reality

    • David the Atheist says:

      01:11pm | 29/03/11

      @Ash, while I agree that pete’s comment involved some large generalisation about religion and why people maintain affiliations. It is certainly reliant on a false equivocation between the institution and the individuals who affiliate with the institution… I’m not really sure what theology has to do with it.

      Pete’s response was to Tedd who talked about the human tendency to form and maintain social groupings of which religion is just one such form. This is evident racially, culturally, politically, within sporting codes, aesthetic endeavours (such as music, theatre, etc).

      Your comment Ash missed both points. Tedd’s was about sociology and Pete’s involved economics and yours made an appeal to theology. Theology is about metaphysical claims, specifically those involving a god or gods (from the greek ‘theos’).

      Perhaps it would be best if you consider the actual arguments made instead of assuming anything which is critical of religion requires a theological basis. Don’t ‘moronic’ and seek to insert irrelevancies into the dialogue, I have no doubt somewhere else in this comment thread you can take up theological issues with someone who is also suitably off-topic.

    • Barry says:

      02:31pm | 29/03/11

      I think even though Ash may be misguided in her comments, there is the possibility she did get one thing right . . . .  Ok Pete since you have a problem with the amount of concern for others that religion, and it seems your implying, religious people possess we are going to do a little test.  You’ve made a lovely grand generalization here about religion, and since you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about concern for others, we should be able to do a little comparison to see whether or not your comment is moronic.  In your lifetime, how many years and how much money would you estimate you have used in helping other people less fortunate than you with no reward apart from a feeling of satisfaction that you are in fact helping people?  Now since religion has nothing to do with concern for others at all in the slightest, and you seem to be slighted by the lack of concern which must mean you yourself have a great concern for others and take a great deal of action due to this concern, I would think that you would produce incredibly high numbers to justify your position that religion has nothing to do with caring for others.  So what is it?  Years in Africa developing programs for educating women on hygiene and childbirth, Years in Afghanistan helping a school teaching women who rarely get an education?  Come on Pete I personally know religious people who do these things out of concern for others, and are supported by a church home-base.  What do you do Pete to display your great concern for others?

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      08:13pm | 29/03/11

      Barry , Barry, Barry….

      I’ll bet you think this rant passes off as “logic”.

      Finish your studies and give it another read.  Better still, see if you can incorporate a subject along the lines of “structures and meaning of language” into your course.

      Bantam in a big glove ….

    • Barry says:

      04:10pm | 30/03/11

      @Dose of Reality
      Hmmm I don’t know about that.  I’ve read it again and although I’ll agree it is a little shabby, which is due to me writing it in haste before a lecture, I think you are slightly exaggerating.  I’m sure most people of a decent intelligence level would be able to pick up on the main points of my comment.  It may have been a good idea for you to maybe address some of these comments rather than just turning into the grammar police.

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      06:28am | 31/03/11

      My point is proven then.

    • Rossco says:

      06:34am | 29/03/11

      You can find a sense of community, solace, friendship and other support outside of the church. As my family and many of my friends have done since they were born, mainly through each other.

    • acotrel says:

      06:48am | 29/03/11

      ‘You can find a sense of community, solace, friendship and other support outside of the church. As my family and many of my friends have done since they were born, mainly through each other.’

      You should live in a country town if you want that!  But even in our town there are 15 different religous groups pushing their barrow in their quest for political advantage.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:45am | 29/03/11

      Making your way in the world today takes everything you’ve got.
      Taking a break from all your worries, sure would help a lot.

      Wouldn’t you like to get away?

      Sometimes you want to go

      Where everybody knows your name,
      and they’re always glad you came.
      You wanna be where you can see,
      our troubles are all the same
      You wanna be where everybody knows
      Your name.

      You wanna go where people know,
      people are all the same,
      You wanna go where everybody knows
      your name.

    • Chris L says:

      03:02pm | 29/03/11

      Dave, are you suggesting alcohol is the trick to feeling that community spirit?

    • TheRealDave says:

      04:01pm | 29/03/11

      Bingo wink

    • acotrel says:

      06:44am | 29/03/11

      ‘people who claim no religious affiliation are the fastest growing religious minority in many countries throughout the world.’

      What about the people who have NO INTEREST in being controlled and manipulated by power-seeking bible bashers?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:48am | 29/03/11

      acrotel :  ” .......being controlled and manipulated by power-seeking bible bashers. “

      With your head full of religious conspiracies , it must be difficult for you to walk down the street where you live , enjoying the sun and blue sky - the wind on your face - and most of all , a smile of greeting from those folks passing you on the footpath.

      Horrors - they probably have one of those nasty bibles hidden away on themselves.  Worse - they are probably enjoying the sun , blue sky and breeze - looking heavenwards saying ” thank you Lord for this wonderful day. “
      Scary stuff indeed . !  -

    • Super D says:

      10:34am | 29/03/11

      What about the people who have NO INTEREST in being controlled and manipulated by power-seeking IPCC 4th Assessment Report bashers?

      We’re just replacing an old religion with a new one that has the added bonus of less morality and extra hypocrisy.

    • jf says:

      06:47am | 29/03/11

      Whilst I am an atheist, I object to the often hysterical and frequently incorrect criticisms of organised religion.

      I reckon Tim Minchin’s song and Tory’s last two paragraphs have neatly summarised my feelings on religion.

      Looked at objectively, religion, on balance has added more to community than it has taken away. And to rebut the first criticism that I anticipate to this statement, religion has not been the cause of most wars, it has been territory. Sure religion has been used as the spiritual excuse for many wars, but most have been about land and assets.

    • acotrel says:

      07:44am | 29/03/11

      @jf A papal bull was used as an excuse for the Spanish to conquer the people of the Americas.  Then they had a crisis of conscience about their christianity.  Anyone questioning their right to decimate the populations was deemed a heretic! Our own conquest of the aborigines wasn’t that flash!

    • Part of the 95% says:

      08:30am | 29/03/11

      @acotrel thankyou for proving @jf’s point.  Most wars are fought for territory not for religion.  The white war on black Australia was a clash of cultures based on aggressive expansion of British territories.  As was the Spanish Conquistadors taking over South America.  In the second one religion may have been the vehicle but greed was the driver.  To further the analogy you don’t blame the car for the traffic accident you blame the drunken, speeding, reckless driver.

    • SMS says:

      08:31am | 29/03/11

      As a Christian it is pleasing to read jf’s common sense response as opposed to “the often hysterical and frequently incorrect criticisms of organised religion” that seem to frequent these pages.

      I don’t know about Tim Minchin or necessarily agree with Tory’s last paragraph but I think the rest of your comments are spot on.

    • TheRealDave says:

      08:59am | 29/03/11

      @Part of the 95%

      Your analogy is false. In todays modern tolerant society we say the driver has an ‘illness’ and instead prosecute the barman who served him.

      wink

    • AdamC says:

      09:09am | 29/03/11

      I agree JF, but would note that ethnic conflict is another major driver of wars, especially civil wars. Often people lazily over-simplify these into ‘religious wars’, such as in the Balkans and Ireland. The crusades, several of the reformation conflicts and the current Islamic Jihad, in all its guises, are quite uncommon in being primarily, or at least substantially, inspired by religious convictions.

      Acotrel, as usual, you have managed to get just about everything completely wrong. How was our ‘conquest’ of indigenous people inspired by Christianity? It seems to me that the evangelising missionaries were pushed aside, just as the aborigines were, but pastoralists seeking land.

    • jf says:

      07:07pm | 29/03/11

      “@jf A papal bull was used as an excuse for the Spanish to conquer the people of the Americas.”

      My point exactly acotrel. Religion was the excuse but the war (such as it was) was really about land and conquest.

      “Our own conquest of the aborigines wasn’t that flash!”

      True enough. But nothing to do with religion.

    • Erick says:

      07:05am | 29/03/11

      “Their modelling of social systems shows that people tend to gravitate towards being in the majority - a sort of conformity black hole effect where people find it more useful to be the norm rather than the exception.”

      If this was actually the case, then the number of people in the majority religion would never decline, and minority religions would never grow. The mathematicians’ hypothesis contradicts itself.

      This is why theory-obsessed academics should remain safely in their sheltered workshops, and be kept far away from governments and other levers of power.

    • acotrel says:

      08:09am | 29/03/11

      @Erick
      ‘If this was actually the case, then the number of people in the majority religion would never decline, and minority religions would never grow. The mathematicians’ hypothesis contradicts itself.’
        Any mathematician knows that populations tend towards the mean.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:21am | 29/03/11

      It amazes me such logic escaped the grasp of a mathematician and our illustrious author as well.

    • HappyCynic says:

      08:22am | 29/03/11

      Funny.  You don’t understand the concept of a social system so you think the maths is wrong?  It isn’t contradictory at all, a social system is not always society at large, a social system is simply a network of people working together.  It can be as small as a family and as large as an entire planet.  It depends on what social systems are important to the individual to determine the ‘majority’ that they gravitate to.

      The simple fact is maths is never wrong so long as it’s worked out correctly.  And humans are easily confined to mathematic principles without contradictions.  This you might know if you knew anything about humanity and/or maths.  Unfortunately for you (judging by your constant stream of online vitriol) you lost your humanity a long time ago and I doubt if you’ve ever had an intelligent thought in your sad, miserable life.

    • Erick says:

      12:16pm | 29/03/11

      @acotrel - So why does the mean ever change? And change it does.

      @Adam Diver - To be fair to Tory, she is also skeptical about the conclusions of the researchers.

      @Cynic - You’re not sounding very happy today. Have an eHug.

    • HappyCynic says:

      02:46pm | 29/03/11

      @Erick

      Aww ya big softie smile  I’m always happy, but attack the absolute truth of mathematics and I vent a little smile

    • John Stuart Mill says:

      10:09pm | 29/03/11

      “This is why theory-obsessed academics should remain safely in their sheltered workshops, and be kept far away from governments and other levers of power.”....it’s a pity that theory-obsessed academics have their work criticised by people too lazy to take the time to actually read the research findings but rely on paraphrasing and oversimplification in opinion pieces (notice the lack of link to the freely accessible article in the actual blog). A brief review of the article clearly indicates the authors believe that the perceived value (“utility”) of religion is the key determinant for the model rather than just a numbers game as you and Tory suggest. For posterity’s sake here is the actual link to the article…http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1375v2. Frankly I find it not nearly as interesting as Tory suggests, more a line fitting exercise to existing census data but hey I guess religion gets people talking.

    • Jade says:

      07:13am | 29/03/11

      The sooner religion dies out the better.

    • jf says:

      07:37am | 29/03/11

      Why Jade? Because it suits you?

    • Paul says:

      07:44am | 29/03/11

      Speaking of things dying, just a reminder. One day you will die, as we all will. At that time we’ll all find out for sure about our faith and beliefs in this life. And whether there really is a Creator or not.

    • acotrel says:

      08:04am | 29/03/11

      @Jade ‘The sooner religion dies out the better.’
      Do you think we might then begin to believe in each other - have faith in our fellow man?

    • Flied Lice says:

      08:11am | 29/03/11

      @ Paul, won’t you be disapointed when you die and find that there is nothing there. Each way bet huh.

    • Jon says:

      08:30am | 29/03/11

      Yes, the sooner the better.  But can we get rid of the violent and silly ones first.

    • Phil says:

      09:20am | 29/03/11

      @Flied Lice
      If there is nothing there then he or she isnt going to know are they?
      Little chance of disappointment then is there?

    • Jade says:

      10:20am | 29/03/11

      @ JF.. yes because it does suit me.

      @ Acotrel, I don’t know… it would be nice though wouldn’t it.

      @ Paul and Phil… its better to not expect anything than to expect something and be disappointed isn’t it? Even if you aren’t around to feel the disappointment.  (O_o)

      I personally believe that once our body dies our soul goes on living, whether that be in another body or as a lost spirit wondering the earth. (haha sounds just as bad as believing there is one man that created everything) (^_^)

    • jf says:

      12:27pm | 29/03/11

      Jade says:10:20am | 29/03/11

      “@ JF.. yes because it does suit me.”

      Why does it bother you so much Jade?

    • NQ says:

      12:51pm | 29/03/11

      Yes, Jade, it does sound just as bad.  Do you really think it’s okay that you believe what you believe, but not for someone who aligns themselves with a named religion?

    • jf says:

      01:18pm | 29/03/11

      “I personally believe that once our body dies our soul goes on living, whether that be in another body or as a lost spirit wondering the earth. (haha sounds just as bad as believing there is one man that created everything) (^_^)”:

      Given that no religion (that I am aware of) believes that “one man” created the world and only the most fundamentalist members of some religions believe that a supreme being created the world your personal beliefs sound very much like religion. So I guess religion isn’t dying out any time soon in your house let alone the rest of the world.

      And for the record, only very fun

    • Jade says:

      03:14pm | 29/03/11

      @ JF Isn’t Christianity based around the belief that one man (Being god) made this whole planet and the universe? It bothers me because religion is responsible for so much bloodshed now and in the past.

      @ NQ, I never said it is not okay that they believe, don’t twist my words… (IMHO I think that people who rely on a book and some magical person in the sky to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do need help, my views on it only)

    • jf says:

      03:42pm | 29/03/11

      “@ JF Isn’t Christianity based around the belief that one man (Being god) made this whole planet and the universe?”

      No it’s not. Firstly, it used to be that a supreme being created the universe not a man. Secondlly, most Christians now accept that this isn’t the case.

      “It bothers me because religion is responsible for so much bloodshed now and in the past.”

      Firstly, a lot of bloodshed has been justified in the name of religion. That is, evil men distorting a concept for their own purposes. Secondly,
      so has medical research. Reckon we should ban that as well.

    • Jade says:

      04:17pm | 29/03/11

      @ JF, medical research verses war? hhhm let me think?!

      I don’t really get the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to change my belief that religion is evil and the world would be a happier place if it had never existed?  That will work about as good as trying to convert a Muslim to Judaism.

    • Chris L says:

      04:24pm | 29/03/11

      Jade, learn some manners please.

      JF, if religious people no longer believe in a supreme being, what is religion about these days and what does it have to do with the bible/koran/torah? (I’m limiting the question to the Abrahamic religions because I know precious little about the others).

    • jf says:

      06:09pm | 29/03/11

      “@ JF, medical research verses war? hhhm let me think?!

      I don’t really get the point you are trying to make?”

      Really? Phew!! My point is that a lot of bloodshed has been caused in the name of scientific and medical research just as much blood has been shed in the name of religion. However, I don’t believe that medical research should be outlawed. I guess I believe in choice, diversity and personal freedom rather than banning stuff.

      So no, I’m not trying to change your “belief that religion is evil and the world would be a happier place if it had never existed”. I’m just saying that you’re wrong.

      “JF, if religious people no longer believe in a supreme being”

      That’s not what I said. What I said is that most religious people now accept that the supreme being in which the believe did not create the universe.

    • Jade says:

      08:02pm | 29/03/11

      @ Chris… sorry Dad, I will remember my manners next time I promise.

      @ JF, medical research is kind of necessary wouldn’t you think? religion on the other hand… not so necessary.

    • Paul says:

      08:18pm | 29/03/11

      @Flied Lice 29/03/11
      ” won’t you be disapointed when you die and find that there is nothing there. Each way bet huh.”

      You do not know that for a fact and you cannot prove that to me - so essentially we are both in very similar positions.

      However, I have had a number of life experiences (when I was at death’s door in fact) that leave me in no doubt as to the existence of a Creator God.

      However, I cannot prove that to you or to anybody on this earth. <I do not have the smallest shred of physical or scientific evidence to present to you.> Just my lived experience (which you can easily counter by saying ‘you were hallucinating’ or ‘perhaps he’s crazy’.

      I have never been the same since that date almost 5 years ago. Changed my life. And it’s the reason I’m still here.

    • jf says:

      07:23am | 30/03/11

      @ JF, medical research is kind of necessary wouldn’t you think? religion on the other hand… not so necessary.

      I don’t disagree Jade. But by all means use a strawman argument to ignore the point I was making. That is, that the fact that religion has been the excuse for violence over the centuries does not make religion inherently evil any more than the fact that medical research has been used as an excuse for violence make medical research evil.

    • Jade says:

      09:42am | 30/03/11

      @ jf, no it doesn’t really does it.  But in my opinion, I find medical research more beneficial to us than I do religion (which obviously it is).  I don’t think religion will ever die out (at least not when I am alive), where there are people who believe that there is a greater power out there there will always be religion.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:31am | 29/03/11

      It has been said many times before, but I’ll say it again.
      Religion is the opiat of the masses.  It’s a crutch for the weak and stupid.

      Religion has killed more people than it has ever saved. As many wars have been fought over religion as has been over wealth. Scripture is just common sense.

    • Bubba says:

      08:58am | 29/03/11

      So, atheism is for the strong - I suppose you’d have to be strong to believe you’ll never see your loved ones or feel or think anything again after you die. Just nothingess for ever and ever. And to choose to believe that this is what’s gonna happen to you in a few short years must make you really want to bounce out of bed each day, cause every day the abyss gets closer and closer.

    • Part of the 95% says:

      09:15am | 29/03/11

      No, religion hasn’t.  The greedy institution such as the Church(es) started wars and killed billions (in the last 5 thousand years or so).  belief systems have saved a lot of people.  Calling them weak and ignorant and disregarding the circumstances that necessitated belief systems makes you sound like a f***wit.  An agnostic who subscribes to the philosophy components of a number of religions as suited to my own values system, ignoring the institution makes you intolerant.  Not me ignorant.

    • Richard says:

      09:21am | 29/03/11

      Nice original comment there John A Niave. I bet you thought of that one all by yourself.

      Another other pearls of wisdom you’ve got to throw before us swine?

    • John A Neve says:

      09:36am | 29/03/11

      Bubba,
      Sadly you blubber, just what have my loved one(s) got to do with religion?
      As to dying, just what is wrong with a natural event, are you scared of dying or some such?

      As to “bounce(ing) out of bed each day”, yes I do, I love life, it’s people like you who scare me.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:42am | 29/03/11

      Part of 95%,

      Religion is an institution and your language shows your religion up.
      “Belief systems” have saved no one and never will, cite me an example?

      As to your “institutions”, forgive me but were they not started by people just like you?

    • John A Neve says:

      09:45am | 29/03/11

      Richard,

      Now we all you cannot read. I stated right at the start that it had been said before.

      What a dill!

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:48am | 29/03/11

      @Bubba or you could believe in magical sky fairies instead

      I guess you must have to be stronger to face up to reality rather than taking the weaker option of ‘hey, its all sunbeams and rainbows after you die’. That is, as long as you eat all your vegetables first!

    • HappyHuman says:

      10:27am | 29/03/11

      Bubba that’s an interesting comment. It implies that you believe in religion not because you know it to be true, but because the lie is more comforting than uncertainty. This is not an argument for the existence of god/afterlife etc, but rather an argument that religion serves a psychological function in which case you have just supported John Neve’s statement that religions is for the weak.

      I still live a full and happy life though I know the end is non-existence. It took a while to get there but once you realise that your non-existence pre-birth was not a problem then why should one’s non-existence post-death be a problem?  I would rather live my life knowing the truth than immersed in a delusion.

    • anthony says:

      10:34am | 29/03/11

      @ John A Nave. Why do you love life? If you’re an atheist then you must realise that life has no meaning. Life is chasing after the wind. You’ve chosen to give it meaning and say you ‘love’ it but just because you’re deluding yourself that your life has some form of ‘mystical’ meaning doesn’t mean that it does.

    • Direct says:

      11:02am | 29/03/11

      “It has been said many times before, but I’ll say it again.
      Religion is the opiat of the masses.  It’s a crutch for the weak and stupid.”

      Couldn’t agree with you more, John. As a crutch for the weak and stupid, no religion outdoes itself more than Atheism, the haven of disappointed and disaffected Christians.

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      11:33am | 29/03/11

      Hey Bubba, I’ve always wondered what happens in heaven when someone who remarries after the death of a spouse dies themselves. Do they hook back up with the first spouse until the second one arrives? And what if the second one remarries in the meantime?
      Is heaven just one big swingers club?

    • John A Neve says:

      12:15pm | 29/03/11

      Anthony,

      What makes you think I’m an Atheist?
      I have always seen myself as a realist. I love the beach, rain, women, food, booz and life in general. Just what gives you the idea I’ve given life a “mystical meaning”?
      Sadly Anthony, I don’t know where you are coming from!

    • John A Neve says:

      12:25pm | 29/03/11

      Direct,

      I could not agree with you more. Our world is full of ” disoppointed and disaffected Christains” sadly their God has let them down.
      But correction, I have never been a Christain, as stated before it’s an opiat.

    • Bubba says:

      12:33pm | 29/03/11

      Well, I don’t know what happens in heaven. But, I think if the atheists are right, then death will be like when you go under for an operation -one minute you’re wide awake then nothing for eternity - no spirit - no soul, just worm food. What do you guys think will happen?

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      12:43pm | 29/03/11

      Bubba, surely if you believe in heaven you must have some idea about what to expect when you get there.

      I’m happy with the idea of nothing. That is what I think will happen, just black and the end. The worms won’t bother me because I’ll be dead. And probably cremated.

    • Kath Grant says:

      01:02pm | 29/03/11

      ‘It’s a crutch for the weak and stupid.’
      John I’m an atheist, I realise just how short a time I have and that there’s no second chance when I die.  Because of my beliefs I try to live the best life that I can.  One way of doing that is to find what’s best in people and value them for it rather than be cruel and hurtful to them in the manner that you have been.  You should try it.

    • John A Neve says:

      01:54pm | 29/03/11

      Kath,

      Your point is well taken, but just when has telling it as you see it been “cruel and hurtful”?
      Surely to allow this idiocy that has killed millions over the years to continue is worse?

    • jf says:

      03:21pm | 29/03/11

      “Religion has killed more people than it has ever saved.”

      Prove it.

      “As many wars have been fought over religion as has been over wealth.”

      Name the wars that have been fought “over religion” and I’ll give you ten that have been fought over land, colonialism, wealth or just general ethnic conflict.

    • Your name:Michael says:

      04:06pm | 29/03/11

      Anthony, there is no meaning of life, maybe you mean the point of life?
      The one and only point is to EXPERIENCE life. Yep sorry folks it really is that simple, if there is a god that’s It’s gift to you, if there is not, life is yours anyway do with it what you will. Remeber though you are not given an instruction manual for your mind you have to learn as you go, now just imagine everyone being given a PC/Mac with no instructions on how to use it or it’s functions or it’s software. Do you see how so many millions would “manage” or “get by” but a few would excell and some of those that excell could attempt to use that knowledge to influence others or even discriminate against others…Anyone else care to join the dots.

    • John A Neve says:

      05:29pm | 29/03/11

      JF,

      Your question is pathetic, you have as much access to history as I do. No, I have no intention of doing your work for you.
      I have made a statement, you prove me wrong, if you can?

    • jf says:

      06:24pm | 29/03/11

      “Your question is pathetic, you have as much access to history as I do. No, I have no intention of doing your work for you.”

      What an unpleasant person you are John A Neve.

      Your statement that religion has killed more people that it has saved is hackneyed and baseless. My tongue in cheek challenge for you to prove it was to illustrate that it is impossible to either defend or challenge any more than you could prove that more butterflies have blue wings than green.

      As to your comment that “as many wars have been fought over religion as has been over wealth”, this is the oft-cited, rubbish trotted out by the anti-religious crowd. It is patently untrue and easily rebutted. I would go so far as to say that this criticism of religion is a crutch for the weak and stupid. To start the discussion, I’ll give you my ten wars that were not religous - Iraq, Afghanistan, Falklands, Vietnam, Korea, 100 Day War, WWII, WWI, the Boer War and the American Civil War. Your turn.

    • Anthony says:

      10:24pm | 29/03/11

      @michael. The point of life is to ‘experience it’? Really? That’s it? Doesn’t that then mean that there is no right and wrong? If the point is to just experience life then surely I can have whatever experiences I feel like and you can have whatever experiences you want. Given that the point is to just to ‘experience’ it, does that mean that I can let someone else experience pain, hurt at my doing? If I get a kick out of the experience of making someone else hurt, you’ve just validated my life to do that as it’s the ‘point of life’ to have those sorts of experiences. I can’t see any other option to your question.

      @ John. So you’re not an atheist then? You’re a realist? As a realist then what do you see the purpose of your life is. What value do your relationships have? What value does going to the beach add to your life? It appears that you DO value something in life- beach, women, booze, etc. I just don’t see why you think those things have any value at all. When you die they’re all gone and within a couple of generations you’re forgotten.

    • Michael says:

      05:57pm | 30/03/11

      @Anthony, the answer to your question is yes, if you want to do things to people, that hurt them or cause them pain, and choose that to be the point of your life, yes you actually can/could do that. I must point out that personally i don’t think that sounds very enjoyable, and i feel your enjoyment would be short lived and hollow, also other people as we already know have decided the point of their lives is to stop the people who choose the option you suggested. They are called police and they might lock you in a cell or even shoot you depending on where you decide to live your hurtfull life lol.

      The feeling i have is that if you deliberately decide to live a certain way or believe certain things, it really is for the experience of it, hence the ability to easily change our minds on things at different times.

      Once you let yourself get used to the fact that you are actually allowed to be as happy as you want to be, it’s so nice!

      I guess good news like that just wouldn’t get enough attention to warrant mass media offering it up to us, ad nauseum.

    • iansand says:

      07:34am | 29/03/11

      All this means is that, over the last 4 or 5 decades, it has become acceptable for people to state that they have no religion.  I doubt the actual numbers have changed much.  It is a change in what people are prepared to acknowledge. 

      There will always be a hard core of religionists.

    • Chris L says:

      04:35pm | 29/03/11

      Good point iansand. I find it very encouraging that there’s no death penalty for atheism anymore… unless you’re an ex-muslim apostate.

    • Paul says:

      07:49am | 29/03/11

      Difficult to arrive at statistics when the Australian censor form doesn’t give residents the choice of declaring (by ticking a box) if they are agnostic or atheist.

    • iansand says:

      08:24am | 29/03/11

      Doesn’t the form say “No religion”, which covers both?

    • acotrel says:

      09:10am | 29/03/11

      I neither know nor care if I’m an atheist or an agnostic.  I have NO INTEREST in the subject, apart from necessity when others use religion to try and manipulate and control! When will we see democratisation of the various religions.? Religion is not about that!

    • Ash says:

      09:43am | 29/03/11

      @acotrel why are you commenting if you don’t care?

    • Anthony says:

      10:44am | 29/03/11

      Lol. Ash asked the question but didn’t point out that acotrel has made 11 posts to this point on this thread. Pretty opinionated on a discussion point that he/she claims to not be interested in. I think acotrel dost protest too much.

    • David the Atheist says:

      01:21pm | 29/03/11

      @Paul, you can specifically write atheist, agnostic, rationalist, etc in the space provided or tick the box marked ‘no religion’ and while the ABS does group such affiliations together for broader examinations they are subdivided in more specific analyses.

      @acotrel, while you do seem particularly interested in something you claim no interest in (although I think you’re interested in freedom from religion so perhaps you need to reconsider how you are describing yourself). The census question is in fact optional (one of the few optional questions in a survey with a force of law to compel response) and you are free to choose not to respond to the question regarding religious affiliation. In fact, about 10-12% of Australians make this decision every census. I suspect a similar proportion will make a similar decision in this year’s census too.

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      08:38pm | 29/03/11

      POST @ Ash says: 09:43am | 29/03/11
      @acotrel why are you commenting if you don’t care?

      POST @ Anthony says: 10:44am | 29/03/11
      Lol. Ash asked the question but didn’t point out that acotrel has made 11 posts to this point on this thread. Pretty opinionated on a discussion point that he/she claims to not be interested in. I think acotrel dost protest too much.

      If you had bothered to read the other 3 sentences (or if that was too much, simply the second half of the second sentence) it’d be obvious to the both of you.

      Here it is again - free of all that suffocating text around it:

      ” ..., apart from necessity when others use religion to try and manipulate and control! ”

    • anthony says:

      10:14pm | 29/03/11

      @dose of reality? Yet Tory’s original piece had nothing to do with religion being manipulative. Quite the contrary.

    • Paul says:

      07:51am | 29/03/11

      Impossible to get accurate statistics in Australia when the censor form does consider agnostic or atheist when asking the question of religious affiliation. 
      They are lumped under the category of Religion: Other.

    • Shelly says:

      09:19am | 29/03/11

      Or none. Tick none.

    • Elphaba says:

      10:14am | 29/03/11

      @Paul, are you sure?  I thought there was a ‘No religion’ option.

      I’m sure that’s what I ticked - maybe not.

    • braunman says:

      12:40pm | 29/03/11

      Given that atheism isn’t technically a religion it does fit the criteria of “no religion”. One option they could do is ask something like “for those who ticked ‘no religion’, would you describe yourself as: a)atheist b)agnostic c)theist d)other”. Something like that anyway as it would give a clearer breakdown between genuine non-believers and those who believe in god without being a member of an established religion.

    • David the Atheist says:

      01:38pm | 29/03/11

      It would be good if the ABS did redesign some elements to the question regarding religious affiliation because in its simplicity ambiguity about the question’s desired interpretation exists. Simply asking ‘what is your religion?’ could mean:

      “What system of beliefs accurately reflect your own metaphysical claims about the universe and reality?”
      or
      “Which social group to you align yourself with as a feature of your own social and cultural identity?”

      Consider a Jew who does not actually believe in a god (a secular Jew). What should be their response? Should they say they are Jewish, to the first they are not but the second they are. Likewise for many lapsed Catholics. The question is poorly formulated and anyone with any survey design experience would shudder at the thought of discerning implications from the responses to this question. Howver, the ABS has persistently refused to make changes to clarify the nature of their desired responses mostly because they desire continuity of data, however what good is continuity of ambiguity?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      07:52am | 29/03/11

      There will always be religion in all countries because there is a sucker born every minute…..

    • Sludger says:

      08:00am | 29/03/11

      Why not just let each person find their own way?  If they choose to believe in Jehovah, Allah or The Great Pumpkin, or the eternal abyss then surely it is their business?  Whatever gets them through life and trouble.  I believe in what I believe, and it suits me fine.  I used to love Dave Allen’s finishes:  “May your God go with you”.  Very nice.

    • acotrel says:

      08:15am | 29/03/11

      @Sludger I only really object to religion when it subverts the individuals duty of care.  Belief in God is never a reasonable substitute for good risk management!  That’s why St Christopher medals are prohibited in aircraft cockpits, and we have stringent maintenamce and flight procedures!

    • Sludger says:

      10:10am | 29/03/11

      @actorel, I uderstand where you are coming from.  However, when all due care is taken, and the crap is about to hit the fan, there are those who can take solace and comfort in their beliefs.  Is it logical?  Not to someone with out faith.  But to the believer it is enough. And surely that is what matters?  Remember the joke of the man on his roof during a flood who refused a motorboat and a helicopter as “Jesus will save me”?  He drowned, went to heaven and complained to Jesus, who replied - “I sent you a boat and a helicopter”.  I also would like an airline pilot with some good training rather than than a good bible, but in other areas of life I have my belief.  It hurts nobody, helps me.  Am I making any sense?  Not enough coffee today (a great substitute for prayer in the morning, by the way).

    • Anthony says:

      10:41am | 29/03/11

      @sludger. You’ll be pleased to know then that there are some pilots around who have had good training and have ready access to a good bible. An old aviation saying goes that ‘In God we trust, everything else we cross check’.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      08:07am | 29/03/11

      Jesus has returned.  His name is Tim Minchin.

      Hallelujah!

    • HappyCynic says:

      08:09am | 29/03/11

      I don’t think religion is dying, I think it’s crawling back into the hole it belongs in, the privacy of people’s minds.  I don’t particularly want to hear some preachy bullsh*t from atheists pointing out the ills of religion or the arrogant zealotry of people like True Believer.  You want to believe or not, that’s fine, just keep it to yourself.

    • Jon says:

      09:56am | 29/03/11

      The first part was good, but if you believe in the second part why comment at all?

    • Jon says:

      09:56am | 29/03/11

      The first part was good, but if you believe in the second part why comment at all?

    • HappyCynic says:

      10:23am | 29/03/11

      @Jon

      Did I say whether I’m religious or not?  smile  I can share views on religion without discussing my own religious beliefs, which are private.

    • Jon says:

      11:48am | 29/03/11

      HappyCynic@ That would be fine if only religion existed in an individual’s private thoughts. But it doesn’t, it exists in the material world and exercises mental and physical interference on human affairs everyday and in everyway. Hiding in your thoughts won’t stop its impact on your life.

      Religions are like fireflies. They require darkness in order to shine. Arthur Schopenhauer

    • Elphaba - worships at the altar of \m/ says:

      08:16am | 29/03/11

      Yeah, I don’t think religion is going to go the way of the dinosaur (hehehe).  In the unlikely event that God is catagorically disproven, someone will still believe because… well, they want to believe.

      But man-made religion certainly isn’t helping the cause.  Preachers, clergymen, shamans etc should just STFU.  Let people work it out for themselves, and choose to follow (or not follow) whatever they like.

    • Elphaba says:

      08:59am | 29/03/11

      As highlighted above, man-made religion is an awkward term - religion is corrupt, spirituality is not.

    • David the Atheist says:

      01:32pm | 29/03/11

      @Elphaba how do you make the distinction between religion and spirituality? Does one not involve the other? Do you mean that religion is the institutions and theological constructs while spirituality is the emotional and psychological drive for something greater than oneself?

      How can you be sure one is not corrupt while the other is (all the time?) This is the problem when discussing religion and religious ideas, people don’t define their terms and it is too easy for discussants to misunderstand the meaning of others.

      I for one find spirituality, if defined as emotional and psychological longing for a greater purpose or perspective, to be fraught with corruption and exploitation. It is this tendency of humans which opens the door to ideas which are not necessarily true and not necessarily safe or helpful despite all intents and purposes. For a secular example consider the popularity of PowerBalance Bands which have been required by the ACCC to take out advertisements acknowledging a complete lack of evidence for the efficacy and offer refunds to any who wish. There are entire industries of health and happiness which revolve around untested ideas or even ideas demonstrated to be false and they rely on spirituality to get the cash from our pockets.

      In order to temper such psychological tendencies the application of rationality and empiricism has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the risk with threatening wonder and amazement with the universe we find ourselves in.

    • Elphaba says:

      02:00pm | 29/03/11

      @David, the distinction is easy.  People who have a quiet belief in a higher power, or something that is watching over them etc, whatever that may be, and worship in a quiet manner, and do what is right for them, not everyone else, that is spirituality.

      People who worship at a place of worship built by man, with a book written by man, who partake in rituals invented by man - that is religion.

      I think it’s a pretty simple distinction.

    • David the Atheist says:

      03:26pm | 29/03/11

      So… an egocentric approach to supernatural beliefs = spirituality and a community oriented ritualistic and doctrinal appraoch to worship = religion.

      What about a community who have a flexible belief system but make use of man-made places of worship? Such as liberal Christians, for example Unitarian Universalism.

      Or what about a group who do have a book from which they view theology but do so without the intent of influencing, proselytising and lobbying others (I can only assume this is what you mean by a ‘quiet belief’).

      Also, how does your version of spirituality worship in any way that isn’t man-made as you suggest religion does? By your own distinction both involve worship of some form but for some reason only the religious worship is man-made while the humans engaging in spiritual worship are not using man-made techniques? This is utterly non-sensical to me, both are man-made as both are developed and practiced by humans. Or are we stumbling in to some kind of man-made vs woman-made, religion vs spirituality semantic dichotomy?

      Perhaps the only meaningful component to your distinction is that one is individualistic and the other involves a community. However, why can’t a collection of individuals share a similar spiritual approach and engage in a collection form of quiet worship in whatever way works for them?

    • Elphaba says:

      03:58pm | 29/03/11

      @David, I’m an atheist - I don’t believe in squat. I gave you an opinion, I’m not peddling facts, because religion is only based on interpretation and opinions.

      All I know is, people who spout vitriolic hatred and put people down on here and in their lives in the name of God, are not spiritual.  They’re arseholes.  What’s meaningful about my contribution is that it’s mine.  I don’t give a crap whether you agree with it or not.

      Cheers.

    • David the Atheist says:

      04:25pm | 29/03/11

      I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate me finding your distinction between spiritual and religious to be meaningful or even logical. I didn’t create the semantic the distinction - you did, it was your game. What’s more I offered my own which as best as I can tell is consistent with the common usage of the terms.

      I don’t find anything to definitions and uses of spiritual to be contradictory or mutually exclusive to religious bigotry. In fact, I’d suggest it is necessary because I can’t imagine a way someone can be religious without being spiritual (being concerned with the spirit, god, divine, etc). And you can’t be a religious bigot if you’re not religious (but yes you can still be a bigot).

      I can understand wishing to distinguish the religious and/or spiritual bigots, hypocrits and asshats from those who are religious/spiritual but don’t seek to impose their belifs on others but call them what they are, don’t mess around with attempting to find platitudinous terms for those you like and create negative connotations for a term to apply it to those you don’t like. There are freely available and commonly understood terms which are perfectly suited to the job, such as religious bigot or hypocrit.

      Call spades - spades. Instead of a digging tool and a hole creation method and pretend that only nice, clean and useful spades are digging tools but while the bent, rusty and dull spades are simply hole creation methods.

    • Michael says:

      05:17pm | 29/03/11

      David you have stated that you can’t imagine being religious without being spiritual, therein lies your disagreement with Elphaba, you define spirituality as belonging with religion. A person can have a spiritual feel about them and be completely ignorant of all religions. Say for example you see the sunrise from a beautiful location, a beach or wherever you find beautiful, you smell the smells, feel the sensations, feel a connection to life in that moment close your eyes and let your mind be free of thoughts, some might call this a spiritual experience. It’s hard for me to see the connection to a religion in the example i have given, but easy to see the spirituality in that shared moment between myself and the world i live in. All of this defining and labelling occuring within my mind, actually i’m just some person on a beach looking at the sun come up. Also i personally find much of what is presented as religious seems to lack a basic compassion when put into practice, for me spirituality is compassionate for all that is.

    • David the Atheist says:

      02:25pm | 31/03/11

      @Michael, my disagreement with Elphaba was that her distinction was not much of a distinction. My position was that spirituality is a requirement for one to be religious (not the other way around as you describe). This is why the religious are also spiritual but while people who are spiritual are not necessarily religious. This is like making a distinction between Aussie Rules footbal and ball sports.

      However, for your description of spiritual (while I acknowledge many people use the term in the same way today) it isn’t particularly consistent with the origin and common definitions of the term (which also reflect common use). Spirituality relates in general to a concern for the spirit, appreciating your place in the world inspired by an appreciation of your surroundings is consistent with this but this can also occur without any concern for a spirit (in a literal sense). So I agree you are just someone standing on a beach appreciating a beautiful scene and the only way it can be spiritual is in a metaphorical sense. The problem is people aren’t necessarily clear on whether they’re being metaphorical or literal when they say ‘spiritual’.

      Your final distinction between religious and spiritual regarding compassion is potentially the difference between a ‘wild’ concern for the spirit and a ‘domesticated’ concern for the spirit. Spirituality can easily relate to a compassion for all spirits while a religion has more than just a concern for spirits, there is often an array of other beliefs, doctrines and dogmas and ultimately result in a group identity allowing for a hardening of the heart towards those outside the group. To relate this back to the AFL versus ball sports disinction, someone who is just about ball sports may have a more encompassing view of what should and shouldn’t be done with balls while an AFL person would be far more focused, limiting and judgemental of what should be done with a ball (and what shape it should be).

    • Michael says:

      05:57pm | 31/03/11

      @David the Atheist, well thought out reply, thankyou.
      I think we both agree on a number of things including, religion involves the use of many different rites or rituals, dogmas etc.  Indoctrination.

      Indoctrination, is imposing (x) beliefs over the beliefs already possessed by an individual. This is primarily done so everyone is on the same page would be the obvious conclusion. There is plenty of room for exploitation of course, and this has been seen, and recognised by some religions. They have apologised also.

      Controlling peoples minds for the sake of an idea is not compassionate, even if the person doing it can convince themselves they are doing it for the benefit of the person they are doing this to.

      I don’t have any position on wild or domesticated concern, that made me smile.
      Thankyou again smile

    • AdamC says:

      08:31am | 29/03/11

      While it is true that church attendance (note: in these sorts of articles, ‘religion’ seems always to be a neutral euphemism for Christianity; let’s be up front) has fallen hugely in Australia in the last few decades, Christianity lives on vibrantly in the thriving independent education sector. People seem to miss that, despite all the debates about ‘values’ education, school chaplaincy and atheists howling about non-belief being marginalised.

      So is the glass half empty or half full?

      And this model sounds like it is full to bursting with questionable assumptions. As it happens, I have read a few convincing arguments that many of the countries cited above will see a resurgence in belief, in the form of Islam. I wonder if the model takes into account the age and (low) fertility of lapsed Christian societies and the higher levels of belief among migrants (or, for that matter, the high fertility of believing locals)?

    • Huey says:

      08:37am | 29/03/11

      Wooly-headed people who believe in crap like homeopathy, kinesiology, reflexology, aromatherapy, astrology, alternative therapies, carbon taxes, mother nature, karma, “artistic nude photos of pubescent girls”, bike paths, earth hour, motherhood, wicca, ufo’s, vampires, werewolves, royalty/ celebrity, war on drugs, god , the devil, federal labours ability to deliver any policy or program should take a good hard look at themselves. Alternatively they can buy my soon to be released Book/CD to help them do this. (notice I didn’t put new age guru’s on my list….naughty of me) BTW tax-free status of religions is one of the silliest rorts going. It’s just one of those things that never gets challenged.

    • TracyH says:

      08:57am | 29/03/11

      Many people used to go to church for that sense of community because it was the only place where everyone (men and women, old and young) could socialise afterwards without a guilty conscience. Now there are lots of ways to achieve the same outcome; pubs, bowls, gyms, The Punch, etc etc. In earlier times it was frowned upon to socialise for the sheer pleasure of it.

    • Bubba says:

      09:02am | 29/03/11

      Re: Birth rates of the “No religions”

      If the Christian Right win, Australia’s language will be latin. If the progressives win our language will be Arabic. Even Stalin could make religion extinct - always a religion will rise.

    • Ash says:

      09:55am | 29/03/11

      What a load of nonsense. Pick up a history book and learn something real instead of picking bits out that suit you.

    • Jon says:

      09:08am | 29/03/11

      Most religions that humans ever invented are gone, thousands of them. Many of them were superior in an ethical way than some of the ones we have forced upon us today. In ancient Rome, polytheistic and superstitious to the core, one tombstone epitaph longed to share some wisdom with the people passing by:

      Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.? But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.? There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon?, No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus. ?All we who are dead below ?Have become bones and ashes, but nothing else.? I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler, ?Lest even while dead I seem babbling to you.

      Yes, religion can die!

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      09:32am | 29/03/11

      In a bizzare and twisted way we tolerate a religious sceptic like Gillard devoid of sense of community, spiritual ethic and parental instinct then mock Abbott for his firm religious views and ethics, genuine parental instincts, and strong sense of community. Christianity V Islam? no contest when even here muslims refuse to send their kids to public schools to be brainwashed in modern western thinking.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:51am | 29/03/11

      See, its times like this I weaken and agree with the people who say voting shouldn’t be compulsory. Coincidentally I also have thoughts of campaigning for mandatory sterilisation.

    • Atheist67 says:

      10:09am | 29/03/11

      Abbott has no ethics. He believes in discriminating against people because of their sexual preference, and that letting people die from drug overdoses is better than helping them get medical attention. He refuses to believe something (climate change) when their is a pile of evidence. He is happy to believe other things (like his religion) on no evidence what so ever. Abbott is also happy to fund religious schools that teach girls they are second class citizens. What sense of “community” does this provide our society.

      The more religious you are the more devoid of ethics you are. The institutions with the highest number of Muslims and Christians in the US are actually prisons. Says it all.

    • Thommo says:

      09:39am | 29/03/11

      Eventually all truth seekers discover theosophy.

    • notSue says:

      05:19pm | 29/03/11

      and often theosophists then discover Buddhism. smile

    • Nigelnomates says:

      09:40am | 29/03/11

      This headline was also used in a NZ article when 1000 people were surveyed and over 40% said they had no religion. NZ cenus which has been cancelled was expected to show close to 50% tick no religion.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      09:46am | 29/03/11

      I’m not sure about other religions but apparently Christianity has been “about to die out” for just over 2000 years now. No point holding your breath. I would add that I know religion won’t die for the following reason also – I’m yet to meet a single human being who doesn’t worship something. Either a faith a drug or in a Great Gatsby style worshipping the dream, the girl or the life kind of way.

    • monkeytypist says:

      01:31pm | 29/03/11

      Really, HTPM?  I’ve met very few people who offer sacrificies or sing hymns in praise of quiet weekends away or fishing trips.  They probably don’t pray to them either.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      02:12pm | 29/03/11

      I bet you know plenty of people with a string of broken relationships behind them due to one or more of their worship of money, success, a “religious” dedication to time on the net, world of warcraft ect or some kind of substance though.

    • JulesG says:

      10:24am | 29/03/11

      I socialise at the pub and my cup runneth over with community spirit. My partner always says that it’s my church - could she have hit on a new religion, one with more appeal?

    • hot tub political machine says:

      11:57am | 29/03/11

      better watch out, I know a few Christian ministers who like to have beers with strangers in pubs too. Could become almost like organised religion if more than one of you talks with them at a time.

    • Al says:

      10:27am | 29/03/11

      What’s with the reference to ‘man made religion’ when EVERY religion is ‘man made’?

      Show me one non-man made religion and I will likely attend.

    • notSue says:

      10:54am | 29/03/11

      God, (in whom I don’t believe) I believe in Tim Minchin! That song makes me teary whilst being so truthful. LOVE it!
      Religion has it’s place, for those who need a roadmap and enjoy the social aspects.
      Live and let live.

    • hamishhe says:

      10:55am | 29/03/11

      I’ve been to the other side, and let me tell you son, there’s fucking nothing there.” - Kerry Packer upon being revived after a heart attack (a somewhat less poetic version of “the rest is silence”).

    • Matt says:

      12:44pm | 29/03/11

      Maybe Kerry Packer didn’t have a spiritual experience because he did not have an evolved spirit. It seems that time round it wasn’t “his time” - perhaps there were lessons for his spirit to learn in this physical experience which had not yet been learned. Guess that soul will be back a few more times yet.

    • Traxster says:

      11:11am | 29/03/11

      I don’t mind religion,
      it’s the religionists that worry me.

    • Bex says:

      11:49am | 29/03/11

      A link to The Good Book by Tim Minchin would have been more appropriate, and hilarious.

    • Luke says:

      11:50am | 29/03/11

      One word - Buddhism

    • P. Darvio says:

      12:13pm | 29/03/11

      All religion and the concept of a GOD is a fraud. One big long running Ponzi Scheme.

      It continues to exist for 3 reasons.

      1. For religious people to make money
      2. For religious people to be able to influence politics and politicians
      3. For religious people to brainwash the minds of innocent young children to perpetuate points 1 and 2.

      The religious texts of the 3 so-called Abrahamic faiths are the most violent, evil, murderous books ever written. Faith books that advocate, abuse, rape, torture, racism, discrimination, war and mass genocide. Most people who claim to be religious have no idea what’s in these books because they have never bothered reading them or if they have they simply select the so-called good bits. There are no morals or ethics in any religion.

      Humanity needs to consign all religion to the history pages.

    • David says:

      12:57pm | 29/03/11

      Clearly religious fanatics don’t have a mortgage on hyperbole.

      The ‘most violent, [etc] books ever written’?

      You should read ‘Bad Wisdom’ by Bill Drummond and Mark Manning.

      ‘There are no morals or ethics in any religion’?

      Says who?

    • marley says:

      01:55pm | 29/03/11

      Kindly explain how Quakers and Jains fit into your neat little three point reasoning?  And, personally, I’d say “thou shalt not kill” is indeed a moral and ethical standard.

    • P. Darvio says:

      02:43pm | 29/03/11

      Quote: And, personally, I’d say “thou shalt not kill” is indeed a moral and ethical standard.

      M’mmm – lets see

      “Moses stayed on the mountain for 40 days and nights, a period in which he received the Ten Commandments directly from God. Moses then descended from the mountain with intent to deliver the commandments to the people, but upon his arrival he saw that the people were involved in the sin of the Golden Calf. In terrible anger, Moses broke the commandment tablets and ordered his own tribe (the Levites) to go through the camp and kill everyone, including family and friends, upon which the Levites killed about 3,000 people.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Mount_Sinai_and_the_Ten_Commandments

      Thou shalt not kill?. Hey what the heck just smash those tablets and get your swords out….

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Killing_or_murder

      When you make up your mind if its “kill” or “murder” and to whom this actually applies to then we can have a discussion about it…I guess I might have to wait another 2000 years for an answer…..

    • marley says:

      06:01pm | 29/03/11

      The fact that Moses disobeyed the commandment, doesn’t make it any less an ethical and moral statement.

    • David says:

      07:04pm | 29/03/11

      @ marley - His quoting Wikipedia.  Give up now and run!

    • cc says:

      12:32pm | 29/03/11

      I love how we don’t care what footy team you support or whether you like Powderfinger or Michael Buble, we accept ‘to each his own’ , we might talk up our preferences and wonder why others don’t agree but we accept that they don’t.  Except with religion.  Here, we will resort to ridicule, out right abuse and hatred.  What you chose to believe is your freedom completely and respect should always be shown to those who don’t share your belief.  Whether Christian or athiest (as many of these comments are by both) you should know better as one believes in the evolution of humanity and the other in a loving God.  The goal of both I think is to bring unity.

    • David says:

      12:55pm | 29/03/11

      The saddest thing about this really quite decent article is the predictable response it has precipitated from atheists and anti-religious bigots.

      The lack of knowledge displayed by most of the authors of the posts above is, to be frank, hardly surprising, but depressing nonetheless.

      Reducing thousands of years of human history, let alone people’s faith, to banal slogans like ‘fairy tales’ and ‘magic’ is ahistorical, disrespectful and introspective in the extreme.

    • David the Atheist says:

      01:43pm | 29/03/11

      Perhaps then take the time to engage the few commenters who have responded to the article on topic and provided thoughful responses. I don’t want to toot my own horn too much but I doubt you will any such instances in my own comments and several others amidst the usual internet potshots of people looking for a moment to see their own proclamations in text.

      There is a fairway and green, you just need to know where to hit your ball, get off the driving range with everyone else and do a quick 9 raspberry

    • Still understanding says:

      01:52pm | 29/03/11

      I was raised a catholic through catholic schools but am now more agnostic theist than anything, leaning heavily on the agnostic. I agree with you on the fact that there are a lot of people on here that have a lack of knowledge on what they are talking about but it’s not just from the ‘ignorant aetheists’. A lot of the people I have met who are catholic have never read the bible and tend not to know a lot about the religion that they follow.
      My father is a very adamant catholic and goes to church almost every morning because he likes to go. he likes the people, he likes the feeling of belonging to that community and that feeling of something bigger. however when i questioned him on the story of Adam and Eve he remarked that it was true because it was in the bible.
      I said remarked that even a priest told me that it was meant to be just a representation that God had the power to create man and that he did so but not exactly the way described in the bible. However dad was adamant that there really was a man called adam and a woman called eve and that they and their three sons were the start of the human race.
      He left the room when i asked that since incest was wrong how did they start the human race. just showing that beliefs can sometimes contradict and people are not always aware of everything that goes on within their religion

    • TheRealDave says:

      04:06pm | 29/03/11

      Atheists lack of knowledge?

      I guess they must base all their assertions in ‘faith’ then?

      And several thousand years of recorded history and science….but who’s quibbling??

    • David says:

      07:02pm | 29/03/11

      @David the Atheist - True, and I don’t mean to tar all authors with the same brush.  I just get frustrated with the banal fundamentalists on both sides of the debate.  I’ll aim true and do my best to avoid the out-of-bounds areas.

      @Still understanding - Yep, there are dunces on both sides.  I’m Catholic and I don’t have anywhere near the understanding I ought to about the history of Catholicism and its links with other religions and the state.  When I win Lotto I’m going to quit my job and do a PhD in theology so I can learn more.

    • brian m says:

      08:32pm | 04/04/11

      Still Understanding,I don’t mean to be disrespectful but your father should have known better and told you that of course brothers married sisters. It wasn’t a problem and wasn’t banned until the time of Moses (Leviticus) when God gave the Jewish people all those rather harsh laws to try living by. I’m no bible expert but sometimes there are simple answers and I’d have to admit that the churches in general have done a pretty good job of not explaining them.

    • David the Atheist says:

      01:02pm | 29/03/11

      I’d definitely agree with your critique Tory, it is a little too ambitious to consider the ‘non-religious’ group to be devoid of a belief in the supernatural (of which God is one of a seemingly infinite array of possible beliefs). A quick glance at the ABS definition for this group is all one requires to realise this.

      It is also a faulty assumption to take the current trend of increasing irreligiousity (which could just be a move away from more institutional forms of religion to a less defined spirituality) and assume it will continue in perpetuity. This trend is likely to cap out before religious affiliation reaches zero and I’m not even sure it will ever reach zero. The most atheistic nations of the world are not 100% atheist, never have been and I suspect never will be. While some communist nations of the 20th century may have made such a claim, the almost immediate flourishing of religious affiliation in these nations after the fall of these governments (and the freedom from persecution for such affiliation was attained) suggests many people never actually stopped believing (for whatever reason). They simply stopped affiliating or the government simply assumed this was the case.

      I will also echo your optimism that even if religion were to ‘die’ and the taxation system was adjusted suitably to effectively subsidise activities with a demonstrable benefit to society (as opposed to maintaining some old architecture and providing the living expenses for a class of professionals of questionable value and almost no oversight), I would expect secular charities to at least make up the shortfall from the religious groups. Many of the world’s largest charities are secular, such as Red Cross, World Vision, Oxfam, Doctors without Borders, Make-A-Wish Foundation, Amnesty International, Gates Foundation, etc. These charities do not make religious arguments for their activities or religious conditions for their services and as such involve volunteers and participants of a diverse array of religious and non-religious views. I am proud to have supported all of these groups and more over the years and intend to continue should they maintain their current approach to operations.

    • Kika says:

      01:44pm | 29/03/11

      Well obviously you haven’t done your research because World Vision & Red Cross are both Christian charities. They just don’t wear that on their sleeve. Check their websites. Ever wondered why in the middle east ‘Red Cross’ is called ‘Red Crescent’? And World Vision - look at their logo. A cross? Or the Star of Bethlehem? Both.

      I do agree - they don’t force their religon into their charity, but it’s certainly a part of it.

    • David the Atheist says:

      02:54pm | 29/03/11

      Actually we are both mistaken, I on World Vision and you on the Red Cross.

      World Vision, I am now aware is in fact rather evangelical and missionary, they have certainly done well not to publicise this element of their activities in secular environments. I personally will no longer support their activities as I can easily find other charities providing the same services I value without proselytising.

      The Red Cross and Red Crescent movements are specifically non-religious. The red crescent was adopted because of claims it was religious (despite it not being a crucfix cross), specifically from Turkey. They have also adopted a diamond which is in response to a Jewish desire for symbolism. There is no aspect to the Red Cross and Red Crescent movements which involves proselytisation or favourtism for any particular religious faith.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#History_of_the_emblems

      Even if you claim the motivations of their founder is religious it is clear the Red Cross does not operate as such (and I don’t call Newton’s laws of motion ‘Christian laws of motion’ because their founder happened to be Christian at the time).

      Not all crosses are created equal raspberry

    • True Believer says:

      06:14pm | 30/03/11

      @Kika

      As one who was employed by Red Cross for some time I can assure you it is not a Christian organization.  The Red Cross is the reverse of the Swiss flag. The founder was a Swiss businessman who was overwhelmed by the site of men dying and being left to die on the battefields of the Napoleon of the day,  He had gone to make a business proposition to Napoleon, but was moved to round up volunteers from the village at the site of the battle to take the wounded and dying into buildings in the village and tend their wounds.

      Red Cross is neutral of any religion or political system.  The Muslim countries took exception to the use of the cross, hence the Red Crescent
      when I lef they were trying to come up with a symbol which is acceptable. The Red Cross when displayed means only - “do not shoot”.
      It is governed by International Law.

    • Mark Topping says:

      09:38am | 31/03/11

      Dave,

      A few comments. I suggest you look at the strict government policies on Aid and development and you will discover that preaching the gospel is not allowed by our government. World Vision is a Christian organisation (understandably considering Jesus’ teachings) yet there are strict guidelines regarding humanitarian aid and preaching. I then suggest you do some research on say, the Saudi governments policies. See if there is a comparison between Islamic Aid and preaching. See how much Islamic Aid goes to non-muslims. Contrast this against Christian NGO’s such as World Vision.

      Second, as an atheist i’m genuinely interested why you care about looking after fellow humans (assuming of course you follow Darwinian evolution)? For the Christian, it is a relatively easy, Jesus commands it coupled with the Biblical idea that all people are image bearers of God, therefore we need to respect, love and care for them. But for the Atheist position, i’m genuinely confused. Can you help?

    • David the Atheist says:

      02:43pm | 31/03/11

      @Mark Topping, I’m not really sure what the government policies regarding aid and proselytisation was meant to realate to - my comments were about the organisations I support, not our government. If our government does mandate their aid is not spent proselytising then I am glad - it shouldn’t. Was the comparison to the Islamic nations to elevate Christianity above Islam with Australia as a shining beacon? I don’t care, both rely of false metaphysical claims and historical myth (I say this while conceding a historical basis for the existence of both religion’s central figures, Jesus and Mohummad).

      You ask why an atheist would care about anyone else. This is a common question from the religious who think that only because of religion do they have any reason or understanding of why one should seek to improve the wellbeing of those around them. Few points.
      1. Human civilisation predates both Judaism and Christianity, I can’t imagine any capacity for humanity to have maintained socially cohesive groups prior to and after the agircultural revolution without a sense of social compassion and justice. We evolved this capacity, as has any other social animal.
      2. Jesus was not a particularly inventive moral teacher, while some components of his message were controversial in the Jewish community at the time he did not break any new ground in human history. Setting aside his apocalyptic messages (as most liberal Christians do), even the most celebrated component of Jesus’ morality, the Golden Rule, has been found in other formulations from ancient China to Greece many, many years prior to Jesus’ life. You don’t need a God of any particular sort to find value in treating others as you would prefer being treated.
      3. Lacking a belief in God does nothing else to inform my personal philosophies (it certainly eliminates a few) and I have never found nihilism appealing (that seems to be what you think people should conclude if they don’t believe in a god). The reality is nihilism and theism are also not inconsistent, depending on the god in question (not the Christian god I’ll admit). Humanism is one popular example of how people can logically come to the decision to seek to improve the world and the society with which they live or interact with.
      4. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection (which has mostly withstood an immense amount of scientific scrutiny and advances in biology) is simply an account of how the diversity of life (including us) on Earth arised. It is a fallacious piece of reasoning to observe how evolution worked and then conclude from this I should act a certain way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature). I, you and every other human are products of evolution but it does not mean we should act in any particular way or make any particular decision. This was represented by Hume’s famous is-ought problem (which is not intractable but this piece of logic is most certainly a victim of thise problem).

      So to summarise, I as an atheist (lacking a belief in any god) do seek to improve the world for a variety of reasons. Some are selfish (a better society and world environment is sure to benefit me) while other are the result of my own philosophical moral goals (minimising harm and maximising happiness).

      I hope this helped.

    • Mark Topping says:

      06:45pm | 31/03/11

      Thanks David,

      It’s genuinely helpful what you wrote and i think goes a long way in bridging the often violent and vitriol attacks in these blogs on both sides.

      I fear though that points 1 and 2 are irrelevant to your case. The only way they support your argument is if you can maintain that these ancient societies held atheistic worlviews as you do, and were thus moral with such a stance. (BTW i admit that Jesus’ golden rule was not new since he quoted it from the Old Testament which is quite an ancient document.) I’ve never read that the Greeks or ancient chinese were atheists in the sense as we understand the philosophy now. If i’m wrong here please correct me. These points seemed more like a polemic rather than a defence of your own position.

      Points 3 and 4 are much more philosophical and in depth. I would doubt however, that humanism is a solid evidential proof for the atheistic worldview being compatible with morals, especially considering it is difficult to highlight a pure humanist regime that had high morals. Your point 4 doesn’t really explain why Darwinian evolution is compatible with morality, simply that one doesn’t necessarily have to lead to the other if adopting Hume’s philosophy. I guess i’m more after the positives or ‘why’s’ of human concern rather than a defence of the possibility of compatablism between the two.

      Your summary was helpful. What is the difference however between your selfish motives and your philosophical ones? In other words is the minimising harm and maximising happiness for you or the people you seek to help? Also what constitutes a ‘better’ society?
      Blessings

    • David the Atheist says:

      04:57pm | 03/04/11

      @Mark Topping, I’m not sure if you will be checking back to see if I responded as I have only done so 3 days later.

      Points 1 & 2 were not specifically to justify atheism they were intended to show there are common human concerns and morals across time and culture. We all share these views in some form, whether atheist or not, because we are humans (the small proportion who do not are often diagnosed as psychopaths or sociopaths) and have evolved as social animals. Furthermore, you’re criticism of these points shifted the goal posts. You specifically wrote about what Jesus preached, not a general theistic viewpoint on the origin of morality but a specifically Christian view. I most certainly demonstrated that Christianity has no copyright on such notions. The fact that much of humanity has been superstititious throughout its history does not automaticaly validate these claims (setting aside many of these claims are mutually exclusive of one another).

      Your criticism of points 3 and 4 is similarly mischevious. Especially since you ignored point 3’s opening sentence in saying that my (or anyone else’s) atheism does nothing to positively inform my views, it only eliminates some. Lacking a belief in any god is not a positive claim and us such it is incapable of asserting anything about reality (beyond a god probably doesn’t exist, even then it is conditional on the form of atheism and god proposed) Humanism was not offered as ‘solid evidential proof’ (whatever you mean by that, were I to take it on face value I’d have to disregard you for being completely philosophically ignorant) of atheism and morality. You ask for a ‘pure humanist regime that had high morals’ to validate the compatibility of humanistic morals and atheist which is completely irrelevant. The compatability exists in the content of humanism not its application (you’re making a fallacious appeal to consequence). Furthermore, I am an atheist and I have morals, morals which I can defend and implement as vigorously as anyone else. I am a lawful citizen of this nation, I pay my taxes, I donate to charity, I give my time to others, etc. My existence alone accounts for morality and atheism co-existing. The question is whether your conception of morality presupposes the existence of a god.

      Point 4 wasn’t seeking to explain how evolution can account for the existence of morality (which it does), it was to show that it is not defensible (philosophically) to use evolution as a basis for what should and should not be done. The evolution of humanity involved increasingly intelligent and co-operative lifeforms who succeeded due to their ability to consider each other. This ‘theory of mind’ is most advanced in humanity but there are other animals with so level of this. We don’t just see someone get hurt we can empathise and imagine their emotions and physical pain. This biological capacity is the root of our morality in a simple sense.
      You ask for ‘why’ with regard to humans having concern for each other and all I can offer is the how of evolution and natural sciences (as above). Theists will often ask ‘why’ because with their preconceptions they see an agency (God) behind everything and feel this question is answered by this agency. But I see no reason to assume this agency exists and to ask the question presupposes an agency exists to give this reason. We do not know (as far as I’m concerned there is no good reason and/or evidence to think a god exists) if asking this ‘why’ is meaningful in any sense.

      However, theists should be more careful asking ‘why’ because I know the word too and the very nature of God (as classically defined by Christians) is devoid of any answer to ‘why is there a god?’ or ‘why is god’s nature X?’. We are expected to just accept that it is what it is. If the explanation for the existence of human morality in naturalistic terms is unsatisfactory to you then so should be your god (and Occam’s Razor would advise you drop the unnecessary features of your argument).

      I hope you do check back to read this response.

      Thanks

    • Kika says:

      01:20pm | 29/03/11

      I wouldn’t necessarily agree. Walk into a Hillsong church or conference and they are PACKED out. Just because the old school churches are filled with the oldies, the young are still going to church, but in different forms of ‘church’.

      I am religious, and I do go to my olde Cathedral in the city for weekly communion. I enjoy being around my regular crowd. I must admit I am the youngest person there most of the time! But I went to Hillsong on Friday and I found where the young people are!

      I think there will always be religion and church. At least you know the people who are there actually want to be there.

    • Russ says:

      06:41pm | 29/03/11

      Careful with charities Kika, when you give you also employ someone to help people, also churchies are paid to do a job - and your right hillsong and the like are very charismatic and enjoyable services.

    • vicki says:

      01:25pm | 29/03/11

      religion is not dying in australia. secular humanism, atheism, cultural marxism - all religions - are alive and well and Australians are slavish adherents of these religions. it amazes me that australians think they are so educated and ‘rational’ for not beliving in ‘Christianity’ yet follow the marxist doctrine of the frankfurt school (do your research) to the letter. I am a Greek Orthodox christian - go to church every sunday - am am very educated. can’t you get it through your head that you can be ‘religious’ and educated. Some of the most brilliant thinkers were the early church fathers. kali pasxa to all!!

    • Tank Jones says:

      03:44pm | 29/03/11

      I think atheists just like to believe they’re smarter - it’s one of the many beliefs they cling to…

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:15pm | 29/03/11

      Yes, apparently the qualification for being an intellectual these days is the ability to plagarise from Richard Dawkins.

      Considering the criticisms of others for a lack of being able to form their own opinion that these acoloytes also frequently spurt, this is quite amusing.

    • stephen says:

      04:18pm | 29/03/11

      Marxist doctrine of the frankfurt school ?
      Is that like the Neo-Chicagoist aristotelian existential school of lit-crit ?

      There’s a school of thought - yeah sorry another school - that says that all -ist endings belong in fact to the Fascist school, i.e a bogus heirarchy which tries - without hiding - to not appear superior : which is precisely what the New Atheists are getting into.
      I’m, and I’m sure they are too, waiting for the research concluding non-God believers are smarter than Churchies, just like vegetarians are better thinkers than double-whopper lovers. Bogus.
      If there’s no God, prove it.
      There’s more people on earth who do believe than don’t.

    • notSue says:

      05:01pm | 29/03/11

      I’ve found that the most blatant bigots are often atheists. It’s not confined to race, colour, or creed. Some people merely cannot accept that others have a belief system which differs from theirs because they are legends in their own lunchboxes.

      Even though I’m not a theist, it concerns me not one jot that others are. As long as religious folk don’t proslytize on my doorstep, nor request that I support political action in the name of their faith,(apart from supporting their right to have one) nor contravene our ethical standards in this country, I’m cool. Sh!t, they may even tolerate my muddled, conflicted spiritual seeking!

      *pats self on back*

    • Chris L says:

      06:59pm | 29/03/11

      Granted a lot of atheists are outspoken and many are downright rude, I don’t think you can feel too superior when there are preachers on street corners and youtube clips screaming their beliefs which include the assertion that you will burn for eternity if you don’t agree with them. Atheists don’t have the patent on rudeness, you just notice it more because they’re being rude to you. At least atheists don’t knock on your door or interupt you on your way to the train station.

      I honestly think the majority of anger you are seeing from atheists has been building for a long time over laws and social expectations crafted by religions and imposed on everyone. I’m ok with people choosing to refuse an abortion even if raped, or suffering through horrific mortal illness to the bitter end, or remaining chaste until married, or refusing to patronise prostitution, etc. Such choices should be made by the individual, not the state. Even now there looms the threat of internet censorship for no better reason than to satisfy religious lobby groups so that, if they aren’t allow to see it, they can make sure no-one else can enjoy it either.

      Vicki, why are you so keen to class atheism as a religion? Are you trying to accuse us of something or are you simply incapable of comprehending that people can live without believing in an unprovable supernatural story?

    • Simon says:

      01:27pm | 29/03/11

      The theorem that people tend to gravitate to the majority is easily testable ... and easily defeated. If that were the case we would all still be dressed in animal furs waving pointy sticks and chasing down the next meal…

    • Crusader says:

      01:58pm | 29/03/11

      It’s all very nice this civilised debate about religion. Is there a God or not?
      Not.
      Until there is evidence. Which, from right this very minute all the way back through time as far as you can possible imagine, there is no evidence.

      If you want to believe without evidence i.e faith, then keep it to yourself, and keep it out of my head and my children’s head.
      And if the believers want to gather and kneel, then they should be doing it without the assistance of my tax dollars. Really, if God exists, why does he need to be propped up by a backward tax system? - he/she/it is GOD!

      Have a nice day.

    • Russ says:

      06:33pm | 29/03/11

      The evidence is in language and expression, couple that with poetry and the arts and you have a relativity.

    • David says:

      07:12pm | 29/03/11

      @Crusader - Don’t pretend your lack of belief is based on scientific fact.  Until you can prove to me exactly what did create matter and life, I’ll continue to believe it was God.  I can’t prove it.  You can’t disprove it.  Amen.

    • michael j says:

      03:40pm | 29/03/11

      With approx 2 billion Moslem’s preaching Islam ,,i don’t think religion is under any threat at all,,,,

    • Another Dave says:

      04:03pm | 29/03/11

      The non religious section of society is growing simply because there is no longer the pressure to conform religiously. The number of atheists in the west may be growing, not only through education & rationalism,  but because a significant number no longer feel the need to go through the motions & hide what they really believe.

    • Russ says:

      06:30pm | 29/03/11

      Religion is also more answerable these days with communications the way they are.

    • Anthony says:

      10:39pm | 29/03/11

      @another Dave. I agree with your first sentence. It’s also getting a bit easier to pick the ‘real’ Christians (and I’m not talking about the Westboro Baptist Church fruit loops who most certainly are NOT christians).

      I think what is happening now is that most people who identify themselves as Christians actually are whereas 50 years ago most people who identified themselves as Christian probably didn’t understand what Christianity really was.

      The final point though is that most people today who don’t call themselves Christian also don’t know what Christianity actually is- as a lot of posts on this blog will attest.

    • Russ says:

      05:42pm | 29/03/11

      I live in the city of churches and the freedom to practice religion and my faith should not be taken for granted, it is what people fought for me to have the right to do. I am personally responsible for how I see and share my belief with people and other believers, at times I feel like I am coming across as delusional and crazy - I often feel alone in my faith but never in the spirit of love - which is what Jesus “the lamb” shared with me.

    • xyz says:

      01:44am | 30/03/11

      It’s all very well to say that everyone should have their own beliefs and it doesn’t impact on anyone else… but organised religion does impact on all of us in the tax exemptions they receive for just being a ‘religion’. If they got rid of tax exemptions for religions and replaced it with tax exemptions for charities (including a rigorous check on the charities) it would make more sense and hopefully get rid of the fakes or actually force them to do some good for society (e.g. Scientology).

      Also, I can understand why religious people are deluded into believing whatever their religious books tell them to… but what I don’t understand is the so-called non-religious spiritualists… wtf do they believe in (they can’t even explain it themselves)?

    • MikeH says:

      12:08pm | 31/03/11

      Ummm… charities do have tax exemptions. As do sporting clubs, social clubs etc.

    • xyz says:

      09:54pm | 31/03/11

      MikeH, sorry I didn’t make myself clearly understood (it was way past my bed-time). I meant that the government needs to remove tax exemptions from all religions, and if those religions still want to get a tax exemption (duh) then they will have to register as a charity (which also gets tax exemptions). Of course, they would then have to demonstrate that they are actually benefitiing the community at large, and not just members of their own faith.

    • MikeH says:

      12:17pm | 01/04/11

      @xyz: Other not-for-profit organisations, including sporting clubs, cultural organisations, community organisations etc. also enjoy a similar tax exempt status to churches. Should they also come under your revised tax regime - i.e. - they must benefit the community at large and not just their own [members]?

    • xyz says:

      02:38pm | 01/04/11

      MikeH, are you honestly defending the tax exempt status of all religions and comparing them to sporting clubs… the average sporting club would only dream of having the immense wealth of say the Catholic Church. Also, last time I looked, sporting clubs were open to everyone. I, as an agnostc atheist, would not be welcome (unless I converted), nor would I ever choose to join any religious organisation… so where’s the community benefit?

      On the other hand, I don’t have a problem with a genuine charity run by a religious organisation, so long as they don’t have any religious strings attached.

    • MikeH says:

      03:11pm | 01/04/11

      @xyz: Of course churches are open to everyone. You would be very welcome at my church. I was an atheist for many years and attended church only because I wanted to keep an eye on what my wife was up to with my kids. There are other fathers like that also at my church right now and they are very much a part of our community, although they don’t share our spiritual beliefs.

      You wouldn’t choose a religious organisation? Well, I wouldn’t choose to join a football club or an art appreciation society… so where’s the community benefit? (using your definition). The answer, of course, is that others in the community do derive a benefit from these, as billions of people across the world derive a benefit from their religious affiliation. So why would you discriminate against these and not other community organisations? Surely only because of your own subjective view of the ‘worth’ of the religious activity (dare I say, your prejudice).

      As to the comparison, well, yes, I can compare churches with sporting clubs. My church earns no income whatsoever, apart from what I and others give, and we have already paid tax on that. From what we give, the church then distributes 10% to charities and uses the rest for running costs and ministries. This is a pretty typical model. I would have no problem with us being taxed, as there is nothing to tax.

      As for the Catholic Church, a lot of their funds go towards various charitable pursuits and a lot towards support of their own ‘flock’ (this is pretty much the definition of a not-for-profit). As it happens, however, I agree that there is probably an argument for reviewing the tax exempt status of ‘excessive’ revenues if they exist. I just don’t see why the church should be singled out in this respect from any other not-for-profit.

    • xyz says:

      04:20pm | 01/04/11

      MikeH, sorry…. it sounds like I have hit on a very raw nerve of yours. I am just one of many Australians supporting the call for all religions to lose their tax-exempt status… for example - independent Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed a test which asks groups to demonstrate whether their activities are of public benefit or cause harm before being granted tax exempt status.

    • MikeH says:

      10:50am | 02/04/11

      @xyz: No raw nerve with respect to the tax issue. I merely ask why you would single out religions from other not-for-profits in this regard? You may place football above “religion” in terms of community value but billions of people might disagree with you. All I’m saying is that the test should be one-in-all-in.

      Just a thought though: if your intent is not to offend, maybe you should avoid statements like “...I can understand why religious people are deluded into believing whatever their religious books tell them to…”

      As stated, I spent most of my life as an atheist and came to a decision to follow Christ after much consideration, research, and soul searching. The fact that I have come to a place that doesn’t accord with your view of the world does not make me deluded, it just means we have differing opinions.

      Cheers,
      MikeH

    • xyz says:

      01:30pm | 02/04/11

      MikeH, so you have no comment on independent Senator Nick Xenophon’s proposed test which asks groups to demonstrate whether their activities are of public benefit or cause harm before being granted tax exempt status?

    • MikeH says:

      05:13pm | 02/04/11

      @xyz: It sounds reasonable enough to me. It might be a little difficult to determine an objective method of defining and testing the standards though.

    • notSue says:

      11:02am | 30/03/11

      I think you’ll find that many of the charities you’d like the tax exemptions to be redistributed to are run by religions anyway.

      Re those of us who are not affiliated yet call ourselves spiritual seekers.. that’s the point, I guess. We’re *seeking*, exploring, trying to understand, looking for something that resonates. It doesn’t need much more definition than that. Agnostics are the same. We just know that we don’t know. smile

    • xyz says:

      01:23pm | 30/03/11

      That’s the bit I don’t get… you are searching for something that is spiritual/supernatural without any reason to. Why can’t you be happy to simply not have the answers yet until science may one day find them?

    • baal says:

      09:24pm | 30/03/11

      @xyz.
      I am a very rational person who is almost athiest.
      however repeated personal experience has given me a faith never asked for and not really needed.
      I may be insane but it does not mean I am wrong (paraphrase balter). It is why I keep it too myself but try as I might (and I have tried) I can not shake my repeated personal experiece.
      Everyone experiences life differently and I think religion needs to be controlled in its excesses and everyone else spiritual athiets agnostic or other left to make sense of thier personal experience in a safe rational secular society.
      Life would be simpler without my personal faith but at a certain point you need to take a deep breath and live.

    • notSue says:

      03:49pm | 04/04/11

      @xyz Because it’s interesing, fills a need for some kind of life roadmap? Is less about materialism and more about finding internal peace? I don’t know.  The supernatural doesn’t enter my thinking though, I’m more interested in the philosophy.

    • Bern says:

      01:26pm | 30/03/11

      God is certainly not dead.  Recently the Hill family whose daughter Clare was run by her father in the family bus has been miraculously healed through the Miraculous image of Mary. Even the doctors are baffled as to how the little girl’s injuries disappeared, a broken leg, damage to her spleen.

      The only thing the parents put it down to is that the child was wearing a Mirculous Medal with the image of Mary as the Immaculate Mary imprinted on it as per an apparition in France to ST Catherine Labore.

      http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/a-miraculous-escape-for-the-little-girl-the-pope-blessed-20110217-1ayaf.html

      I her this mother speak on Sunday and saw the child running around like any normal healthy child with only a scare on her leg to show for the ordeal.

      Now tell me God and the Catholic church are dead when this little girl is living proof. As the father of 11 children said, “Sometimes God show himself to be more present in your life then you expect.”

    • John says:

      06:23pm | 30/03/11

      I find it interesting, please note im am not a christian that a large amount of comments here in regards to ppl who do not support religion are making comment like followers of fairytales, idiots, fundelmentalists etc. Religion is a persons choice of ppl and by having a go at ppl who believe in religion are themselves bigots. XYZ note that even ppl who dont believe in religion have been found molestering children and is not juat set to catholic church. other religous groups also hgave been found for doing this. Athiest themselvs have created a web site having a go at all religions but if the religions did one against athiest them would scream about freedom of speech, wat double standards.

    • xyz says:

      09:23pm | 30/03/11

      John, surely you jest? It is only in recent times that non-believers in Australia could even think to use the word atheist to describe themselves as it had such a stigma attached to it. Even now in the USA you need to be very careful about where you are if you want to identify yourself as an atheist. I’m so glad I’m not living in America.

      I find it ironic that, now atheists are on the increase, Christians are complaining about what we have to say and at the same time proselytising. I can’t wait to see the results of the next census in August this year… bring it on!

    • True Believer says:

      05:55am | 31/03/11

      @John

      An excellent and timely post. Thank you.

    • Horse says:

      10:13am | 31/03/11

      John says: 06:23pm | 30/03/11

      “Religion is a persons choice of ppl “

      Not necessarily choice - indoctrination at an impressionable age often plays a big part.  Understanding is often superficial, eh TB??

      ” ..if the religions did [a website] against athiest them would scream about freedom of speech, wat double standards.”

      not necessarily - the religious have a go at atheists and atheism all the time, and they don’t seem to take it personally very often.

    • True Believer says:

      10:34am | 31/03/11

      @Horse

      “Religion” may be “indoctrinated at an impressionable age” as you say - Christianity cannot be “indoctrinated” - it is God made, not man made.  No woman/man can make another a Christian - only the Lord Jesus.  So I never support “religion”.

    • Horse says:

      11:07am | 31/03/11

      TB, do you know the-not-a-true-Scotsman fallacy?

      Seems like you are proposing the converse i.e. claiming Christians are not religious, despite Christianity being universally known as one of the major religions of the world, and hence its followers - Christians*-  are considered religious.

      (* or Chrestians as Tacitus referred to them)

    • True Believer says:

      12:33pm | 31/03/11

      @Horse

      Not at all.  Man has called Christians “religious.”  That is not the Lord. He is not interested in much people call “religion” in the denominations of Christianity. Much of it is man-made and takes people’s eyes, both believers and non-believers off Him. 

      Denominations are made up of women/men - some wonderful work done in them, some fantastic worship, many faithful believers. There are also pretenders, those there for status and power, those who are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as Jesus called them.  Those who serve money, human power, status, or lusts of the flesh are not Christian.  Jesus told us - “You can only serve one Master” - where churchgoers serve things other than God they are not following Him, no matter what man calls them or what they call themselves.

      For me there is only one Christian Church - the Body of Christ - found within some denominations, in house groups in Communist China and North Korea (often risking life and freedom to worship their Lord) , in mud huts, wherever there are believers who truly follow Him - not the ways of man.

      I hope that explains to you where I am coming from. I appreciate the word “religion” is often bandied about to brand Christians along with other “religions” - it is a comfortable kicking post for shallow thinkers who do not realise the difference. :0)

    • Horse says:

      03:59pm | 31/03/11

      Ah, so you believe Christianity is too special to be called a religion.

      It seems to just be fiction - all the claims are unlikely on their own, and collectively are impossible.

    • Rod L says:

      10:42pm | 31/03/11

      Religions are pretty defined and like me, many are not so definite about all the attachments and dogmas of any religion. I sort-of like Buddhistic philosophy-deep and thougtful stuff-but I don’t just eat vegies, nor do hang around temples chanting om. I’m a sort-of Buddhistic atheist or “something”. Its more a problem of self-definition in an age of pluralism. The search for meaning is alive and well. OM!

    • Antoine says:

      12:49pm | 25/06/11

      Vous avez de bons points il, c’est pourquoi j’aime toujours verifier votre blog, Il semble que vous etes un expert dans ce domaine. maintenir le bon travail, Mon ami recommander votre blog.
      Mon francais n’est pas tres bon, je suis de l’Allemagne.
      Mon blog:
      Credit immobilier ou solution Rachat de credit

    • Anne Stocks says:

      04:17pm | 06/08/11

      Very True what you shared True Believer and I agree ... Man-made religion is certainly emptying denominational buildings. Too much of man, not enough of the good Lord - where He is, people flock, when He withdraws denominations become dry and without life.  But Tory the Living God will never die I can assure you of that, much as Atheists would like to have the “magical thinking” that He is has/will. :0) 

      There is an upsurge of new Christians are every day in countries where people are not so overwhelmed by materialism and rationalism that they have lost sight of their true reason for living.

      Thank you True Believer for your firm stand for The Lord and may you be greatly blessed.

      Christian Love Anne.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@MelanieTait I was thinking the same thing!

Malcolm Farr

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter