Why an atheist Prime Minister is better

Rob r Charteris says:

06:21am | 10/11/10

Atheism doesn’t say “There is no God” how uneducated about Atheism can you get. Atheism simply says God is irrelevant and isn’t considered in the first place. For you to stupidly say “Atheism asserts as fact something which cannot be proven.” for example ““There is no God” and “There are no souls” and the latter confusing science with Atheism “there is nothing but blind material forces” suggest that you think it is up to Atheism to prove a proposition that God exists. I always find it amusing when religious freaks like you blurt out such nonsense; it’s almost hunter gatherer stuff.

RealityRules says:

06:28am | 10/11/10

Atheism is passively the absence of belief (for gods) in the absence of evidence.  Anti-theism is different.

It is a strong principle that the burden of proof is on those who assert for something, not those who point out the lack of evidence. 

This principle has foundation in the classic Laws of Thought - the law of identity*; the law of non-contradiction (one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time); & the law of the excluded middle (not to be confused with the fallacy of the excluded middle).

* Aristotle stated “the fact that a thing is itself” allows for “a fixed constant nature of sensible things”; and also said “if the object is existent it exist in a particular way, and if it does not exist in this way it does not exist at all

TimB says:

07:22am | 10/11/10

Still can’t shake that habit of needlesly (and erroneously) insulting people can you Rob?

From Eric’s comment,  he’s apparently agnostic, not a “religious freak”.

And why would it be up to Atheism to “prove a proposition that god exists”? I’m pretty sure Atheism is the belief in the exact opposite and as such require the religious types to proves such a proposition.

It always amuses me when you blurt out such nonsense in your responses without stopping to think about them.

RealityRules says:

07:24am | 10/11/10

nb. In my post above, the statements by Aristotle about the ‘law of identity’ relate to the comment after ‘the law on non-contradiction’ about space and time.

sprokket says:

07:30am | 10/11/10

atheism accepts belief that there is a creator, but rejects that we know what it is via a burning bush, eplileptic 7th century gurus etc. It accepts that there is no evidence one way or the other. Agnosticism is too gutless to call these people on their assertion that they can know what is out there and are the enactors of “Gods will”.

atheism/antitheism =moral courage
agnostisim = gutlessness

Rob r Charteris says:

07:34am | 10/11/10

Still blurting on about something you think you understood was being said tiny tim.

Geoff says:

08:44am | 10/11/10

@ Rob. HAHAHA You just proved Tim’s point. Good work.  Another comment, it appears that by reading these comments athiesm is the new “not racist”. In that people are saying that atheism is not the believe that there is no God but that its *some softy-softy approach(e.g. rob r charteris “Atheism simply says God is irrelevant and isn’t considered in the first place”)*

Markus says:

08:46am | 10/11/10

sprokket, agnosticism is the only viewpoint that has the steel to admit that we as a species don’t know anywhere near as much as we like to think we do.

I think that takes a lot more discipline and ‘guts’ as you put it than vehemently defending a static viewpoint in an ever-changing world.

“The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing”

Davec says:

09:05am | 10/11/10

Ok folks, seems there is some serious confusion here. It is a bit presumptuous to assert that Atheism or agnosticism have just one definition or are just one position. People who call themselves Atheists will have a range of different positions that they hold. The distinction that I think is missing in this discussion centres on ontological and epistemical Atheism. To assert that there is no God is as indefensible as to assert that there is one. Can’t prove either proposition so the whole ontological issue of whether or not God exists become a hollow argument. However, the epistemic issue remains. Is it reasonable to believe in the existence of God? The answer here seems to be no. The argument for believing through some sort of faith, whatever that may be, seems to support the ‘no’ position.

On this basis someone can claim to be an atheist without falling into the trap of being required to prove there is no God. The statement “I am certain there is no God” is not an ontological assertion but simply a statement about my beliefs and therefore an epistemic statement. So, anyone who agrees with the statement “I believe there is not God” or “I haven’t heard any reasoned argument that compels me to believe there is a God” should probably see themselves as an Atheist. No need to prove anything.

TheRealDave says:

09:09am | 10/11/10

Bollocks, Agnosticism is for the fence sitters too cowardly to make a decision for themselves, leaving a ‘get out of gaol free card’ sitting there….just in case….

I’ve always been amused that Christianity as we know it was founded, and is based on, the ravings of a lunatic. A lunatic hated Christians and came around 180 degrees after he smashed his head after falling off a horse and who was so rabid even the actual disciples of Jeabus wanted nothing to do with him.

People who act on voices in their heads need to be medicated and locked away from society - not be made Prime Minister.

Steely Dan says:

09:21am | 10/11/10

@ Eric

“Agnosticism is more rational than atheism.”
They’re not mutually exclusive terms, Eric!

“Atheism asserts as fact something which cannot be proven.”
No, it doesn’t.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god, not the positive assertion that there is no god.  I know that you’ve been told this before, Eric.

@ sprokket

“atheism accepts belief that there is a creator, but rejects that we know what it is via a burning bush”
What are you talking about?

Matt says:

09:27am | 10/11/10

The ‘a’ in atheism literally means ‘without’.

Atheism has two equally valid interpretations.
Without theism meaning an absence of theistic belief,
Without theism meaning a belief in the absence of god (also known as anti-theism)

It would be simpler if we always called the latter anti-theism, unfortunately the language did not strictly evolve that way and atheism is used for both meanings. Eric referred to the latter definition.

Agnostic, again has the ‘a’ meaning of ‘without’, and gnostic from the Greek gnossos meaning ‘knowing’. Those who are agnostic accept that there is no way of knowing the truth about theistic belief.

An agnostic can be (and I think often is) atheist by the first definition, but never by the second. That is, an agnostic usually would not have any strong assertion of whether a god exists or doesn’t exist - they believe that this matter is beyond man’s comprehension.

Agnostics criticise atheists that fall in the second category as they are often hypocritical. Many of these atheists entire belief against god hinges on their dislike of the world’s religions. But even if all the religions were wrong, that still doesn’t mean that god doesn’t exist. These atheists (or anti-theists) lack any evidence that god doesn’t exist, but believe that god doesn’t exist purely on faith - the very motion that they detest so much about the religious. Thus, they are hypocrites.
I entirely agree with Eric that it is better to admit we don’t know the answers than to assume we do. For example, if we accept a big bang theory to be true, does this then mean that it is impossible that some kind of god was responsible for starting the big bang? Of course not, these things are unknowable and are only able to be accepted on faith.

Rob, I don’t have a clue how you could possibly have thought Eric was religious. I also suggest that you research atheism (as I have) before you call others uneducated on the topic.

Sprokket, atheism does not mean they believe in a creator. It means they either believe there wasn’t a creator or have no beliefs on the matter at all.

David the Atheist says:

09:33am | 10/11/10

Eric and Markus you are yet more in the horde of people who do not know what ‘agnosticism’ and ‘atheism’ etymology dictate their actual meanings to be (which popular use has not always reflected accurately).

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge (from the greek ‘gnosis’ and the prefix ‘a-’ denotes a lack or without) and with regard to the existence of a god means a position which lacks a capacity to know whether a god exists.

Atheism deals with belief, it is built from the greek ‘theos’ and the same ‘a-’ prefix to indicate a lack of. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god at its most basic level. It does not necessarily entail the positive assertion ‘no god exist’ or ‘there are no gods’ although it is not inconsistent with them (obviously if you asserted that no god existed you would lack a belief in any). In my experience most people do not make such assertions while being atheists (although it does depend on the god in question too).

Agnosticism is a position on knowledge while atheism is a position on belief.

Agnosticism and atheism have been construed in popular discourse to be two distinct positions but they aren’t. You can be an agnostic atheist (one who doesn’t know if god exists and lacks a belief in any god) but you can also be an agnostic theist (one who doesn’t know if god exists but still belief god exists).

What is most amusing to me whenever I encounter someone who claims they are Agnostic is their response to me asking “but what do you believe?” and they splutter their way to realising (with some additional prodding and probing by myself) they are also an atheist because they have taken the rational position of not believing in a god without good reason.

So while you marvel at your ability to find your balance on the fence line I laugh just a little because there is no fence and you’re standing on the same side of the boundary as me. I just have the courage to own the position I take in the world in a relatively free and liberal society such as Australia, not everyone has this luxury and you squander it.

Andrew says:

09:33am | 10/11/10

The theist says, “There is a god.” The atheist says, “Interesting idea, but can you prove it?” The theist’s statement is identical in kind with such statements as, “Fairies exist; Ghosts exist.” If you are going to assert that something exists, be it a god or a fairy, the onus of proof is on you. The atheist is, simply, one who does not assert that god exists. Neither do they assert that god does not exist, just as the notion of asserting that fairies do not exist is not relevant to them.

clarity says:

09:47am | 10/11/10

ahh Rob, perhaps you should pick up a dictionary…
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
—————————
Atheism by definition is the direct opposite of religious belief and regardless of the rationalle or logic behind the belief it is positing the view that a god or gods do not exist.

David the Atheist says:

09:53am | 10/11/10

@Matt I agree with nearly everything you said (since we ended up making almost identical posts basically) except I take issue with one thing:

“Agnostics criticise atheists that fall in the second category as they are often hypocritical. Many of these atheists entire belief against god hinges on their dislike of the world’s religions.”

If the antitheists do only have their dislike of religions as their basis for saying no god exists then I’d agree they are hypocritical and irrational however I’m not entirely sure this is the case. The problem with many people who claim they are agnostic is they quickly divert to amorphous and poorly defined gods (because god is unknowable right?) but this is not what the religious believe.

In general I describe myself as an agnostic atheist but there are particular gods people belief in which I am in fact an antitheist - I find the evidence against the existence of the particular god strong. You would to if I proposed a deity which lived in wardrobes and occaisionally stole shoe laces as offerings and took small bites out of clothing for sustenance. A cursory investigation would explain these observations and conclude this god does not exist because we know why these events occur and they are not divine.

The difference here is whether one is comfortable with deductive reasoning and its inherent uncertainty. Of course we can’t be certain there isn’t also a god stealing shoelaces and eating fabric even if we have found a natural explanation for this phenomena. But at what point do you see how desperate it is to demand absolute certainty in order to discount the proposition?

Markus says:

10:05am | 10/11/10

David the Atheist
“with regard to the existence of a god means a position which lacks a capacity to know whether a god exists” is my point, I don’t see how I have used the term incorrectly.

My issue is with self-professed atheists (whether they are using the label correctly or not) who seem to be able to say there is no god just as definitively as a theist can say there is.

This despite having the same amount of information available to them as I do, which is enough to say that it is very improbable there is a god, but not enough to claim there is definitely no god, without basing this claim on something other than knowledge alone.

Steely Dan says:

10:11am | 10/11/10

@ clarity

Did you understand the disconnect between the 2 definitions you quoted?  You realise that you can be an atheist under definition 2, but not accept definition 1?
And remember that dictionaries describe common usage, not the origin of the term.  ‘Atheism’ come from a-theos - literally ‘without god/s’.
The first ‘atheists’ were Christians, named so by Roman polytheists because they refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods - it was meant as an insult, as the concept of not believing in any gods was completely alien.

Matt says:

10:40am | 10/11/10

David the Atheist. Yeah I agree with what you’ve said, and I also would consider myself agnostic atheist. I see your point in as I am anti-theistic with regards to certain gods and beliefs, but not anti-theistic outright in that I don’t outright believe that a god couldn’t exist.

Deductive reasoning clearly is essential for us to function at all, and we cannot rely on absolutes in order to have beliefs (otherwise I would have no belief either way right now if I were in the Matrix or not).

Perhaps there are less anti-theists that blanketly reject any possibility of god based on nothing other than their own faith than I believe, but I’m not really sure either way here.

I guess it seems to me that if a person is going to spout superiority over the religious on their superior reasoning then they should be careful to not be equally reliant on faith for their own conclusions. To be anti-theistic about a particular religion or set of beliefs is perfectly fine. Particular religions and sets of belief provide us with circumstances which we can deductively assess and come up with our own beliefs on. To be blanketly anti-theistic on all forms of theism however is not a matter of reasoning, but of faith - where the believer has no evidence to believe their conclusion but they do anyway.

I think we need new words to discuss these matters with more clarity. The common definitions have far too much overlap and cause confusion!

Lo says:

11:07am | 10/11/10

I do wish atheists would finally decide what atheism actually is.  By the replies above I see a mountain of different variations.  I don’t profess to be anything so take no stand and if that makes me a coward so be it and totally fine by me.  Means I tolerate a lot of nonsense in religion and anti religion theories.

One question I do ask of those of faith.  Why is it that we have yet to experience a miracle of a grown back limb or a completely deteriorated part of the body regenerating in front of our eyes? I don’t class cancer as any miracle.  Been there and got over it and remission does occur in the most unlikely cases..

Chase Stevens says:

11:35am | 10/11/10

I am an atheist, but I wouldn’t assert there is no gods or souls or whatever. Just that there is no evidence to back up claims there is, and so until shown otherwise I do not believe there are gods or souls or karma or whathaveyou. I do not see how saying ‘Oh well gee there could be gods’ is more rational than saying ‘there is no evidence for gods’.  Saying agnosticism is rational is like saying; ‘Well there could be undetectable alien parasites controlling the population’ is rational.

Atheism is more rational than Agnosticism.

Steely Dan says:

11:43am | 10/11/10

@ Lo

“I do wish atheists would finally decide what atheism actually is.”
I’ve decided.  I’ve taken the meaning from it’s ancient roots, and use the same definition the ‘New’ Atheists (Dawkins etc) do.  If other atheists don’t want to be called atheists because that’s up to them.  Atheism isn’t a religion, we don’t have any spiritual leaders and we don’t have any naming conventions. 

P.S. I do wish religious people could decide what the one true religion is.

Economist says:

12:03pm | 10/11/10

Lo, why do you wish Atheists define what it is they exactly believe in. Theists have a range of views as well.

Perikles says:

12:24pm | 10/11/10

Guys listen up buddy get it right:

Agnostic

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, a god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Anti-theistic - means what? To believe in God but be ati God, God enemy? This is non sensical - see the definetions above true its simple don’t compleicate them.

Your a little bit confused.

Cate P says:

12:26pm | 10/11/10

Agreed Eric, much more honest to say I don’t know.  Atheism is a faith, agnosticism is an intellectual position.

Ben81 says:

12:41pm | 10/11/10

Rob r Charteris, next time before calling people uneducated, stupid and freaks perhaps how about you spend 5 seconds researching something.  You couldn’t be more wrong, and if you’re as worked up about the subject as you seem you’d do yourself some good to educate yourself on it.

David the Atheist says:

12:51pm | 10/11/10

@Perickles it is worth noting that dictionary definitions are not limited to the root etymology of the word but also the popular usage (just look at the definition of ‘cool’ for an example). The definitions you cited for agnostic and atheist are popular uses, the definitions cited by myself and several other posters are based on their etymology (their root meaning from the original words in older languages, in this case greek, and the implications of applying particular prefixes).

“Anti-theistic - means what?”

I suggest you consider what the prefixes ‘a-’ and ‘anti-’ relate to.

‘A-’ denotes a lack or being without, so a-theism is lacking a belief in god (since theism is the belief in god).

‘Anti-’ is against or contrary to, so antitheism is the opposition to the belief in god (not god himself).

I would say a more appropriate prefix for believing no god(s) exist(s) may be contra-theism or counter-theism but neither have the zing or ease of pronunciation as antitheism. While you may not like it, antitheism is used quite commonly by people in the ‘New’ Atheist writings and blogosphere.

Chris L says:

12:53pm | 10/11/10

Perikles, your comment would have sounded very intelligent if it hadn’t been wrong. An atheist is, literally, a person without theism. This does not mean we believe there is no god/s, it means we don’t know and without proof we will not give any credance to the idea.

I feel the same way about ghosts. Although I like the idea of ghosts and love reading about them, I won’t actually believe they exist or give them credance unless it becomes proven.

paulJamison says:

02:19pm | 10/11/10

Rob r Charteris -  “Atheism doesn’t say “There is no God””
Atheism ABSOLUTELY says that THERE IS NO GOD. That is exactly what atheism is about. Based on evidence available and logic… there is no god.

Rob r Charteris -  “Atheism simply says God is irrelevant and isn’t considered in the first place.”
Whilst god is irrelevant, I’d catagorise the feeling of the statement as Agnosticism which is much more the; “don’t know, don’t care, fence sitting, not hurting anyone’s feeling viewpoint”... that atheists dislike

Chris L: “An atheist is, literally, a person without theism.”
True

Chris L: ‘“This does not mean we believe there is no god/s, ”
Yes it does. It DOES mean we believe there is no god. Unless presented with conclusive proof.

Otherwise i agree with your general commentary. If atheists actually banded together we’d be a powerful force, but as a certain famous figure said, ‘organising atheists is like herding cats.’
Maybe Julia can start an achurch….

Just Sayin' says:

02:39pm | 10/11/10

All Christians are atheists, of the anti-thesist kind.  All modern monotheisms insist that you don’t believe in other gods.  Christians calling people who do not believe there is a god irrational is a bit rich.  To be fair, we agree on 99.99% of gods that were ever worshipped.

Reg says:

06:24pm | 10/11/10

Brenden you aught to be ashamed of yourself. Although I must admit it’s very funny to see so many rise to the bait. Free beer for all Muslims and bloody nothing for the non-believers.

Chris L says:

06:44pm | 10/11/10

paulJamison I respect your view point but I have a response to your response quoted here:

“‘“This does not mean we believe there is no god/s, ”
Yes it does. It DOES mean we believe there is no god. Unless presented with conclusive proof.”

This I disagree with. The fact that no existing theism is convincing enough to deserve (in my opinion) belief does not exclude the possibility of an entity or group of entities having created us. It seems unlikely, to be sure, but cannot yet be discounted. This is why atheists, like you and I, favour the scientific method. Nothing is discounted without being disproven. Hence I leave myself open to the idea of ghosts, vampires and pastafarism(sic). May his noodly appendage grant you flavour!

Alan Gold says:

11:12pm | 10/11/10

Eric, your third point shows you know absolutely nothing about what non-theism is. (and yet you vote?) Atheism is LACK OF FAITH…not requiring faith.  Science is continual testing and theorizing.  All of science is not an ‘IDEA’.  And science is provable.  If things change (with valid experimentation) with chemistry or physics or math or biology, logical people accept that.  Tell me how the bible can be changed?  Our advanced world exists because of science.  We would all be in the black ages if we adopted your idea of a terrific world, with pestilence, disease, and famine as a continued worldwide fact.
Maybe I am lumping you in with other theists, but an agnostic thinks there MAY be a big guy in the sky.  How silly.  Think about it.

Joey says:

12:58am | 11/11/10

The Athiest’s creed:

1.) There is no God
2.) And I hate Him

Reece says:

02:33am | 11/11/10

@Lo

apparently i hear the miners who were trapped in the mine and got freed became christians,

and why are there still monkeys around? if humans have envolved from them considering if Atheists dont believe in God im sure they would find a different way of thinking how we came to be born, ie evolution etc….
one would think if we envolved from monkeys there would be none left, i was born from my mother and father and they were humans .

and wonder how a leader will govern at the start of the day considering they have to do the morning Prayer .

Awakened says:

06:35am | 11/11/10

atheism is based on evidence?  What evidence?
Atheism has can be disproven be every branch of science and philosyphy known.  atheism is s belief that manipulates facts to appear right.  All evidence that atheism claims to prove their case is the same evidence that proves Inteligent Design.  And ID doesn’t need to manipulate the facts to fit their theory.
It hasn’t been hard to notice that over the last 20-30 years have been acting like the Spanish Inquisition and men like dawkins are using less “evidence” and more “philosopical” type arguments against Christianity an ID.  It seams its the only way atheism can survive the new scientific awakening.

Greg says:

08:24am | 11/11/10

You can’t “prove” scientific theories either.  It is a common misconception that applying logic to incomplete representations of reality gives a complete picture of it.  It just shows that there is logical consistency between various representations and allows them to be modelled as a system of theories which are compatible with each other.  The universe doesn’t have to follow the laws of our perception or the Greeks.  We just use it because it is a tool we have that seems to help when making rules to describe and predict from what we know of our surroundings so far.

pauljamison says:

09:20am | 11/11/10

ChrisL, let me put it this way….
The continued and long standing lack of proof for, and the strong likelihood against, are enough evidence FOR ME against god. Unless presented with irrefutable evidence for god.
In the same way that lack of proof for, and the likelihood against flying yellow elephants in my backyard is sufficient for me to conclude that there aren’t.
In the same way that lack of proof for someone committing a crime is sufficient for a court to conclude that they didn’t.
Largely that all comes down to semantic, definitions and where the black and whites of an appropriate answer are.
Lack of proof against is proof against lack of proof for the lack of proof against [head spins] [loses interest]
Pffft, I’m no philosopher, I’m just here for the ride.  Anyway, thanks for the chat.

Chris L says:

12:34pm | 11/11/10

@Joey, there is no atheist creed, but if there were one we wouldn’t bother hating a fictional character.

Let me counter your very clever attack on atheism with an equally witty retort:
The christian creed: That altar boy looks hot!

paulJamison says:

08:18am | 12/11/10

ChrisL… if you haven’t already, google ‘arguments for atheism’ and go to the ones from infidel.org
plenty of good arguments in there about why god doesn’t exist, from people more switched on than myself.
and whilst i can’t summarise all the essays in 25 words or less there’s a lot of sense in there, in my opinion anyway.
that’s an annoying thing about this topic anyway… pro get away with a sweeping statement like god exists… whilst con needs to justify point by point why it’s rubbish. quite annyoing. if atheism could come up with a one-liner snappy answer the tables would turn quick smart. something other than… “no he doesn’t”

as for joey’s atheists creed… i don’t hate god. seems a waste of energy to hate something that doesn’t even exist.

Macca says:

06:53am | 10/11/10

Let the Christian Bashers and The Preachers collide….

@Aitch B, I think for as many ppl who didn’t vote for Abbott because of his religion, they did vote for him because JG is an atheist. Regardless, I don’t think we should choose our politicians on the basis of their religion.

To my knowledge, and happy to be corrected if I’m wrong, JG is our first openly atheist PM, and she’s not off to the best of starts.

KH says:

07:32am | 10/11/10

Macca - wrong I think - Bob Hawke famously said he was an Atheist, when he was the PM…..........

Phil says:

07:41am | 10/11/10

Macca I heard that Hawkey was privately but this is unproven.

iansand says:

08:00am | 10/11/10

I think both Hawke and Keating were non-believers, and I vaguely recall a concocted outrage when Whitlam affirmed the oath of allegiance at his swearing in.

ChrisC says:

08:49am | 10/11/10

TimB, the proposition is that God does exist, a view held my the majority of people on the planet, therefor, yes the onus is on the atheist to prove otherwise if they have a minority view.  The real philosophical question is “which God”, as none of them are consistently the same.

loxy says:

08:54am | 10/11/10

I agree Aitch, the main reason I didn’t and would never vote for Abbott was due to his religious views and I know many people in the same point. As far as I’m concerned, religious views were definitely an issue at the last election.

Steely Dan says:

09:30am | 10/11/10

@ Aitch B

I didn’t vote for Abbott for a number of reasons, but the relevant reason for this discussion was not his Catholicism, it was his history of disrespect toward the separation of church and state.  Gillard’s guilty of the same thing, ironically (there’s still a lot of church arse-kissing in the ALP), but not as bad as Abbott.

I’m an atheist, but I’m not sure that I agree with the author that an atheist PM would be better.  A fundie who can compartmentalise their beliefs and uphold S116 would be a better PM in terms of church-state relations than the current atheist PM.  Secularity is the important thing here.

David the Atheist says:

09:42am | 10/11/10

I really don’t know how many people voted one way or the other on the basis of this issue. It would also be immensely difficult to quanitfy.

Modern Australia and religion is a strange mix because while the last ABS census records ~64% of the population self-identifying as Christian of some stripe and only ~18% as non-religious (which to the horror of some posters here puts atheists and agnostics together). Contrast this with the National Church Life Surveys which have placed church attendance below 10% it is very difficult to see just how much of the population had their vote swayed by two of the most common religious persuasions in the nation.

I’d say Aitch B is almost on the mark in one sense - some of Abbott’s views, especially towards women, may have worked against him (as the polls repeatedly showed) but I don’t know if you can say his views were explicitly Catholic. His patronising paternalism is probably more of a feature of his staunch conservatism and romantic view of days of yore because I’m sure you can find many males who affirm a Catholic religion who disagree with Abbott on such issues.

It is a complex place the meeting of social, cultural, generational, political and religious ideas and virtually impossible to truly tease out the individual components.

Aitch B says:

10:06am | 10/11/10

@Steely Dan

Fair enough…... point taken.

pauljamison says:

01:34pm | 10/11/10

ChrisC, the fact that people the world over can’t decide what god(s) is, only shows that we’re creative in our fiction. It certainly doesn’t prove the existence of any divinity, if anything it helps disprove it.
You could easily argue that If there was A god it should be universal enough to be distinguishable regardless of the diverse cultures that see it. Rather than the plethora of often specifically defined deities that have appear at one point or another across the globe.
Everyone throughout history knows what lightning looks like though we call it different things; from atmospheric electrical discharge, to Thor’s mighty wrath, or just simply… ‘lightning’. It’s still lightning and now most of us understand what it’s all about and that it’s not supernatural.
Counter: God can appear however it wants, and in a way that the locals can understand… blah blah blah. Which is of course a poor argument.

More importantly having a minority view doesn’t mean your solution is wrong;
- Galileo was criticized by the church for not holding their view that the earth was the centre of the universe. He based his opinion on observation and logical reasoning.
Which was wrong? his well considered conclusions, or the popular belief held by ‘the majority’ (most of which who would never even have thought about the subject anyway)?
- This goes for religion too; provide some evidence and I as an thoughtful atheist will consider the evidence before making my decision.

I think that as people have explored the nature of atheism they’ve found all the evidence/arguments against god that they need. Short of god actually appearing on field on grand final night for all to see, there’s little hope of anyone providing a compelling argument (that holds water) against atheism.

Lastly I would suggest that as the less logical of the two arguments and the one with no tangible evidence, if god exists… prove it.

Dale W says:

02:00pm | 10/11/10

Chris C,

But they don’t all believe in the same god, therefore if you break it down by the different gods that the different religions believe in then potentially there are more atheists, than people who believe in any single god?

But then again, even though I am an atheist, I still voted for abbott over Gillard and would again, due to her lack of values, nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

Rather Christian than atheist - rather atheist tha says:

03:15pm | 10/11/10

Hmm I know the true christians work for love, truth and justice.  An aethist works to their own rules.  To me that makes Julia a far more dangerous person.  A christian would be hesitant to cull half the world’s population to survuve - an atheist would be telling their family to get out of the kill zone.
Aethists have no morals - any they think they have are mearly constructs they made up.  The true atheist thinks more about the law of the jungle - the strongest survives - it is the more accurate position as nature shows it is a dog eat dog world.
So Brendan you have obviously not thought the consequences through - maybe it was a little puff piece to meet a deadline?
But then there is the religious extremist common in Islamic countries…....

Trevor says:

07:38pm | 10/11/10

@Rather Christian than atheist

You are one of the worst kind of religious bigot there is. Put it this way, I bet you there is no moral act that you can imagine that a religious person can perform that an atheist categorically could not perform. Now think of a completely immoral act that a religious person could perform that an atheist could not. I’ll give you a hit - killing in the name of god. I think you may want to seriously think about the religious apologist rhetoric you spout, that is fed to you by like minded fools before you go spout idiocies such as atheists have no morals and confirming completely how great a brainwashed fool you really are.

A Dose of Reality says:

01:39am | 11/11/10

POST Rather Christian than atheist: 

Please re-read your own post, you should be embarrassed. 

Your argument is based on such foolish, uneducated and bigoted assumptions that my 5 y/o daughter would see through them and laugh at the “silly”.

Rob r Charteris says:

07:37am | 10/11/10

I reckon you are religious, you certainly come across as one who likes and believes in imaginary friends. You just cant admit it can you tiny tim

Phil says:

07:58am | 10/11/10

Tim you hit it on the head perfectly. As a christian, I did not vote for Tony Abbott cause he is a catholic. I beleived he had the conviction and ability to do the job, I dont care if he was gay, atheist, or a monk.
I do not think Gillard or anyone currently in the labor ranks has that ability. Rudd was smart, no doubt, but he was all talk no action, and everything he tried he stuffed. Erroll would be a great name for all the Rudd government, cause everything they touched they #$cked.
The last person in labor with any ability to get things done was Keating. He just could not explain where he wanted to take the country effectively, but had the brains, guts, balls and ability to get the job done. Labor are clearly in over their heads and the religious beliefs or lack thereof is the least of their issues right now. They are making popular decisions NBN, Climate Change etc, rather than what we actually need. A price on carbon will only drive up costs, yet to compensate many who are major poluters because they cant afford to pay is a joke. Its either all in or all out. Carbon is damaging or its not, your ability to pay for that is not relavant to the argument of the climate change industry.
Tell someone whos family member died cause they couldnt get a hospital bed that fast porn/online diagnosis is better and you are likely to be hit very hard from short range.
Internet access is important in this day and age, but not more important that getting to and from work quicker with good roads, public transport, health, food and housing prices, yet nearly all labor polititions who in the main have never built anything worthwhile with their own money with the chance that things could go pear shaped and take personal responsability for it, can spruke any good slogan knowing that everyone else will pay for their stuff ups, over runs, cock ups etc. Rudds Mrs would do a better job that all of them put together. Get her team into power of the current lot.
Looking at the authors articles, he is clearly a labor fan, and this is just his best efforts at diverting the incompetance of Gillard and Co.

Polly says:

08:08am | 10/11/10

Tim B: Good call.  “And that’s what really matters, meaning your veiled attack on Tony simply for having religious beliefs is incredibly small and petty. “
Any excuse to attack the Coalition is to sidestep more important issues -  NBN - Asylum Boat People - Carbon Tax and a government that has lost its way to its wasteful BER overspending etc is the Labor way.

Gillard as an atheist has her own reasons as much as Tony Abbott has his.
Religion has been around for thousands of years in any shape or form but at the end of the day, we all answer to one being - GOD (who has many names depending on your religious beliefs) or the Devil himself.
We want to believe in a higher being. Have we forgotten Mary McKillop already? How many of us were taught, if we did not live a good life - we would be damned to Hell?

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:26am | 10/11/10

Well said Tim B , Gilard is far more lost now than Rudd was at any point in his term as P.M.
This article has two aims (1)  to ridicule Christianity.
                                (2) to justify Gillard’s athiesism.
The writer’s use of politics to to push the athiest’s barrow.
Ironically , the real outcome of the article is highlighting the Prime Minister’s failings as a national leader .

TimB says:

08:45am | 10/11/10

You’d reckon wrong Rob. You seem to make a habit of that.

I don’t go to church beyond the social obligations I stated above. I don’t spend time praying to deities. I don’t run my life based on millennia old texts (or even the more recent ones). I will use logic and reason to mercilessly mock any fundementalists who insist on shoving their particular brand of crazy down the throats of others.

But I will stand up for those who simply wish to practice their beliefs, with no impact on the lives of others. If they aren’t hurting other people, I’m all for letting them believe what they want.

Got any other baseless assumptions you’d like to hit me with? Or maybe just another childish insult?

MarK says:

08:55am | 10/11/10

What TimB said.

I endorse his post.

NicoleG says:

09:00am | 10/11/10

@Tim, I wouldn’t even bother responding to him. He’s simply not worthy of your time.

Your comment sums it up perfectly. Yet another attempt to smear Abbott. Pretty weak really.

Macca says:

09:11am | 10/11/10

*grabs coffee and eagerly sits at computer hitting refresh in anticipation for more of the Rob & Tim Show.*

Tempted to call it 1-0 to TimB right now, although Rob deserves some sort of penalty for his infantile comments

Sean says:

10:04am | 10/11/10

Well said TimB, this was obviously just an attack on Abbott.

Brendan’s statement that Abbott’s Catholicism was a non-issue is blatantly false. His bias is highlighted by the line about the religious not voting for Gillard, I think plenty of people didn’t vote for Tony because he is religious.

Steve says:

02:06pm | 10/11/10

@ Rob r Charteris, just wondering, would you be a man of small stature? as your comments reflect a certain “small man” mentality!

By the way I am a christian and proud of it.

John of Brisbane says:

05:20pm | 10/11/10

Hmm interesting .. I voted for Labor because they have a much greater sense of social justice prgrams for helping those who can’t always help themselves. As an avowed Catholic I find Tony very short on this particular Christian trait.  BTW I am a Christian

MrMac says:

06:36am | 10/11/10

It would seem that religious organisations like the catholics are currently over-represented in Australian parliaments, and whether this is because there are so many parliamentary positions for a country with only 22 million people, of who only about 11-12m vote.

Is institutionalisation is a factor?

One wonders what sectarianism arises from that, and how much issues are decided on faith rather than the issues themselves.

Old Clive says:

06:55am | 10/11/10

Is that Theo Racca?

Ted says:

08:20am | 10/11/10

And the next step from having the letters behind there name is for them to be forced to wear a yellow star for example on their clothes. Should go well for Labors mindset given their attack on Abbott followed their Socialist Nazi vilification approach. It is interesting how the religious vilification laws were suspended for the attacks on Abbott.

Kath says:

08:33am | 10/11/10

Given that section 116 of the Constitution precludes a religious test for public office, I don’t know whether Theo Racle’s proposal would survive a High Court challenge, given that it is, in effect, a religious test.  Not that you must be of a particular religion, but that you must identify that you are a particular religion or not to be considered a candidate for Federal public office.

...and for anyone who thinks that a candidate’s Islamic heritage would not be found out in a general election, I point you to Ed Husic’s unsuccessful candidacy for the seat of Greenway in 2004, and his successful candidacy for the seat of Chifley in 2010. 

@MrMac, are Catholics overrepresented in Australian Parliaments?  Over one quarter of those who responded to the “What Religion are You?” question in the last census identified as Catholics, a slightly smaller number identified as Anglicans.  So when over 50% identify as two branches of Christianity, it’s hard to say they’re over-represented.  Anyway, Catholics were part of the ALP since its founding, were instrumental in the founding of the DLP and, since the DLP’s demise, have risen in the Liberal Party.

Elizabeth says:

09:49am | 10/11/10

Polly, sorry I DON’T ANSWER TO GOD at the end of the day NOT ALL OF US…speak for yourself and not others.

Ras Putin says:

10:11am | 10/11/10

Theo—i am sure that the catholic faith has pushed hard to get their people into positions of power!! Could somebody tell me how many of the leaders of all political parties,right round Aust.,are not catholic!

Chris L says:

01:07pm | 10/11/10

” I wonder if there is for instance a push by the catholics or the islamists to have their people in positions of political power.”

You could be correct about this Theo, but don’t forget if you’d made this statement about Jews you would be a racist! In fact, I’m surprised you felt comfortable including Islamists (although you ceverly disguised your meaning by not using the word “muslim”)

As an atheist I don’t mind what religion our leaders are as long as policy making remains secular. I insist on good reasons why they are against abortion or prostitution or gay marriage or why they are for censorship. If such good reasons are given I shall accept (albeit grudgingly, especially on the issue of censorship).

KH says:

07:33am | 10/11/10

I love how some people seem to think that a non belife in fantasy beings somehow means we ‘don’t believe in anything’ - how presumptious can you get?

Elizabeth says:

09:46am | 10/11/10

What! invested in a future filled with fairies and imaginary friends that will fix the world if you only pray!!!  You just don’t get it do you? Some people are so gullible….....I think Julia will do well for Australia because she does not have her head in the sand about religion.

Chris L says:

01:23pm | 10/11/10

To be fair, Dead To Me did not specify a connection between not beliving in god and not believing in anything.
To clarify he said “or muh(sic) else it seems”
From his history I would speculate that statement was more to do with his political preference than religious intollerance.
Personally I lean to the left but I can see problems with Labor’s efforts so far. I also saw at least as many problems with the previous Liberal government. Please note if many of us succumb to apathy or despair it isn’t because of atheism.

Steve says:

06:13pm | 10/11/10

@KH I love how many atheists seem to think that their lack of evidence in supposed ‘fantasy beings’ means that the evidence isn’t there. You haven’t had any personal experience to prove there’s a god therefore anyone who does believe in god is somehow deluded or uneducated. Is that it? That seems to be the message I hear from most atheists and it’s about as ignorant and uninformed as some of the most fanatical religious zealots I’ve met. Of course the ones who deliberately use belittling terms like ‘fairies’ such as Elizabeth don’t do much to make their points appear any more credible. For centuries religions treated non believers as ignorant savages. Now it’s swinging the other way and it’s no better.

Chris L says:

01:01am | 11/11/10

@Steve Indeed, people who have had a personal experience with god are in a different argument. Along with all the people who have been visited by George Washington/aliens/The Ghost Of Christmas Past.
On the plus side, we won’t burn you for your beliefs.

RR says:

07:13am | 10/11/10

Atheism does not propose a supernatural being as religion does.

Syl says:

09:33am | 10/11/10

@ Lucas
“Atheism is just the same as religion. “

Uh no it isn’t, there is a hell of a lot more proof against a supernatural Sky Wizard than there is for one.

An Athiest looks at something amazing and thinks, “Wow thats amazing, I don’t know how that occured but I’d like to find out”
** cue to montage of scientific experiments and evidence collection**

A religious person (Christian, Muslim, whatever) looks at something amazing and says “Wow thats amazing, my puny human mind can’t comprehend how that happened, there must be an invisible superpowerful Wizard in the sky who did it!”
** Cue to weird rituals and blind faith in said Wizard**

See the difference?

Steely Dan says:

09:35am | 10/11/10

@ Lucas

Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god, not the positive assertion that there is no god.  Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

HappyCynic says:

10:29am | 10/11/10

@Syl, what is this proof you speak of?  How do you define the word “proof”?  I can prove anything by shifting the definition of the word “proof” far enough

So for you to say that “there is a hell of a lot more proof against a supernatural Sky Wizard than there is for one” is a blatantly false statement unless you define proof first.

Philosophically speaking I could argue that the fact people believe in a higher power is all the proof required to confirm the existence of one.  (the idea of G-d exists in peoples imaginations therefore by that extension G-d exists as an idea)

Atheists, anti-theists and theists are all idiots when it comes to this argument because they all deal with a level of absolutism that constricts the argument and in my opinion any absolutism in an argument automatically invalidates it.

Syl says:

11:17am | 10/11/10

@ HappyCynic
“Atheists, anti-theists and theists are all idiots when it comes to this argument because they all deal with a level of absolutism that constricts the argument and in my opinion any absolutism in an argument automatically invalidates it.”

Huh?? I never mentioned absolutes.  I never stated whether God existed or not, I just said there is more proof (or shall I say evidence) against the existence of a God than their is for one.  If you can’t see this, I wonder who the idiot is?  MANY things that used to be attributed to God (or the devil) have since been explained scientifically using evidence. (Creation vs Evolution, Mental Illness etc)  How long is it before ALL things attributed to God are explained?

Surely your comment (All Athiests are idiots?) is a MUCH better example of Absolutism than mine.  Not to mention the hypocrisy of accusing Athiests of absolutism when the religious do the exact same thing.  (God exists, your an idiot if u think otherwise).  Please…

HappyCynic says:

12:25pm | 10/11/10

@Syl

I never said atheists are all idiots though.  I said “Atheists, anti-theists and theists are all idiots when it comes to this argument” and I stand by it because absolutism is equal to closing your mind.

You’ve changed proof to evidence but the absolute you’re dealing with is that all proof or evidence exists within the parameters set by the sciences when I’ve argued that the words “proof” or “evidence” can in fact be defined in ways not set by science and therefore is not absolute.  Theists also use absolutes though theirs are their relevant books.

Purely from a scientific perspective you’d be right, little or no scientific evidence exists of a G-d I’d never argue against that statement.  My argument is that viewing the world purely from a scientific perspective is a very narrow view restricted by absolutes and therefore incomplete and not adequate to answer the question “Does a higher power exist?”.

Syl says:

01:51pm | 10/11/10

Uh I havent changed evidence to proof, evidence is defined as proof.

ev·i·dence
? ?/??v?d?ns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

What other evidence is there that matters?  The reasoning
” Philosophically speaking I could argue that the fact people believe in a higher power is all the proof required to confirm the existence of one.  (the idea of G-d exists in peoples imaginations therefore by that extension G-d exists as an idea)” is rubbish, an idea is not reality.
By that reasoning I could argue that the fact that some people believe that the holocaust didnt happen is all the proof required to confirm it didnt.  The fact that people believe something is not evidence, remember, we used to think the world was flat until science proved otherwise.

As for the “All Athiests are idiots” bit, I misread your original post and apologise for the misquote and misunderstanding.

Anonymousaurus Rex says:

03:13pm | 10/11/10

@ HappyCynic
You havent thought through the absolutism position.

“A triangle is only possible with 3 sides”

“A circle with a corner is impossible”

These are absolute arguements, valid only in the absolute, and cannot be valid in any other way.

Your position on absolutism is invalid.

Atheistno1 says:

07:51am | 11/11/10

Lucas, I find your explanation for Atheist’s somewhat lost mate. Please allow me to clarify that there is only one form of Atheism & that it is the belief in fact not fiction. I find the commentary from others about Atheist’s rather tantrum, as they imply things like “hating religion” & the fact that I am an Atheist, I can assure you that there is no God & religion is not nothing more than fictional. However I do despise lyres & con artists & if I hated something, it would not be something I consider non existent.
To make someone else out to be something that isn’t so, is a childish mindset that is befitting with religion & what makes the cowards that hide behind it using emotional blackmail for excuses of things they just don’t want to face in reality. This is not a personal attack against you Lucas but to remind you that a reality check of your moral position as a Christian, would be an appropriate & appreciated.

HappyCynic says:

08:36am | 11/11/10

@Syl - an idea is not reality but an idea is real.

@Anonymousaurus Rex - why does a triangle only have to have 3 sides?  If enough people wanted to change the definition of a triangle they could and therefore the statement that a triangle can only have 3 sides could be determined as false in that circumstance.

Same goes for a circle.  Also there is the argument that the is no such thing as a perfect circle with no corners (if you magnify any circle enough you’ll find a corner eventually) therefore it could also be argued that a circle without corners is almost impossible.

Argument against absolutism validated again

Steely Dan says:

09:48am | 10/11/10

@ someone

“I would agree that an atheist leader is better.  But when that leader shows the kind of moral cowardice and hypocrisy that Julia Gillard has shown, over issues such as gay marriage, I think what is best is any leader who is 100% committed to secularism.”
Seconded.

Jack says:

08:14am | 10/11/10

The problem they have is that the principles of the Ten Commandments represent the glue that holds the fabric of society together. They on the other hand want to walk from these principles because they lack the moral backbone to think of people other than themselves and take accountability for their actions. Then they have the arrogance to blame other people for why society is falling apart.

KH says:

09:07am | 10/11/10

@Jack - the ‘glue of the fabric that holds society together’? Nonsense.  There are two things in there - not stealing and not murdering that are logical - just because one does not believe in fantasy beings, doesn’t mean we can’t recognise logic when we see it.
All the other ‘commandments’ are either utter nonsense, hardly abided by let alone being the ‘fabric of society’, and in one particular case, just insulting to women (implying they are property).  Society is hardly going to fall apart if people work on a Sunday….. I mean seriously.

Chase Stevens says:

11:44am | 10/11/10

@Jack - The reason society is ‘falling apart’ is because of (first and foremost) rampant fear inspired conservatism and secondly the gradual decline of people joining community groups to help each other and the less fortunate.

James1 says:

12:49pm | 10/11/10

Jack is spot on, guys, give him a break.  The ten commandments and the other laws of the OT are the only thing keeping me from coveting my neighbour’s oxen.  They are some very nice oxen, after all.  Plus I get to kill children if they strike their parents - who wouldn’t want to live by laws like that?

Tedd says:

07:18am | 10/11/10

Good nag, whine and dusting, 2291.  Perhaps her belief system is a non-issue, anyway?

Chris L says:

01:31pm | 10/11/10

It seems you are also a skeptic toward the use of the space bar. At least you managed to insult both sides of the argument, and I can respect that.

MrMac says:

07:15am | 10/11/10

Has Ms Gillard ever states she is certain there is no God?  Are you putting words in her mouth?

Adam Diver says:

07:45am | 10/11/10

Would you care to explain how you are certain there is no apollo, zeus, allah, jehovah or whichever god you choose not to believe.

“I Contend that we are both atheist, I just believe in one fewer god than you”

Sid says:

08:25am | 10/11/10

She probably believes in the other side given the underhanded deceitful betrayal of Rudd. Very Lefty communist.

Steely Dan says:

09:37am | 10/11/10

@ Andrew

“Would Gillard like to explain how she is certain there is no God?”
At the risk of repeating myself: Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god.  It is not the positive assertion that there is no god.  There is a difference.

Joan says:

10:03am | 10/11/10

Gillard believes in leprechauns…. she dressed up as one when she met the Commonweath Team on their return…  Gillard leprechaun look.. red hair with yellow streak, dazzling lime green coat and canary yellow scarf. Yeah you would have to believe in leprechauns to wear that outfit.

Tedd says:

07:19am | 10/11/10

The dirty window analogy could be applied to believers too, Joan.

Paulb says:

08:20am | 10/11/10

I love how belief in the sky fairy is equated with this pompous, self absorbed thing called “spirituality”.

Shannon says:

08:31am | 10/11/10

Oh yes, because if any mind isnt suited for a political role, it’s a rational one, who doesnt believe in the sky fairy… good work.

Joan says:

09:48am | 10/11/10

Nothing like the blind, ignorant, dumb and stupid. -  to be so silly as equal spiritualiity to a sky fairy. By the way what this sky fairy, that you seem to be so terrified of…. I`ve never hear of such a thing ...please explain

JT says:

10:02am | 10/11/10

Well Joan , your travelling through life in that same car with dirty windows - the difference is YOU deliberately put the dirt there !!!

Joan says:

10:21am | 10/11/10

JT and Tedd….  my windows are crystal clear, it is you who are travelling in the dark, like some poor people of the world who can’t read or write you wander through life missing a spirtual dimension in your life. - I feel sorry for you…. it`s not too late `seek and you shall find, ask an the door shall open`

HappyCynic says:

10:35am | 10/11/10

@Joan

Accusing others of being ignorant is itself being ignorant of other ideas.

I’m a believer but people like you don’t help the argument any

Akrasiel Rising says:

11:07am | 10/11/10

@ Joan, I am curious how any person who questions the belief in god is ignorant? Surely the ability to look at a matter objectively and to expect that evidence be put forward to support a case shows a level of perception well above that of the person who blindly follows what they are told.

As an Atheist (and again it is for want of a better word as the definition encompasses so many schools of thought) it is not my job to prove your god does not exist. It is like me saying “I just thought of something now I want you to prove that I didn’t think what I said I thought!” You can’t prove a negative. It is also a misnomer to suggest that being an Atheist means you have no spirituality, I cite two very well known examples being Jainism and some branches of Buddhism, both of which do not advocate the existence of god but are well known to be very spiritual in their approaches to life.

You fully endorse the findings of a recent Pew Forum Survey which showed that, as a group, Atheists are more informed about religion than Christians (Jews and Mormons came in second by the way) because they are more inclined to investigate it and look at it critically, or using your own analogy, they realise that the windows on their car are dirty and investigate how to get out of the car and clean them, as opposed to just believing that their windows are supposed to be dirty because the instruction manual that came with the car did not give them specific instructions on how to clean them.

Naomi says:

11:18am | 10/11/10

Joan, you’re not helping your cause. Trying to guilt-trip or belittle people into belief is categorically opposing the concept of faith in the first place. Masquerading close-minded bigotry as ‘spirituality’ as a misguided attempt to ostracise and isolate people makes you appear uneducated and unintelligent.
I feel that someone with your mindset would be unsuitable for a political role also. In fact, the thought of someone like you in any position of power is frightening.
For reference - I am a non-denominational Christian.

RR says:

07:10am | 10/11/10

With death being final, we wouldn’t find out, Old Clive.

The facts do not support the notion of an afterlife.

Joan says:

07:45am | 10/11/10

RR… The scientific afterlife .... is the decay of body…it breaks up into all its elements, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen etc it goes round and round and round…. so everytime you eat or breathe you are consuming a bit on something that was alive but now is dead ... as it rots as it gives back to the earth and air. .... an afterlife of sorts. We are all part of the cosmos the universe in this way.

Sean says:

10:11am | 10/11/10

RR to what facts do you refer?

Steely Dan says:

10:15am | 10/11/10

@ Old Clive

Pascal’s Wager!  Drink!

(Everybody else is playing the Failed Arguments for God Drinking Game too, right?)

Chris L says:

01:41pm | 10/11/10

Steely Dan, I’m on my second glass. Does that mean I’m disqualified?

Old Clive, you’ll be kicking yourself when you realise it was the Mormons who were right! Thank you Matt and Trey for making this clear!

Adam Diver says:

07:56am | 10/11/10

Atheism survives on faith? That is such a stupid proposition. On that logic everything you do not believe in, is a matter of faith. Fairies, elves, unicorns, honest politicians, reasonable comments on the punch, flying human beings, manbearpig, santa etc, a persons disbelief in these things is just a matter of faith???

Paulbe says:

08:24am | 10/11/10

There is no credible evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible.  Nothing, Nada, Zip.  No Roman records, no Greek, no Judaic/hebrew, no wherever you care to look.  There’s some oddball stuff from India that no-one takes very seriously at this stage, but otherwise….nothing.

Snoogens says:

09:47am | 10/11/10

@ Paulbe

Talmud, Josephus, Mishna to name a few.

Go and look for yourself and cover your eyes.

By the way, what year are we living and why?

Steely Dan says:

10:25am | 10/11/10

@ Snoogens

Talmud (Mishnah and Gemara) = written 200AD and 500AD
Josephus = born in 37AD, and the passage declaring that a messiah existed is considered a forgery anyway.

James1 says:

07:34am | 10/11/10

Put another way, one politician only avoids evil because of fear of punishment in the afterlife.  This politician needs to be coerced into avoiding evil.

Another politician has a rational belief that avoiding evil is a positive thing in itself, without fear of punishment.

Which of those would be a better leader?

Daniel says:

07:44am | 10/11/10

Eric, your statement works on the premise that morals are derived from religious belief. I would judge the person by their actions.

Paulbe says:

08:31am | 10/11/10

So the motivation to act for “the general good” lies only in the fear of punishment?  Nice one Eric.  Didn’t think that one through did you.

Paulbe says:

08:33am | 10/11/10

So the motivation to act for “the general good” lies only in the fear of punishment?  Nice one Eric.  Didn’t think that one through did you.

Economist says:

08:42am | 10/11/10

Here’s a point. One politician commits evil then asks for forgiveness, assumes everything is alright and continues to commit evil. This politican has a motivation to act in their own self-interest because in the afterlife they will sit on Gods right hand side. Another politician recognises that everyone has only one life and places a higher value on this life? This politican rationally recognises the consequences of their actions. Which would be the better leader?

Your problem Eric is that you place a higher value on the religious, because you have more in common with them. You assume that non-believers are moral relativists, not to be trusted.

I totally agree with Tim B. What is the point of the article, when you state counter arguments? Australia has been well served by both highly religious, faux religious, sometimes religious, agnostics and atheist politicians. Look at their policies, look at their influence within the party? Look at the general direction of the party? And vote according to your own value set (This does not necessarily mean voting for your own best interest, some voters can see the big picture).

Sam says:

10:22am | 10/11/10

Eric, here’s another point.  All catholic priests have an irrational belief that they will be punished in the future for evil deeds done today. And yet, many of them still commit rape and sodomy on the youth they preach to. Who is superior in these instances?

Steely Dan says:

10:31am | 10/11/10

@ Eric

“Another politician has a “rational” belief that there are no consequences for evil actions, and that he has only one life - so he should rationally do whatever it takes to make that life as comfortable as possible for himself.”
Oh, dear.  So you think that morality can only come from a divine being?  Just prove the existence of that divine being - and that we’ve interpreted their will correctly - and your argument makes sense.  Until then, let’s note that atheists believe that this is the only life we get, so we want to make the most of it while we’re here.  And part of making the most of it is by upholding a civil and free society.

Eric says:

01:55pm | 10/11/10

I’m not claiming that atheists can’t be ethical. I’m simply pointing out that there is no rational basis for such ethics from an individual’s point of view.

Self-sacrifice and altruism without personal reward are both genetically and socially selected for in humans because they benefit the species as a whole, but they are not rational behaviours for an individual.

Daniel says:

07:55am | 10/11/10

Nothing to do with right or wrong, just that it won’t bring her the most votes.

Rosie says:

08:25am | 10/11/10

Thank you Luke I have been asking exactly the same qestion ever since I heard Gillard on TV with great gusto as if gloating that she didn’t believe there was a God! Great I thought to myself, we have an honest, unafraid PM that will fight for Gay Marriage for those of my gay friends and relatives that wish to wed like I did. It may not be in the house of God but at least they would have a marriage certificate which I hold with the same man for the last 42 years. For me personally marrying in the house of God was more important than the secular marriage certificate!

Would also like to thank blogger ‘Someone” for these exact words which explains why I feel very uncomfortable with our PM. “But when that leader shows the kind of moral cowardice and hypocrisy that Julia Gillard has shown, over issues such as gay marriage, I think what is best is any leader who is 100% committed to secularism.”

To all Gillard lovers once again if it is good enough for her to proclaim an atheist and live in sin with Tim the “Beard” she should have no hesitation about gays wanting to marry like every other Australian citizen!

PS The English Tabloids used the word “Beard” to describe Australia’s first bloke! I found it very intriguing but hilarious when I actually found out what it meant. Noooooooooooo our PM ridiculed????????

iansand says:

08:38am | 10/11/10

Possibly because she respects the sensitivities of that sizable minority of Australians called Christians.  I support full rights for gay couples and some sort of civil recognition for their union.  I do not support giving that union the label “marriage” as it is only a label.  I also understand that the sizable minority of Australians called Christians regard that word as representing a sacrament and do not think that causing needless offence to those people is desirable.

Joan says:

09:57am | 10/11/10

Gillard doesn’t believe in marriage .... she isn’t married- get it ... and she wants to keep majority who believe in marriage as a hetero event on her side. It`s all about votes.- to do anything to gain, maintain power.- that`s her style….like knifing a peoples PM is her power hungry style.

Steely Dan says:

09:59am | 10/11/10

@ iansand

“I do not support giving that union the label “marriage” as it is only a label.”
If it’s only a label, what’s your problem?  Why not just go for equal rights?

udder says:

10:51am | 10/11/10

@ iansand
You cannot support “full rights” for gay couples and then exclude them from using a label that everyone else uses.  That is not equality and is stupid and backward.

iansand says:

12:30pm | 10/11/10

As I said, I am not a fan of offending people for what is essentially a meaningless gesture.

Steely Dan says:

12:58pm | 10/11/10

@ iansand

“As I said, I am not a fan of offending people for what is essentially a meaningless gesture.”
Fundies will be offended if you tell them the state can’t discriminate against homosexuals.  Homosexuals will be offended if you tell them that you support the right for the state to discriminate against them.  Either way you’re offending people who both think that marriage has an important meaning.  Declaring marriage to be a meaningless label doesn’t solve the dispute, and it certainly doesn’t mean you should support discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

Chris says:

03:26pm | 10/11/10

Gay marriage is not a religious issue. Just like abortion isn’t a religious issue.
I know many people religious and otherwise who hold beliefs that appear to contradict those stereotypically held by their religion or non-religion.

Tedd says:

07:50am | 10/11/10

Claims of political assertiveness aside, Islam also relies on unsubstantiated propositions of a supernatural entity from a book written several centuries after the events alleged in that book.

Adam Diver says:

07:59am | 10/11/10

Because its racist, don’t you know

ibast says:

08:15am | 10/11/10

Interesting question, but it the Australian political arena it is Christianity that plays an active role which is disproportionate to the general population.

Whilst the general population may be officially Christian, a much smaller proportion allow it to significantly influence their political decisions.

The church still plays too much of a role in Australian politics.  This really hit home when the federal government overrode NT euthanasia laws in a conscience vote.

Raffir 2303 says:

08:27am | 10/11/10

Super D how does this grabya??? Islam is the DEVIL’S Religion.”

Elizabeth says:

09:56am | 10/11/10

Islam is the lowest of all religions as it is draconian and violent…....Super D, you are wrong…..we just hate discussing it because we get the racist card dealt evertytime we open our mouths to have an opinion….This is one religion I detest.

James1 says:

10:20am | 10/11/10

Atheists attack Islam all the time, while they are attacking religion.  Richard Dawkins has some scathing things to say about Islam, and he says them regularly.

Trjn says:

11:17am | 10/11/10

Athiests don’t only ever attack Christianity. Most don’t even bother attacking any religion but simply refute the arguments put in front of them. It doesn’t hurt that any refuting of the Christian god also happens to refute the Islamic god and the Jewish one. Abrahamic religions all worship the same god, they just do it in different ways.

Athiest Sam says:

11:29am | 10/11/10

Super D, Athiests attack religion, which includes islam, not just christianity.
As an athiest, I hate all religions, including islam, but I have some sympathy for them.
For a thousand or so years they were the victims of so called ‘christian’ murdering crusades, and until recently, black african moslems were considered to be sub human and suitable only for kidnapping and selling to the predominately ‘christian’ white nations as slaves.
When you consider recent ‘christian’ American activity abroad,Is there any wonder they are striking back?

Jon says:

02:26pm | 10/11/10

Super D@ Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa for centuries. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Saudi Arabia only (officially) abolished slavery in the 1960’s, under pressure from Western countries.

From my reading of history the Crusades were mainly a response to Islamic Jihad, which was invading Christian areas.

notSue says:

03:15pm | 10/11/10

@ Elizabeth. Judging from your comments, I’d say you have little idea what Islam is,  so how can you “detest” something you are so patently ignorant about? Besides, ever read the Bible - especially the Old Testament? Violent, bloody and judgemental in spades!
Both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions that at their basis have many things in common, (“People Of The Book”) including compassion and peace.  Those who choose to espouse the extreme, funadamentalist views of either are not averse to violence. Not much difference between “jihad” and ” christian crusade”, wouldn’t you say?

Many of the attitudes that you no doubt ascribe to Islam are most likely cultural, more than religious (ie the burka). I’m not defending either as particularly progressive, nor am I a theist, however, a more educated view would be preferable.

Jon says:

08:18am | 11/11/10

Trjn@ From my information it’s even more absurd than that. All gods are full of the DNA of old Gods compacted in new Gods. Judeo-Christian linear progressive history originated with the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism. Yahweh was preceded by other Gods and has linear history.

Allah was a pagan deity pre dating the Islamic era. He was a Moon-god and his symbol was the crescent moon. But the claims to linear, progressive history from Yahweh are not substantiated by the archeological evident. So Muslim’s claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence.

notSue says:

02:29pm | 12/11/10

@Jon. Whether achaeological evidence supports the abrahamic god ‘people of the book” idea or not, I think it’s helpful to concentrate on the similarities of at least three of the world’s major religions, rather than emphasising their differences. We do far too much of that.

Jon says:

09:14am | 15/11/10

notSue@ Yes, lets not rock the religious boat by telling the truth. I guess your right, ignorance is bliss!

Big big sceptic says:

01:15pm | 10/11/10

Carbon footprint?? You believe another fallacious theory such as Global Warming??  Another opinion based religion with not enough evidence. We’ve tracked temperatures for a hundred years, so we can accurately predict what happened for the past billion and the next billion.

Justin says:

09:30am | 10/11/10

It’s not just design or chance you know. There’s more than that on the menu. Natural selection is not chance, nor is it design, yet it’s far more probable an explanation for why things are than design when you look deeper into it.

Trevor says:

11:20am | 10/11/10

Phil, the definition of faith is belief in something without actually having any evidence that it really exists. I don’t “believe” what science tells me, I accept that the evidence that it must provide is factual and supports the assertion that is being made. I don’t “believe” in money or any of those things you mention because there is physical evidence that they exist, I don’t have to accept them on “faith” To say everybody lives by faith is a foolish argument generally put forward by those that have no better argument. Believing in a supernatural being for which there is no, and most likely never can be,  evidence alone requires faith. An interesting point about atheism is that an atheist must change his postion if science were ever to provide credible evidence that a supernatural being existed. On the other hand, despite the clear lack of evidence that a supernatural being exists the religious apologist still believes and even if science proved that their was no superbnatural being the religious apologist would still believe because his faith does not rely on the burden of proof. I am an atheist because I don’t feel the need to believe that there is some supreme being that controls everything and is going to reward me when I die. I am an antitheist because I despise the hateful things that have been perpetrated in the name of religion (not any particticular one as they are all guilty). As Gallileo said “All truths are easily understood once they are discovered, the point is to discover them”.

Dentarthurdent says:

01:05pm | 10/11/10

So if this incredibly balanced, beautiful and intricate world was designed, by whom was it designed? And surely that being must have been even more incredibly balanced, beautiful and intricate than the world it designed? So where did this being come from?

The only answers you can give are just as unlikely (if not moreso!) than the universe existing as it does now *without* a creator. The questions are big ones, but answering them by proposing the existence of something which poses even bigger questions is just bizarre and irrational thinking.

If you want to believe in god, of course you have that right. But you should accept that trying to argue rationally for god does not work. The arguments don’t stand up to often even the most basic amount of scrutiny. Just accept that a belief in god is purely about faith, and not even remotely about rationality or evidence.

If that fact makes you uncomfortable, it may be time you rethought your position. If not, well, it ain’t for me, but each to their own…

Phil says:

08:06pm | 10/11/10

clearly what may appear rational to one person can be irrational to another. For me it has made sense that the value i place on life, my feelings, aspirations, my capacity for relationship and transcendence are not the product of what are ultimately chance forces. As you guys say it is beyond proof and in that sense grounded in faith. Is it not possible that the gut feeling of the vast majority of people through history that there is something bigger than ourselves, has some echo in reality, or is it mere superstition or a sign that humans have not advanced to that position of rational objectivity that many appear to claim?
  Of course that begs the question of the nature of the theistic beings, and there are differing theories on that with the different religions. The Christian account of the theistic being is clearly pretty far out there in some regards but I find has a coherence to it in addressing some fundamental questions of human existence.
  Yes, there have been horrific things done under the banner of religion, and horrific things done under other banners. Generally these are more about quest for power and the corruption that power brings. The atrocities of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in more recent history have been driven by different ideology.
  Without faith I really wonder where human value is grounded. If we are simply the product of ‘natural selection’ do I really matter, does anyone matter, does it matter what I do or don’t do. I am sure you can correct me here, but I can’t see how it is rational to believe that people matter if there is no larger meaning to our existence? To me there’s a leap of faith made right there. Without it, the way people treat one another in our society is going to get worse, as it appears to be getting.
  If the truth out there is that there is no being, no other story or bigger picture, then let the truth win out. If it is true that life has no meaning apart from what we choose to give it, and each one to his own, then so be it. I guess that is the end of the story…and we no longer have to deal with such questions, but we appear to be a long way from that point, for many of us at least.
Thanks for your contributions. I wonder sometimes why such a topic triggers such passion in people as it clearly has through one short article!

Trevor says:

07:39am | 11/11/10

The question of morals and why it makes sense that we respect human life and human rights instead of just going around doing what every we please are not mutually exclusive in the theory of evolution and atheism. In fact the theory of evolution through natural selection or survival of the fittest actually supports the development of a system of morals and ethics in humans. Imagine two hypothetical civilisations, one that has not developed a system of morals and ethics and goes around only acting in their own interests and one that has developed a system of morals and ethics similiar to that which we have today. Now, which of these two do you think would have the greatest probability of survivinig and thriving?It is obvious that a well develop of system of morals and ethics is beneficial to the survival of our species and indeed without it it would have been impossible for the human race to advance as far as we have. This point of view can also be supported by the theory that those societies that had the resources to develop agriculture and domestication of animals freed other members of the society to pursue activities not directly related to the satisfaction of basic needs. This allowed these societies to develp advancements and to pursue the higher human needs (see Maslows Heirarchy of Needs) such as self actualisation. None of this requires the intervention of a higher authority. The other point I’d like to make is that atheism does not seek to prove anything therefore there is no proof required to support atheism. As an atheist I simply say that when you tell me there is I god I will say that you have no proof for that declaration and therefore I am not going to accept it as fact. I would also add that It is my digust with the evil perpetuated and endorsed through religion that makes me an antitheist. The “Atheist Creed” as proposed by religious apologists, because as far as I know there is no organised atheist movement that requires a creed, would be more accurately stated as “There is no god and I hate religion because it is evil”. A further point that I have made elsewhere in this discussion is that were scientific, undeniable evidence ever by discovered that categorically proved the existence of god then an atheist would accept that, however there is no way that I could ever accept religion. Conversly, if the same level of proof was ever discovered that proved the non-existence of god there would still be those that say “I still believe because my belief doesn’t require proof, it is based on faith”.

Phil says:

08:03pm | 11/11/10

Thanks Trevor. A very interesting viewpoint. I hadn’t really heard that explanation of ethics and morals before. I can’t say that I’m all that convinced on the face of it, but I can understand better where people with your views are coming from. To me it sounds quite pragmatic - we are good to each other because that way we will survive and it is better than being nasty to each other. I presume we have a choice in the matter or does natural selection kind of override our choices (I think not from your two hypothetical civilisations analogy)?

The problem is what if we don’t feel like being good to each other, what if we don’t want to survive. “Maybe this is ‘natural selection’s’ way of taking me out.” Does human survival matter anyway? Perhaps natural selection will take us out just as it brought us in - we are only here for a time, we might as well make the best of it and enjoy it if we can. Still not that convincing or inspiring to me. Dare I say it, it seems like a leap of faith is required at the point of undergirding human value. What makes humans more significant than animals? Is it purely that we know how to survive and control them better than vice versa? Of course, in some environments the tables may be turned!

I think you are pretty safe about God being proved. It seems to me that he does not seem particularly interested in providing that kind of level of irrefutability (if that’s a word). However I would hope that those of us with faith would have the integrity to lay it down were the contrary so proved!
Thanks for your insights.

Joan says:

10:10am | 10/11/10

Yeah Penny,  Gillard is about power for power sake a one dimensional person as she portrays herself to us. A woman who has lost her way in life with her lust for power as her driving life force.

Polly says:

12:10pm | 10/11/10

Penny: Would any journalist even have the courage to ask Gillard the question?

What about communism? Christian churches were banned in Russia during the Russian revolution. What did the dictator communist leaders in Russia believe in or even in China for that matter? Atheism?
Millions of people have died throughout the ages because of religion.

Interesting fact! Religion was banned and to spread the word - The Twelve Days of Christmas was born - each verse having a very special message.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/18762.htm

Joan: good call. Agree with your comment.

MarK says:

08:57am | 10/11/10

I agree.

I like someone who has a belief and conviction.

Stuff like saying the will not do something to aid an election win and then reversing that decision after the election are particularly weak and not worthy…......oh hang on a sec.

James1 says:

10:27am | 10/11/10

Really though MarK, if we held politicians to those lofty standards, there would be no one left to vote for…

It is a fact of life that all politicians, like real estate agents, lie.  A lot.  We have to come to terms with that simple fact.

Rosie says:

10:46am | 10/11/10

iansand, it takes one to know one! You have Julia Gillard’s DNA!

“Atheism is not faith so I presume atheists live their lives without it because to have faith is to believe.” I maintain that not to believe in something because it cannot be proven is not to believe at all so it would be impossible to convince those without faith. These people are better left alone but scrutinized when they have the audacity to suggest; “Why an atheist PM is better!”

Brendan don’t insult our intelligence, why not the heading “Why Julia Gillard, proclaimed atheist PM is better!”

As Nicole mentioned above another “smear campaign” on Tony Abbott by a Gillard lover which is decreasing in number. “Thanks be to God”

Chris L says:

01:57pm | 10/11/10

” These people are better left alone but scrutinized when they have the audacity to suggest…”
I think this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with you Rosie. Mind you, this comment should apply to everyone. Everyone!

MarK says:

03:15pm | 10/11/10

I totally agree James1.

I just can’t help myself though.

Now as you and I both agree that politicians lie a lot and that if we were to hold them to lofty standards of being, well…fair dinkum? - we would struggle to find someone to vote for what did you think about Tors piece that lauded Clinton for being so forthright.

Abbott got crucified for telling the truth about telling porkies. Yet when Hilary speaks we all get the nodding disease.

Can be hard to reconcile this politics stuff sometimes.

Chris L says:

06:50pm | 10/11/10

I agree with MarK. I am disappointed when we use Abbot’s interview in WW or Rudd’s visit to a strip joint as some sort of argument against them as a potential PM. When President Clinton was caught receiving BJs from his staff my first reaction was “Who cares?”....

OK, my first reaction was “Way to go!” but my second reaction was “Who cares?”

James1 says:

08:37pm | 10/11/10

Not at all, MarK.  You are just not cynical enough yet.  Don’t worry, my friend.  You will get there.  To be quite honest, I find in a rather quaint and endearing quality that you find some politicians more honest than others.

Personally, when Hillary (or any American politician talking about US foreign policy) speaks I get some kind of vomiting disease…

Sandra says:

08:54am | 10/11/10

haha then we should have a christian prime minister so she doesn’t get called a chicken!!!! haha

NicoleG says:

09:07am | 10/11/10

She has already been there and took Tim with her. They were extremely unimpressed.

G says:

09:20am | 10/11/10

Yep because Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore would risk pissing off 20 Million Australian bogans by offending the red-head PM!  We’d invade those silly islands in less than a minute.

I don’t know what your comment seeks to achieve, but if life for a single woman who lives with her partner is hell in those places, then whatever religion they’re following is pure nonsense.

The fact that you think they wouldn’t trade with Oz on the basis of our PM’s marital status is even more absurd.  Those coutries need our coal, minerals and grain, and in order to prevent their country from starving to death, I think they’ll take that cup of sugar from the “chicken”.

ZSRenn says:

10:06am | 10/11/10

So your going to invade silly Indonesia with a population of 237,556,363 in a minute are you G.

And your not sure what religion our nearest neighbour follows

I guess you also buy cars off salesmen you don’t like

G says:

10:56am | 10/11/10

@ ZSRenn

Religion is irrelevant to me, I’m not an atheist, but I treat Muslims, Christians, Buddists and crackpots all the same.

I admit my “invasion” comments were a little ill-concieved, but I simply wanted to illustrate the overall stupidity of your argument that religion dictates the state of play when it comes to trade.  Its a supply/demand issue. If we have something they want badly enough, they’ll crawl through the legs of the pope to get it.

ZSRenn says:

02:29pm | 10/11/10

@G Dont you get it. It’s not what I think that matters. It’s what our neighbours and largest trading partners think. We are not the only ones who sell our products and our Prime Minister at the moment will not be able to directly deal with people who have these belief systems. The Malaysian Leader just cancelled a visit to OZ because he had a cold. (Yeh Sure) Not only did Joolia Foolia miss out on this important meeting but many high up in Business and Finance as well.

ibast says:

08:47am | 10/11/10

Traditionally the Catholic church had it’s hands all over the Labor party.  I don’t think it is as bad as it was, but I don’t believe the influence has gone altogether.

Athiest Sam says:

11:47am | 10/11/10

Elphaba, Julia is an athiest remember? It’s those ignorant chaps with a religous bent who tent to sacrafice goats etc to appease their assorted gods.

Ken Maynard says:

09:22am | 10/11/10

Addendum

It seems that nature & the universe couldn’t care less about us.  As a counter to that the Bible is based on a God who cares; covenanted to a duty of care eeveeen.  He also insists on man serving the highest purposes we are capable off.  Wow!  (Nature, man stands up for himself in defiance of you)  For pieces of flotsam adrift in a void, the combination of duty of care & serve only the highest you are capable off is pretty hard to beat.  If man is to have any merit or worth as a self determining species, the Biblical religion is both objective & a practical necessity, albeit one which is faith based. 

On the matter of religions being the force of pro-active change.  Modern secular democracy exists because off the pro-activism of the Protestant Reformation which fathered the secular state.  The secular lives by the grace of God; God does not live by the grace of the secular.

James1 says:

10:41am | 10/11/10

Check out this guy’s website.  Really strange stuff.  The fact it is riddled with grammatical errors alone makes me want to send him an email complaining about the content.

Aidan says:

09:32am | 10/11/10

There seems to be this common misconception that atheism claims, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God. This isn’t the case.

Atheism and theism relate to what you BELIEVE.
Agnosticism and gnosticism relate to what you KNOW.

By these definitions, almost all non-religious people (including yourself) are agnostic atheists. In other words you believe there is no God, but you can’t prove it to an absolute certainty.

Steely Dan says:

09:43am | 10/11/10

@ AdamC

“Yawn, more atheist arrogance and arrant nonsense. How about judging the PM by her achievements rather than her non-belief in ‘supernatural beings’, Brendan?”
You need to re-read the article, Adam.  It’s not saying that Gillard is better because she’s an atheist, he’s saying it’s a desirable trait for a PM to have.  Personally I think being secular is the only relevant issue when it comes to religion and politics.

“I am not religious myself, but I am also not an atheist. I am merely a non-believer.”
Sure.  And Telly Savalas wasn’t bald.  He was merely a person without hair. 
You’re an atheist, Adam.  You don’t have to declare that there is no god to be an atheist, you just have to assert that you haven’t been convinced that there is one.

AdamC says:

09:59am | 10/11/10

Aidan, I did not suggest that atheists assert as a certainty that there is no God. What I said was is that the attitude of many atheists (those who self-identify as atheists that is) is to treat religious belief with the same contempt that pre-enlightenment Christians treated heretics and dissenters.

Atheists can’t on the one hand sneeringly dismiss religious faith as ‘superstition’ or liken it to a belief in the ‘paranormal’ or ‘supernatural’ and then claim to be rational fence-sitters. 

I re-iterate, whether atheists are certain or not in their convictions, they are just as obnoxious in them as the worst of the religious. I have said before I am yet to personally meet a Christian who is as dogmatic and dismissive of contrary views as your average mainstreatm atheist.

Aidan says:

10:38am | 10/11/10

@ AdamC

I get where you’re coming from.

I agree, there are plenty of intolerable atheists out there. Why guys like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would want to waste years of their lives writing about what they DON’T believe in is beyond me.

I think this contempt you’re talking about stems more from what is written in religious texts, as opposed to the claim that a God exists.

Atheists will always sneer at stories about talking snakes or people living inside fish because they directly contradict scientific fact.

Steely Dan says:

10:56am | 10/11/10

@ Aidan

“Why guys like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would want to waste years of their lives writing about what they DON’T believe in is beyond me.”
You can’t think of a negative outcome of religious belief?  Really?

Aidan says:

12:08pm | 10/11/10

@ Steely Dan

Sure. I mean there’s terrorism, Benny Hinn and Hillsong just to name a few.

My point is these guys actually think that one day, with their influence, religion is going to be completely eradicated. While it’s a nice thought, I think you and I can agree it’s not going to happen.

Steely Dan says:

12:36pm | 10/11/10

@ Aidan

“My point is these guys actually think that one day, with their influence, religion is going to be completely eradicated. While it’s a nice thought, I think you and I can agree it’s not going to happen.”
Why do you say that?  In the developed world at least, ‘no religion’ is the fastest growing segment in the ‘religion’ category.  And even if it’s never eradicated, less religion is worth arguing for.

Aidan says:

01:20pm | 10/11/10

@ Steely Dan

Okay, DON’T agree with me….......infidel.

Ryan says:

02:12pm | 10/11/10

@AdamC: “How about judging the PM by her achievements” I am sorry, WHAT ACHIEVEMENTS?

AdamC says:

04:14pm | 10/11/10

“My point is these guys actually think that one day, with their influence, religion is going to be completely eradicated. While it’s a nice thought, I think you and I can agree it’s not going to happen”

I agree, Aidan, Hitchens, Dawkins et al are on a mission to effectively eradicate religions contrary to their own non-religion. They are evangelists and firebrands in a similar mould to the stump preachers of yesteryear.

Steely Dan, maybe you are right that eventually westerners (at least outside North America) will completely abandon God. (Or perhaps it is the other way around?) I don’t see why that would be a good thing at all.

James1 says:

10:47am | 10/11/10

“In conclusion…[if you don’t agree with me] stfu”.  How Christian of you sir.

Also, there is no historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected.  That is pure speculation.

Trevor says:

12:30pm | 10/11/10

The bible is not evidence for anything except the fact that man created the bible. As a historical document the bible is woefully inaccurate and contradictory. Don’t quote the bible as if it uncontested historical fact because that is as far from the truth as you can get. Do you accept Scientology as fact because L. Ron Hubbard wrote a book and a lot of people were swayed to his way of thinking and are being persecuted for their belief?

OchreBunyip says:

10:25am | 10/11/10

In Australia, voting for politicians who share beliefs that the voter believes are beneficial to them or Australia is part of our democracy. Part of this discussion is how much of those beliefs are secular and how many are religious, and how important should religious beliefs be in politics. I think expecting a voter to support a politician they don’t agree with is nonsensical but where beliefs come from and their relevance is worthy of debate.

As for the Taliban, I reviewed my comment and I do not see any reference I made to supporting their beliefs. I judge the Taliban on what they do, not where they claim their beliefs come from.

Steely Dan says:

10:39am | 10/11/10

@ God or doubt?

“Atheism comes from latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”
Wow. How wrong can you get?

“Believers aim to spread this around and to love one and other.”
Except the ones that don’t.  And are you saying that atheists can’t spread love?

“Julia is an unmarried childless atheist with a boyfriend and Tony is a religious married man with children.  Who is more representative of the Australian population?”
Julia, obviously.  She’s a woman, like the majority of Australians.  Hang on, this isn’t a very good way to pick leaders at all!

God or doubt? says:

10:59am | 10/11/10

Thank you Steely, you’re right of course The word science comes from scientia, what a dumb dumb mistake to make, accidentally switching those two words. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

I know lots of atheists and I find most of them very loving people. It’s the ones with hatred towards religion that I find less appealing.

Steely Dan says:

11:45am | 10/11/10

@ God or Doubt

I’m loving, and I don’t see a problem with hating religion.  Hating religion is different from hating the religious.

Shannon says:

02:09pm | 10/11/10

“Julia is an unmarried childless atheist with a boyfriend and Tony is a religious married man with children.”

Im unmarried, Childless, Atheist with a boyfriend.

Im so represented right now thank you very much.

God or doubt? says:

09:33pm | 10/11/10

I think that Julia makes a delightful prime minister. She strikes me as a beautiful human being .. leaving politics aside for a moment.

Just the same a religious married man with children is still more representative of the Australian population and the vast majority of Australia a n d the world population actually believes in God .. like it or not.

Rosie says:

11:17am | 10/11/10

Very interesting indeed! More for the Soap Opera; “The Vain & The Ruthless” that came to our attention when our first female PM was prepared to “tell all” in the Australian Women’s Weekly!

I would be sending the “Faceless Men” as the word “bedfellow” comes to mind! Take your pick; a political associate or a person who shares a bed!

My obsession with our PM is not only keeping my brain activated but lots of laughter! “They say laughter is good medicine” I am set!

PJ says:

11:44am | 10/11/10

For Rosie to answer to a name like “Ask a stupid question” would be more stupid on Rosie’s part!

Ask a stupid question says:

02:03pm | 10/11/10

You’d think so wouldn’t you, PJ, and yet it’s never stopped her, or others, before. It inevitably gives a certain character to those who do. The funniest response was someone who pointed out how appropriate a name it was.

Steely Dan says:

11:32am | 10/11/10

@ O-D T

“Catholicism is not blind faith, but is based on reason.”
Care to present some?

“Faith and reason go together”
Faith is belief without (or in direct opposition to) available evidence.  Faith and reason are opposites.

“and it is more reasonable and rational to have faith than not to, as billions around the world can testify to.”
Argument from popularity. 

“Alternately, some discover faith when taking the time to ponder the beauty of creation and why it exists.”
No, faith comes when you stop pondering, and start believing for no good reason. 

“Reason can answer the questions of “how?”, but only faith can answer the questions of “why?”. “
Faith can answer anything.  The problem is you can’t demonstrate that the answer is correct by using your faith.

Economist says:

10:15am | 10/11/10

Why are people so myopic to attribute their current situation to the current actions of the government. Have you ever heard of the concept of lag effects? Do you understand the concept of telescoping?

As for your question are we better now?  Well financially I’m better off because I’m not paying the interest rate I was in 2007, but earning the same salary. However I"m not silly enough to attribute this success to the Labor government nor blame the Liberal government for the higher interest rates in hte past but recognise a number of competing influences.

TrueOz says:

10:44am | 10/11/10

@Terry Irvin

Thanks so much for setting me straight on what “...every Atheist believes…”. I’ve obviously just been believing the wrong stuff up to now. There is really just nothing anyone can say about that imbecilic babble that popped out of your keyboard. God knows what must go on inside your empty head!

Snoogens says:

10:57am | 10/11/10

@Trueoz

He made a case for his argument, calling bluff doesn’t help. If you disagree with the argument, show where the argument fails, what eveidence fails, what premises fails and where the logic fails.

TrueOz says:

11:42am | 10/11/10

@Snoogens

Please, please tell me that you don’t know what “...every Atheist believes…” as well. I really don’t think that I need to make any further points - do I?

Akrasiel Rising says:

12:06pm | 10/11/10

@ Trueoz and Terry Irvin. With regard to creation from nothing the argument is one of infinite regress e.g. Matter had to come from somewhere as nothing comes from nothing… it is impossible to argue this as proof that a god created the big bang as the same logic applied to god would mean that he/she/whatever had to come from somewhere also… therefore nullifying the original argument and proving that it is possible for something to come from nothing.

Also, documentary evidence should be taken in context, there are millions of copies of Harry Potter in existence today and that is only 15 odd years from when the original was written… doesn’t mean that Hogwarts and dragons really exist… but then again, even the Ministry of Magic didn’t believe that Voldemort had come back from the dead!

Snoogens says:

12:33pm | 10/11/10

@ Trueoz.

Yes I think you do need to make your points clear, he has presented an argument to which you refuse to make a counter claim because he made an assumption, to which he also makes a reason for his assumption.

I don’t know much about quantum physics or biblical history but if you are going to disagree with his argument, surely a reasoning behind your argument is warranted if you are going to go to the effort to make a comment on the subject.

Atheists always want Christians to make their case and when they do they get called names or prett much get answers like you gave that have no substance.

I’m agnostic by the way and open to there may be a God, I like the fact Terri has made a case for his argument and would like to hear where he is wrong in his argument.

Trevor says:

12:49pm | 10/11/10

Again, as Gallileo said “All truths are easily understood once they are discovered, the point is to discover them”. I don’t think I have ever heard a credible scientist state that the universe sprang into existence from nothing. The fact is that there is evidence that supports the theory of the big bang (scientific definiton of a theory is something that is accepted and supported by evidence, not the mistaken argument by religious apologists that “I’ve got a theory, listen to this!”. Gravity is classified as a theory but I don’t see too many rational people denying that gravity exists). Just because we don’t know what happened before the big bang it is not automatic proof that god exists and therefore made it happen, the only thing it is evidence for is the current limits of scientific knowledge. Now, if that was the end of the story and we all accept that god did it then what would be the point of further scientific endeavour? The beauty is that we are still searching for what happened and perhaps one day they will be able to discover what happened, to stop now would be to doom the entire human species to stagnation and ultimate extiction.

Terii Irvin says:

12:55pm | 10/11/10

Akrasiel Rising,

You seemed to have missed the premises. Everything that ‘begins’ to exist has a cause.

If all time, energy and matter came into existence at the big bang, then what ever was prior to the big bang was timeless, spaceless, immaterial and eternal, that’s logical. God is described to have these attributes and what is eternal has no beginning.
It is also impossible to have an infinite amount of prior events. You have heard of Hiberts Paradox of the Great Hotel, sums up the premises perfect that an infinite amount of past events is impossible.
You say that something coming from nothing is possible, to which it is also logical space monkeys CAN pop into existence without a cause. Any sane person would reject this theory, but if a Universe can pop into existence uncaused from nothing, and you truly believe that, then a space monkey can too.

Spot on with Harry Potter…. context. The Gospels were written as though they were eye witness accounts, we did this in this place, spoke with this person, did this, did that in this place at this time. The evidence from archaeology and extra biblical resources show Jesus and the apostles were real time people living 2000 years ago and died for their faith in a historical person. As stated, Jesus enemies even wrote about in the Talmud, Mischna and called him a worker of magic. If Jesus enemies are writing about him, I can assure you he is a real person. If Jesus were not a real person, Christianity would have died within his generation as it would be easy to dismiss the claims the Christians back then were claiming. As we have it, Pauls Gospel was written within 20 years of Jesus life, to which he refers to the Gospel that is being preached at that time. Why a bunch of blokes would willingly die for something they knew was a lie is beyond me. They had nothing to gain politically for their faith and willingly died for what they claimed to have seen and had been witnesses too.

TrueOz says:

02:32pm | 10/11/10

@Snoogens

“I don’t know much about quantum physics or biblical history…”

You might like to add “or anyhting else”. You are as big a bloody dill as Terry Irvin.

Akrasiel Rising says:

02:43pm | 10/11/10

@Terii. “You seemed to have missed the premises. Everything that ‘begins’ to exist has a cause.”

Not at all, if god is in fact immaterial (containing no matter) as suggested irrespective of being timeless, spaceless and immortal there is no way that matter can then be brought forth from nothingness… and in citing Hilbert’s Grand Hotel you prove my point. It is only counter intuitive if you place a restriction on infinity, this supports the theory of infinite regress as there is no end and therefore no beginning and as such there can be nothing before. I reference you back to the Grand Hotel and the subsequent cigar mystery that shows the fallacy of mathematical induction… unless you can prove the cigars exist in the first place (the inductive point) there is no way of proving that the rules have been broken.

You also infuse modern logic into a historical context as though there was widespread awareness of the Christ cult that was developing in the Middle East. In a time when there was little awareness of science and education was predominantly trade based, if present at all, it is quite understandable the appeal that a person who preached a better “after life” would have to people who were considered to be the outcasts of society with no way of breaking free of the caste system they were born in to.
In fact modern cult leaders employ the same tactics to recruit followers today, but thanks to globalisation and critical thinking, people these days tend to see these people for the charlatans they are instead of imbuing them with mystical godlike status.

I would therefore submit that it was ignorance as opposed to understanding that contributed to the spread of Christianity… and in closing, Muslim extremists blow themselves up all the time in the name of what they believe to be true, but to others appears to be a lie. So I agree when you say… “Why a bunch of blokes would willingly die for something they knew was a lie is beyond me.”

PaulB says:

04:00pm | 10/11/10

Sorry Terry, Josephus doesn’t count anymore.  Little early and now well recognized church phenomenon called “pious fraud”.  Also known as bad editing.  Basically the bit you mean was added to the text by the scribes under the orders of their church bosses.  That’s why it appears out of context and out of sequence in the text.  Look it up.  I dare you.

Terri Irvin says:

06:26pm | 10/11/10

Akrasiel Rising,

Thankyou for your response that was laid out in a well thought and rational. While we will agree to disagree, thanks for a rational and clean response.
On a Side note, I had been an Atheist for 25 years and a personal experience brought me to God and that is the case for pretty much all Christians. I’m yet to find one who became a Christian because of proof or whatever but my personal experience of God and conviction is what leads me to believe first and foremost. Maybe one day you’ll see where we are coming from but keep up the good work.
Cheers

Steely Dan says:

10:52am | 10/11/10

@ Emma

“It is a faith.  It is not based on evidence, as much as Brendan based his article on facts, rationality and evidence.”
Correct.

“Therefore you can’t speak about religion in this way.”
Wrong.  Of course we can speak about irrationality as being ridiculous.  Calling irrationality ‘faith’ doesn’t grant the belief special powers.  Faith is believing ‘what you know ain’t so’, and that is not a good thing.

“Why don’t we want a Prime Minister who believes in some sort of greater good?”
Atheists can’t believe in a greater good?  A healthy and safe society is a greater good.

“Why do we have to rationally see the world all the time?”
The same reason we think that pilots shouldn’t be on crystal meth when they fly us around the world.  Because a rational approach to reality is demonstrably the best approach - if we value our lives.

“Rationally, what is the point of living?”
And you were saying the atheists were depressing?  You should seek counselling if you feel life alone isn’t enough for you.

G-unit says:

10:15am | 10/11/10

I peepee’d my pantaloons in fear of this comment.

Steely Dan says:

11:54am | 10/11/10

@ Evan

“a leader being an atheist isn’t exactly a virtue in and of itself (stalin, hitler etc).”
Stalin’s atheism had nothing to do with his atrocities (lack of a belief can’t lead you to do bad or good).  Hitler’s pagan-infused Christianity (no, he definitely wasn’t an atheist) could have and probably did play a part in his attacks on Jews, homosexuals and atheists.

“sure there are some insane americans you could go find to demonstrate examples of this, but im talking about respectable christians.”
Until July 1 next year, one of these ‘insane’ people has a vote in our Senate…

“in fact religion has a little fourth estate of its own known as theology.”
Theology is not a check on the claims or powers of religions.  In fact, it’s often used for the opposite.

TrueOz says:

10:55am | 10/11/10

@Grant

Sorry man - I didn’t know - I sucked up his Noodliness last night in a damned fine bolognaise made with red wine and garlic - lots of parmesan on top too! Feel happy that he lived a good life inside a cellophane packet and died on honourable death in the mouth of an Atheist.

James1 says:

10:55am | 10/11/10

Once the evidence runs out or is discredited, then start the insults and threats.

Reminds me of a quote: “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

TrueOz says:

10:58am | 10/11/10

@Brutus Balan

Sooooooo…

Can I safely assume that you say in your heart “...there is no God!”?

JohnA says:

11:24am | 10/11/10

Nice one, Brutus. We all know that behind the ad hominem of the Garden of Eden lies a fallacy from force. Despite the human propensity to essentialism there’s no proof of any force or power that aligns with the anthropomorphic concept of a god. We don’t even know if the universe has a boundary, much less what might lay beyond it. So, Brutus, you are entitled to wallow in thoughtless reification all you please but keep your veiled threats out of this.

Brutus Balan says:

06:41pm | 10/11/10

@ James1:  People claiming to be wise are groping cluelessly trying to define that which cannot be known within their puny finite minds. These ‘wise’ ones are endlessly wondering about that which cannot be known and yet having not a shred of evidence believe in the fable of evolution.  You are also clueless about your very existence on earth but you spill forth volume of meaningless words defining and redefining and straining at gnats.  Now the whole of creation is testament to the God who created your mind and your mouth and you think you are so wise.  Reminds me of a proverb, “a mangy dog barking at the mighty sun, barks himself to death.”

@John A: For someone who say that nothing can be known you seem to say a lot…of nonsense.  Your gobbledygook words indicate a vacuous mind.  If that is not wallowing in self importance and arrogance, I don’t know what it is.  If there is no God, you need not fear or feel threatened by any words others may say.  So carry on, the Day will Dawn and you and your cohorts will rise to meet your Maker, soon now!

Perikles says:

11:07am | 10/11/10

Steve,

Does you think that Tony Abbott believes in the 10 commandments?

The Ten Commandments given to Moses are these: (abbreviated form)

1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH.

2. You shall not make a graven image.

3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain.

4. You shall not break the Sabbath.

5. You shall not dishonor your parents.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not commit perjury.

I believe he does, because he believes in these commandments, he is strongly bound to honour them. Lets take the last three, they mean, truthfulness, keeping your word, honesty, faithfulness, to list just a few. The bible stories you listed what are they about? lets see, obedience to faith, trust, doing the right thing for others not for yourself, self sacrifice ... and the list goes on. Do you believe in these things? Does Julia Gillard believe in these things? Ignorance is an ugly trait to posses. I challange those who like Steve just read the bible without understanding the meaning behind the verse to actual find out what it means? You maybe surprised.

Seano says:

11:26am | 10/11/10

Well said. That he believes in such fairy tales is just one of Abbott’s many flaws that make him unworthy to be PM.

Economist says:

12:00pm | 10/11/10

Perikles, Thanks for the clarification. So I should simply worship Aesops fables and other tales of morality? The problem is the religious come in all shapes and size from those that read it literally, to those like yourself who read stuff into it and interpret it to your own moral belief system.

Those that read it literally for example base believe the world is only 6000+ years old. they base this on Archbishop Ussher or used geneology to calacuate that the world was created in 4004 BC. The interesting thing is, the Bible doesn’t state this.  It’s an interpretation.

I’m geninuely curious as to whether this is a chicken and egg situation. Do you use the bible as your guide through life to shape your perceptions or are you attracted to the bible/religion because it reinforces your own perceptions? Which came first?

Steely Dan says:

12:31pm | 10/11/10

@ Perikles

“I believe he does, because he believes in these commandments, he is strongly bound to honour them.  Lets take the last three, they mean, truthfulness, keeping your word, honesty, faithfulness, to list just a few.”
There’s some confusion here, Perikles.  We’re talking about the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Tony Abbott MP.  The same one who said that he lies, but at least he’s honest about the fact that he lies.  Not sure who you’re referring to.

ZSRenn says:

02:40pm | 10/11/10

@CJ
Thanks for proving that you and many have no idea what the Catholic Faith is all about. That you do not know it clearly recognises that the Old Testament is a book of Myth, Records and Legends. The only two that Tony Abbot would belive as do I are

A man walked on water.
A man escaped from his tomb after being dead for three days.

There is also some debate as to what these two may actually mean within the church.

It certainly does not recognise that the Bible is the actual word of God as do some fanatics which give Christianity a bad name.

CJ says:

11:41am | 11/11/10

@ ZSRenn,
No, no, thank YOU for giving me the opportunity to point out that Jesus (i.e. God himself, apparently), confirmed the divine inspiration of the Old Testament. It says so in the New Testament. So, one might view this two ways:
* Either Jesus/God asserted that what was written in the Old Testament was the divine truth - a rock-solid, God-inspired-and-guranteed account of the history of the world, or:
* Jesus/God merely confirmed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, but that it was largely a collection of highly questionable fables to be interpreted by humans but not taken literally.
In either case, it raises some questions, dont you think? The one I’d like to ask (in the context of your argument) is this: Why would an all-powerful God deem it necessary to communicate with his most intelligent creation via stories about planet-sized floods, talking snakes, burning bushes,  man created from dust, woman created from man’s rib, three-day-long fish dwelling adventures, a boat with two of every single living thing on earth crammed on it for a year by a handful of people etc etc? Why did he not just tell it straight? After all, since God aparently knows the beginning and the end, he would have known that human beings would advance in thought to a point they would likely question such apparent nonsense?
The second question I’d like to ask is this: What’s are you thoughts on Mr Abbott’s almost guanteed belief that certain Catholics through history have had the supernatural ability to heal the sick and perform miracles? I’ve read the Bible and I can’t recall a verse - certainly not in the Gospels - in which Jesus or anoyone else says some men and women (but only Catholics) will possess magical or supernatural powers.
Since Mr Abbott is a devout Catholic, one can assume he truly believes in the powers of the Catholic saints.

ZSRenn says:

08:36pm | 11/11/10

@ CJ That is what you think Christianity is and I am telling you
what the Catholic Church of which Tony is a member thinks.

I agree with you and so does the Catholic Church. People who say that god communicated with us with these stories are a bit strange.

It’s nice to know you agree with the Catholic Church, Tony Abbot and myself.

James1 says:

11:54am | 10/11/10

As it happens, none of the Muslims I know are happy with Julia Gillard, or the Labor Party more generally.  My Muslim friends are amongst the most conservative people I know.  Almost as conservative as the Young Liberals I know.

Steve says:

12:28pm | 10/11/10

Yeah there are good ones but the problem is they dont speak out against the bad ones and thats where we need to make progress on this issue.

James1 says:

01:02pm | 10/11/10

Actually they do, all the time, Steve.  There is a vigorous debate within Islam about the fundamentalists, thing is, most of it takes place in Arabic, and to a lesser extent, Farsi and Turkish.  I assume that, given you come from the Middle East yourself, you would be conversant in one of those languages?  If so, look into it - you might find yourself surprised.  The main Islamic university in Cairo is the centre of a part of this lively debate, if you have Arabic language.

Steve says:

03:37pm | 10/11/10

I do infact have relatives in Cairo who tell me that the percentage of fanatics is increasing from generation to generation. Debate is a good start, but our government doesnt have the balls to get into this issue due to fear of being branded racists or worse, fear for their own safety like in Europe….

Google the name Geert Wilders and read his story in the Netherlands…

Perikles says:

11:24am | 10/11/10

LOL! Julia’s actions are SOLELY focussed on populism and keeping, shoring up and growing the christian vote. Don’t be fooled its selflish not selfishlessness that motivates her and hers.

Rossco says:

10:56am | 10/11/10

lol you dont know what atheism is you silly silly man.

Grant says:

11:26am | 10/11/10

@ Perikles,

You are wrong, this is a commonly held belief by religious people.

Atheism, is the ‘absence of belief’ in theism.  The key word for understanding this concept is the word ‘absent’, the belief is not there.  Atheists simply have no belief about the existence of a god.  You cannot associate this non-belief with a religion itself, this is intellectually dishonest.

For me, when I state that I do not believe in a god is the same as saying I do not believe in goblins, vampires or the undead. 

They are supernatural beings which are equally ridiculous to me.  So if someone came up to me and said, ‘hey you, goblins and vampires are real’, I would think they are insane.  If someone says to me ‘hey you, a supernatural being who can transcend space and time, who created all matter is real’ I apply the same logic to them.

You should just be honest with yourself.  You know deep down there is nothing after this life.  Religious faith is really about a coping mechanism that enables people to endure hardships and problems in life.

Perikles says:

11:51am | 10/11/10

Roscco and Grant, Your belief in an absence of God is a s strong as my belief that God exists! As you demand proof of Gods existence, I demand proof of his absence. Where is it? List them here. Typical of Atheists they want their cake and eat it too. What is intelluctually dishonest is the complete failure to aknowledge that if God is absent then logically he doesn’t exist, IF as you say that believing in God is absent makes an Atheist then by your logic means that God exists! So which is it do you believe in God or don’t you? I think both of you are confusing Agnosticiam for Athesim.

Seano says:

12:37pm | 10/11/10

“As you demand proof of Gods existence, I demand proof of his absence.”

The prove the Great giant pixie exists or Santa, it’s a silly argument.

Akrasiel Rising says:

01:32pm | 10/11/10

@ Perikles. To repeat an earlier post I made to another of your ilk…

As an Atheist (and again it is for want of a better word as the definition encompasses so many schools of thought) it is not my job to prove your god does not exist. It is like me saying “I just thought of something now I want you to prove that I didn’t think what I said I thought!” You can’t prove a negative.

The beauty of being an Atheist is that I have the ability to be proved wrong without my reason for being collapsing in around me. By all means if you can prove god exists I will happily change my tune but, on the balance of probabilities, there is little or no imperical evidence to support the theory that god exists and what little circumstantial evidence there is can be called speculative at best.

It is also a gross generalisation that Atheists do not believe god exists, as I said before there are any number of interpretations of what Atheism is… that is the beauty of it. There is no doctrine stating that I must believe anything, for myself (the only person who I can speak for) I reserve the right to concede to logic and reason based on the critical analysis of the evidence presented. No evidence = No god, but please feel free to list the evidence you have for god here I genuinely am most interested.

Nona says:

04:41pm | 10/11/10

Hi Perikles,

Atheism is a lack of belief in god.  It is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. As for both sides putting forward their point of view, there is nothing wrong in that, is there?

bb says:

11:44am | 10/11/10

Well said!!

Nona says:

04:45pm | 10/11/10

Hi Perikles,

It can be disputed that religion is the sole source of morality. People can be good without god. Even god fearing people commit atrocities of the worst kind. 911 is a stark reminder of that.

Steve says:

11:24am | 11/11/10

Nona, please dont compare the God Christians fear to the “alleged” God the 9/11 scumbags fear….

Paul Murray says:

02:52pm | 20/07/11

LOL! Project much?

Snoogens says:

10:59am | 10/11/10

Mischna, Talmud, Josephus to name a few.

Perikles says:

11:22am | 10/11/10

Gazza, thats where your wrong, the following ancient scholars and scribes - Tactius (official historian to the Roman Emperor in Jesus’s time)
- Thallus, Celsus, Pliny the Younger (great Roman historian of the time), Lucian, Suetouius, and Josephus ( a Jewish historian). to name a few wrote about Jesus. These people where not christian or supports of the faith BUT they did their job well as any historian today. They ALL identified christ in Judah at the exact time he was supposed to exist, they ALL described his activities. SO Gazza there is irrefutable solid evidence that Jesus existed. So please get your facts straight first, at least check wether your assumptions are true, its easy just google it.

aa says:

11:49am | 10/11/10

You are very wrong ,as their is not only proof of his existence, there is proof of the other “characters” as you put it existing too, as well as some other civilisations recording events that happened too.

Rossco says:

11:53am | 10/11/10

you would also think someone who supposedly performed miracles would create news around the lands and attract a vast collection of recountings.

James1 says:

12:08pm | 10/11/10

Tacitius was born at least 30 years after Jesus died.  Pliny the Elder was ten at most when Jesus died. Pliny the Younger was born after Jesus supposedly died.  Tacitius and Pliny both wrote about one-eyed people, and people who had a left foot so big that they could shelter themselves from the sun using it.

Finally, no historian I know (those at ANU) would agree that their methods are anywhere near as robust of those of today. 
So while they may show evidence that a man by that name was executed for political agitation in Jerusalem (which is what their works maintain), they provide no evidence that he was the son of god, nor do they contain actual evidence of him performing miracles.

Steely Dan says:

12:25pm | 10/11/10

@ Perikles

“They ALL identified christ in Judah at the exact time he was supposed to exist, they ALL described his activities.”
Some of them described ACCOUNTS of his activities.  Some (like Josephus) may never have mentioned Jesus at all.

Tactius - Born 56AD
Celsus - No birth date known, but wrote in the 2nd century
Pliny the Younger - Born 61AD
Lucian - Born 125AD
Suetonius - Born 69AD (earliest estimate)
Josephus - Born 37AD

We don’t know when Thallus was born, and we also don’t know what he wrote.  All we have is a 9th-century monk quoting a 3rd-century Christian’s comment about Thallus talking about an eclipse which supposedly coincides with Jesus’ crucifixion.  Thallus’ works have been lost, and we don’t know who he was, what he wrote, or even when he lived.

Jon says:

02:43pm | 10/11/10

Agree, from my reading there isn’t a shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed at all, while there is a mountain of evidence that he was merely a knock off of an Egyptian god.  No records of Jesus from the Romans at that time, who were very good historians. On the plus side and a very short passage “Testimonium Flavianum” a statement by Flavius Josephus a Roman Jew, who’s much quoted text is used as proof of Jesus. However it has been questioned by historians who suggest that it is the result of alterations to the original text by zealous Christians. There is also a mountain of proof that many of current traditions of Christianity were rebadged Roman pagan ones.

And strangely the Quran lives and dies with Jesus as he is mentioned. Every word of the Quran is supposedly the infallible word of Allah. The Quran is all about Jesus, no Jesus no Quran, such is the religious house of cards.

PaulB says:

04:11pm | 10/11/10

Perikles I can only assume you haven’t actually read any of the material you are quoting for the supposed existence of Jesus.  You just wouldn’t say what you said if you had actually read it.  You at least shouldn’t assume others haven’t read this stuff before you make such statements.

Steely Dan says:

01:10pm | 10/11/10

@ GO

“At least you know where they are coming from, and they uphold tradition. That gives us continuity and direction.”
So does a rocket into the sun.  Continuity and direction aren’t positives in of themselves.

Trevor says:

02:38pm | 10/11/10

David, we are not the ones making the claim, therefore there is no reason why we would bother to try prove that god doesn’t exist. That simply doesn’t make sense. When Newton proposed his theory of gravity did he just throw it out there and say “Now it is up to you to prove it is wrong”? No, he didn’t because he was the one that proposed the theory, the burden of providing evidence to support his claims fell to him. We don’t walk around saying there is no god, we say that you have made a proposition (the existence of god) for which you have no proof and rightly so we say because you can’t provide any evidence for your claims I am not going to accept your claim as a fact. The reason that this upsets so many religious apologists is that they know that they can never provide any evidence for their claims and this scares the daylights out of them and they are too scared to accept the fact that god most likely doesn’t exist because they don’t have the capacity within themselves to live a good, moral and fulfilling life and crave some-one to provide this for them regardless of how ridiculous their theories might be. This is why seemly otherwise rational people will believe in Scientology.  Just because you are seemly incapable of performing moral and altruistic acts for their own merit without the promise of reward or threat of punishment doesn’t mean that everybody suffers the same failings, this is pure solipsism. I believe it is more altruistic to help another being in need simply because they are in need and not because I believe I will be rewarded for my actions when I die or that I will be condemned to eternal punishment for failing to act.

Perikles says:

12:33pm | 10/11/10

My point exaxtly, Richard Dawkins is the High Priest of the religion called Atheism

Steely Dan says:

01:03pm | 10/11/10

@ Perikles

You’ve never quoted somebody who isn’t your High Priest?  Yikes.

Perikles says:

12:42pm | 10/11/10

So DFB you strongly believe in that Atheism is a “lack of belief” and that you believe so strongly that you have a lack in belief in God? Right? We humans we built to believe!, we believe we can get up in the morning, we believe our footy team will win!, we believe ......... If we didn’t we would not have reached the and landed on moon. If we didn’t believe in ourselves then we would be able to get outta bed, we would be no different than animals, no growth,  no direction, no life, no hope. Just pure existence, no give me belief anytime a chance to dream to change my life for the better and help those around me.

Steely Dan says:

01:13pm | 10/11/10

@ Perikles

There’s nothing wrong with belief.  Belief is accepting that something is true.  You can believe things for good reasons, and you can believe things for bad reasons - the latter is faith.

Grant says:

02:54pm | 10/11/10

@ Perikles

We humans are not born to believe, all children are born atheists; they have no idea of God”  (1772, Baron d’Holbach).

Your belief system is a learned behaviour from your environment.  If I was brought up in a religious family, I would most likely be religious.

That’s all it is, nothing mystical at all about it.

Your reality would come crashing around you if you accept this truth, but you never can.

paul says:

11:47am | 10/11/10

then you should appreciate atheism.
we know that we don’t know all the answers and accept that as an answer.
why make up gods, demons and such fantasy to fill the gaps in our knowledge? might be a good story to scare children or gain political power, but it’s still a lie.
as Douglas Adams said, isn’t it enough to see the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it.

Daniel says:

11:52am | 10/11/10

Exactly.

Atheist - We don’t know everything, but based on evidence this our theory based on reason….

Theist - God did it

James1 says:

11:57am | 10/11/10

That is why I fear some of the faithful.  Like his fundamentalist Muslim fellow travellers, there is no separation between their blood-drenched holy books and political life.

Dawson says:

12:15pm | 10/11/10

This comment sounds so self-righteous, I ask myself if this is a real opinion, or if in fact you’re a troll.

James1 says:

01:05pm | 10/11/10

I fear it is all too real, Dawson.  I have met people like Clive in real life.  So while he may be a troll, the sentiment exists.

Nona says:

04:50pm | 10/11/10

We should never elect leaders on the basis of religion. Methinks it’s irrelevant.

Seano says:

12:41pm | 10/11/10

Does that make Ad Hominem attacks the common trait of the theist?

Andy1 says:

12:37pm | 10/11/10

What happens if Tim and Julia split up and she gets a new boyfriend does he then move into the Lodge?

The Badger says:

12:46pm | 10/11/10

According to the constitution, Tim is precluded from exiting a relationship with a serving PM and therefore also the lodge.

Unless of course the queen through her representative the governor general here in Terra Australis decides in her infinite wisdom that terminating this relationship is in the best interests of the nation.

Only the Queen through the GG can then call for a double dissolution of the relationship. This is all spelled out very specifically in the constitution of Australia. If you look for it, it is next to the part where the Queen can dissolve the commonwealth of Australia at her pleasure.

Steely Dan says:

01:31pm | 10/11/10

@ nosthow

“Timmy should be living elsewhere until he ties the knot as it sends a bad message to the young people of Australia I feel.”
I’m not married to my partner of 8 years, nosthow.  Am I sending a ‘bad message’? 

@ The Badger

“According to the constitution, Tim is precluded from exiting a relationship with a serving PM and therefore also the lodge.”
Word of advice there, Badgo, if you want to claim that the Constitution says something, try reading it first.

nosthow says:

02:16pm | 10/11/10

@Steely Dan - the difference is my good chap you arnt the PM, the Countrys leader. My advice to you good sir is to man up and marry the long suffering gel !

MarK says:

03:10pm | 10/11/10

I really don’t mind nosthow. Seriously. They can live like that or not. I do agree it would better to have something other than the first “bloke” or whatever but whatever.

But for the love of all that is holy, supernatural or whatever would someone get them a clothing allowance and a person to help them dress.

They look appalling half the time.

Seriously, they need help.

Oh Steely….in Badgers defence I am 100% he was using the well worn tactic of taking the piss.

Steely Dan says:

05:08pm | 10/11/10

@ nosthow

“the difference is my good chap you arnt the PM, the Countrys leader.”
And if I was, I’d have to get married?  Why?

“My advice to you good sir is to man up and marry the long suffering gel !”
Long-suffering?  My partner and I decided not to get married despite protestations from religious family members together.  That’s how we atheist couples work - we make decisions together, and she doesn’t have to obey me just because I’m male.  Wacky concept for you I’m sure.

nosthow says:

07:48pm | 10/11/10

@Steely Dan - I sense a chap who is afraid of commitment Steely ? Our society has one great institution that even gay people strive to have access to and that is marriage. Now come on Steely man up and lets have a wedding by Chrissie - theres a good chap !

Steely Dan says:

09:10am | 11/11/10

@ nosthow

“I sense a chap who is afraid of commitment Steely ?”
Have you tattooed your spouse’s name on your forehead, and vice versa?  If you haven’t, is that because it’s not something that you and your spouse need to do, or because of your obvious lack of commitment?

What the? says:

12:38pm | 10/11/10

Unfortunately another argument in error. Jesus was a man of History based on historical facts and records, Horus was never written as a historical person but as a mythical person.

To deny Jesus actually never existed is ignorance in the highest order and I mean that in a nice way. There is more historical evidence for Jesus and the New Testament writers than any other work of antiquity.  I really suggest you look at the facts because from your statement you are so far from the mark.

If you are really after ‘actual’ historical references, study ‘Evidence that demands a Verdict’. Everything is there.

Does anyone ever consider what year we live in and why? It’s 2010 for a reason.

Ange says:

12:53pm | 10/11/10

Response to “What The?”  Actually my friend there is not one single piece of historical evidence that talks about the existence of Jesus. All references are either biblical or written after the fact. There are many records still in existence from Roman times however none of them actually mention Pontius Pilot crucifying a Christ or Jesus.

Not sure about your reference to ‘Evidence that demand a Verdict’ however I’m willing to bet it’s a Christian based publication

What the? says:

01:31pm | 10/11/10

@ Ange,

As stated before, Talmud, Mischna and the Jewish Historian Josephus.

Jews hated Jesus yet write about him, plenty of quotes and references in these texts. If Jesus enemies write about him, I can uassure you he is real.

But where do you stop, are you going to discredit the apostles existed, the Church fathers never existed. By your logic, Ceasar never existed.

Ange says:

02:29pm | 10/11/10

Sorry What The but you still have no actual historical evidence. Josephus was not alive at the presumed time of Jesus and his texts are often disputed.  By my logic Julius Caeser does exist because we still have writings in existence today from his contemporaries and eyewitness accounts written at that time.  Again, there are no contemporary eyewitness accounts written about Jesus. All references to him were written after the fact and based only on heresay.

Cameron Reilly says:

04:04pm | 10/11/10

@“What The”:

Neither the Talmud nor Josephus contain eyewitness accounts or anything remotely close to being useful as an historical account. Whether or not the references in the Talmud even refer to Jesus is debatable, they are so vague. Josephus barely mentions him in passing twice - one of those mentions is well known to be a later forgery. The other isn’t an eyewitness account - he mentions what the Christians of the late 1st century believed. Plenty of people today believe lots of whacky things. Just because someone reports them doesn’t make them true.

“By your logic, Ceasar never existed.” - Actually I love it when Christians use Caesar as an example. If you’re talking about Julius, then we have his OWN writings as well as the writings of contemporaries who knew him personally. The same is true if you’re talking about Augustus. For Jesus, on the contrary, didn’t write anything down and there isn’t a single piece of known writing (either extant or historical) of anyone who we could say was either an eyewitness or a contemporary.

The evidence that Jesus existed at all is extremely thin. Anyone who doesn’t accept that is self-delusional .

Freddo Frog says:

01:14pm | 10/11/10

Ange,

I partially agree with you.  Politicians are elected to represent the views of their constituents.  Their beliefs should not have any bearing on the way the formulate laws and policies.

Unfortunately, society seems to think that politicians should be allowed conscience votes on tricky matters.  The conscience vote allows the elected officials to vote against party lines without censure.  Sadly, many of our pollies don’t understand that they should be voting to reflect the majority will of their constituents in every vote and a conscience vote is not a licence to “follow your heart”.

Andrew says:

04:40pm | 10/11/10

Your obviously one of gods “chosen” ones!

Seano says:

03:11pm | 10/11/10

Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolution and climate change and yet you comment on people’s intelligence. Not bright and hardly likely to win you any arguments.

PaulB says:

03:42pm | 10/11/10

No there isn’t.  That’s complete utter rubbish Chris.  There are NO contemporary references to Jesus ouside of the Bible that carry any credibility whatsoever, and the Bible itself is not even a contemporary reference.

David says:

05:00pm | 10/11/10

I can exactly say there is no evidence Jesus is real. He produced not a chair, not one verifiable independent eye witness stepped forward on his behalf (not even the 500 perverted witnesses who bothered to roll up for the weekly crucifiction entertainment), he didn’t even try his hand at an off-line blog of some sort. And I bet he didn’t even fill in the census he was running from the little brat. It’s called ‘empirical evidence’ and every single religion in human history look for the covers of Mount Sinai when they hear it. Evidence, what evidence!

Seano says:

06:23pm | 10/11/10

Read Mein Kampf, Hitler was not an atheist.

Stalin did not kill anyone in the name of atheism.

DH says:

02:57pm | 10/11/10

Can an opinion be incorrect?

Brad says:

03:57pm | 10/11/10

“Firstly, its incorrect because atheism is in fact irrational, because it presumes that if there is no evidence”

Wrong, Atheism is a state without theism. Babies are born Atheist then indoctrinated. Furthermore, in addition to me rejecting the evidence for your god, i also reject evidence for zues, ra, apollo etc. as I am sure you do. To claim that it is irrational to reject evidence for a god, then unless you believe the evidence for zues, hipocrisy?

“An atheist BELIEVES there is no god” Fallacy, lack of belief does not equate to belief in the opposing state.

Atheism is to belief/religion as bald is to a hair colour. We abstain from the process entirely.

“subjective evidence available for some people in the form of a religious experience” claptrap, research the god helmet.

Richard says:

10:04am | 11/11/10

DH of course opinions can be incorrect. Take Brad for example, his implicit opinion is that I believe in Yahweh or Allah, and that I disbelieve in Ra or Zues. His condescending presumption is incorrect on both counts.

For myself, I do believe that man has a spiritual nature, which every different culture has sought to identify with by personifying it. My own spirtuality is deeply personal and unique to me, unshared with other people.

But at least I do make some attempt to connect with the spiritual aspect of being, unlike most self-satisfied atheists who are sneeringly content with their shallow, deluded, narrow-minded ignorance of spirituality.

Steely Dan says:

03:39pm | 10/11/10

@ Dan Chan

“Sadly his views regarding the historicity of the Christian faith would be placed at the fringe end of scholarship. “One hundred years after his death”? Laughable.”
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the author’s got it pretty close to correct with his ‘50 to 100’ statement.  The earliest estimate for the oldest gospel, Mark, is 65AD, approximately 30 years after Jesus’ alleged resurrection.  John is the newest Gospel at 90-100AD.
Of course, the early Gospels aren’t exactly the same ones we read now - the earliest copies of Mark don’t contain 16:9-20!  Passages were lost, deleted and added well into the following centuries - ‘Jesus and the woman taken in adultery’ doesn’t appear in John manuscripts until the end of the 4th century.

Dan Chan says:

10:14am | 11/11/10

Pretty close? Perhaps. But my point still stands that it’s on the fringe of scholarship.

50-100 years is not approx. 30-70 ... pretty key difference if you’re going to run with the whole ‘Chinese whispers’ argument. (For which, can we agree, there must be a better term for?!)

Steely Dan says:

11:30am | 11/11/10

@ Dan Chan

“50-100 years is not approx. 30-70 ... pretty key difference if you’re going to run with the whole ‘Chinese whispers’ argument.”
I thought the point was to show that these are not eyewitness accounts.  Most Christians aren’t even aware that Christian and non-Christian scholarly consensus is that the Books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. 
And I don’t think ‘30-70’ is correct either.  Those are the estimated dates for the earliest incarnations of the gospels - the ones that sit on Christian shelves today are more like ‘30-400’.  As I mentioned before, the earliest Mark doesn’t contain a claim of eyewitnesses to a resurrected Jesus - one of the key arguments Christian apologists use for claims of his divinity.  And Mark is important - not just because it’s the oldest gospel - but because it’s recognised as a source document (along with the hypothetical ‘Q’ document) for the other three gospels.

“For which, can we agree, there must be a better term for?!”
Good call.  Especially given that the Chinese have a long history of high literacy rates and good record-keeping.

Dan Chan says:

09:56am | 11/11/10

Any cursory research will show that even the latest gospel, John, is widely accepted to have been written around 90CE.

I myself would be interested to know of evidence that is was written, as suggested, as late as 133CE given they have found an actual fragment dated to as early as 125CE.

As to the other question, the earliest gospel for one, Mark, generally accepted at around 65CE would easily fit the profile.

While I’ll grant you there’s plenty of issues surrounding new testament documents, I really don’t think dates of authorship is something that you cant just take a punt at to support a broader argument.

PS Disappointed you didn’t query my comment on Luther (that’s a much easier one!)

Nona says:

06:02pm | 10/11/10

“Explain how rational human beings have been deceived by the Christian story for over 2000 years”
For many centuries too most of the world’s population believed that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around Earth. Just because a belief is old doesn’t mean it is true.

“the great ‘reasoners’ in history have had faith in God: Galileo, Newton”
A disproportional percentage of scientists are atheist. But so what? Just because more smart people believe in it doesn’t make it true. We have to think for ourselves.

” I would much rather have a leader who draws strength that is limitless than simply rely on their limited resources.”
Really? How so? Any examples of limitless strength?

Nona says:

06:05pm | 10/11/10

LOL This is circular reasoning at its best! Using the bible to substantiate a story in the bible.

Reg says:

08:55pm | 10/11/10

True. And may God bless you to. Although the assumed “may” does express a certain degree of doubt.  Perhaps this will help. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8-8WJxA-cI

Reg says:

05:32am | 11/11/10

On the contrary Matt. To your claim that violence is rising, I have to ask, relative to what? Taken on the long term the rise of religion was a response to powerlessness. This is still used to qualify religion today and the street thug with his inability to rise above his petty frustration takes the same route. It’s just that society can see the damage resulting from his demonstrated remedy while that of religion is often submerged or delayed. Although I must admit that 9/11 was indeed a well demonstrated show of the religious thuggery that none of us like.  Christians may seek to separate themselves from such activity but it is the commonality of their ethereal connection that renders this futile.

ps. I see no sign that intellectual dimensions are diminishing but there are definite signs that a willingness to blindly accept the religious dictums of the fanciful are on the decline. Unfortunately this is of little assistance to those already thoroughly saturated with religious mythology.

Reg says:

10:40am | 11/11/10

OM; - “I respect atheists as I respect people of any other faith.” - such a statement says nothing. You may thoroughly disrespect all or none but one thing for sure, you prefer one over another and are therefore suggesting greater respect for that one. Now which might that be because apparently all religions spend their days and nights extolling, ... me! me!.

Make the wrong choice and you’re toast but only if there is such thing as hell. If there’s NOT then you can rub shoulders with some of the worst criminals who ever lived, because they too are forgiven. 

On the other hand if they are ALL forgiven,  then so are non-believers.  “There is no God, but if I’m wrong, God forgive me.” Why pray that if you’re forgiven already?  Comes to that, why pray anything, it only shows lack of faith in God.

Exploring says:

09:38pm | 10/11/10

Yes, that’s the way.

Post quotes from a book that was written by Men who had a giant voice speak to them.

These days, said people would be locked up in an Asylum.

Tedd says:

05:50am | 11/11/10

They were locked up - in a monastery.

Tedd says:

05:48am | 11/11/10

Nah, atheism doesn’t believe in supernatural mystical beings.  Most worship humanity, human endeavour and science more than themselves.

MikeH says:

07:32am | 11/11/10

“I tend to avoid Christians as they tend to cloud my thoughts with religious gibberish”... Seriously? I guess it gets in the way of your La Veyan gibberish.

Akrasiel Rising says:

09:17am | 11/11/10

@ Peter… Thanks for that post, it gave me a good laugh.

The level of hypocrisy and ill-informed vitriol that you so incoherently thumped into your keyboard helped me to make the decision to bow out of this particular thread. It is quite obvious that there is little point trying to make a case for anything when the level of repetitive over simplification required to make even the basest of points is complete lost on the likes of you (and joan and Perikles).

For the record I am not saying that you don’t have points to make… just that your delivery and level of understanding of the points you are trying to make falls woefully short of that required for reasoned debate. I will also take the opportunity to admonish the “Atheists” who retaliate in kind to Peter and his ilk… it only serves to inflame their prejudice towards reason and clouds their ability to look at the cases for and against objectively. Research, critically assess, develop a hypothesis and be open minded enough to accept that it is about the journey of discovery, not a declarative we are right they are wrong stance. The fact that we can accommodate that there may be other options is the key point of difference between the Atheist and the Theist.

To those on both sides who provided coherent and well reasoned arguments, I thank you it was most interesting. (A special thanks @ Terry Irvine who restored my faith that well reasoned arguments can be presented in an intelligent, logical manner on both sides without the need to resort to name calling… even if we do agree to disagree)

In closing I leave you with a great Tommy Lee Jones quote from Men In Black that kind of sums up the open mind argument. For those out there who KNOW the truth it might come in handy…

“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody KNEW the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you KNEW that humans were alone on this planet…. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”

Daniel says:

07:41am | 11/11/10

Reece, I’ll let you in on a few things.
-We didn’t evolve from monkeys, the theory is that we have a common ancestor. We got lucky and became what we are.

-The wind is something that can be objectively measured.

Steely Dan says:

10:50am | 11/11/10

@ Colin J Ely

Take a look at the binding Section 116.

Seano says:

07:49am | 11/11/10

I may passionately disagree with the believers but calling them pedophiles is sick and stupid.

True Believer says:

08:29am | 11/11/10

Gary Diamond

Hi Gary, I guess you will work through the Christmas holidays and Easter as well - after all it would be hypocritical of you to do anything such as taking time off to celebrate Christian Holy Days.  Or can your atheism embrace being double-minded mmmmmmmmmmmm?

Steely Dan says:

10:26am | 11/11/10

@ True Believer

” I guess you will work through the Christmas holidays and Easter as well - after all it would be hypocritical of you to do anything such as taking time off to celebrate Christian Holy Days.”
Good to see a pagan like yourself pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians and atheists having a holiday on Saturnalia!  You are a pagan, right TB?  “Mmmmmmmmmmmmm?”

Will says:

03:11pm | 11/11/10

@True believer,

Perhaps Gary Diamond is a practicing pagan - he may be just celebrating the original root and meaning of the festivals..mmmmmmmmmm?

True Believer says:

04:37pm | 11/11/10

Steely Dan:
No I am not a pagan and you know that very well. You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with your replies.  You can do better than that surely???

Christmas and Easter, regardless of the fact that early Christian tried, wisely or unwisely, to inculcate them with pagan festivals, are the celebration of Jesus’ birth, death on the Cross for you and me and His resurrection. 

But I guess you believe in Santa and the Easter bunny, I would not want to spoil your enjoyment by bringing in reality. Try harder next time, you can do it. Leave the bottom of the barrel now, there is nothing left there for you now - you have slung all the mud pies you had. :0)

Steely Dan says:

09:40am | 12/11/10

@ True Believer

So you can hijack an existing holiday for your own purposes, but I can’t?  Is that your response?  (I apologise if my constructive criticism and blatant use of reason offends you)

True Believer says:

11:18am | 12/11/10

Steely Dan:
Could I suggest you indulge in a little humility and subject yourself to some self-criticism and accept that your “reasoning” maybe, just maybe flawed? Is that too much to ask?  I have no doubt you are probably a very nice person, but you do have to win every argument it seems which can be rather tiresome.

I do not take offense, your constant barrages against my beliefs just makes me feel sad for your lack of tolerance.

Steely Dan says:

12:42pm | 12/11/10

@ True Believer

“Could I suggest you indulge in a little humility and subject yourself to some self-criticism and accept that your “reasoning” maybe, just maybe flawed? Is that too much to ask?”
Not at all.  But until somebody presents a valid argument to show that my reasoning is flawed, I’m not going to assume that it is.

“I have no doubt you are probably a very nice person, but you do have to win every argument it seems which can be rather tiresome.”
As do you too, it seems.  What a tiresome pair we are. 
“I do not take offense, your constant barrages against my beliefs just makes me feel sad for your lack of tolerance.”
I am very intolerant of irrationality – be it in a religious form or not.  I respect people’s rights to hold beliefs, but I don’t have to respect the bad thinking that leads to them.  And I don’t respect people who throw mud rather than addressing the issue.  Running from a debate screaming ‘pathetic’ when you can’t defend a claim does not earn my respect.  Changing the topic does not earn my respect.  So here is my ‘tiresome’ attempt to get this back on track:

The Christmas and Easter holidays were pagan festivals that were hijacked by Christians to work their theology into polytheistic tradition.  As such it is hypocritical to claim that atheists are hypocritical for enjoying secular aspects (days off work, seeing family etc) of these national holidays. 

I’d appreciate a response longer than the word ‘pathetic’.

True Believer says:

04:33pm | 12/11/10

Steely Dan:

Well you may be tiresome my friend, but you are persistent I will give you that. You put a smile on my face. :0)

Now on irrationality - I do not have a clever answer for that - if you think anything you cannot see, smell, weigh, feel, bite etc does not exist then there is no answer in heaven or on earth for your predicament.

As the Bible says “Do not love the world nor the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but it is from the world.
and the world is passing away and also its lusts, but the one who does the will of God abides forever” 1 John 2:15-17.

Your reality is limited to the world and what mankind can comprehend. For you that is all there is. Fair enough if you choose to stop there. Many do.  Just because many do does not make it an absolute or the real Truth.

It seems from the posts I read from unbelievers they wish to have a “god” so small they can understand/rationalise/interpret him/her/it .

Well that is fine if people wish to content themselves with something that does not exist, because that is not the God I know. My God cannot be rationalised by the human mind, thank goodness, for that is so limited and so finite.

I suggest the problem is for many as it has been down the ages - pride. Some just cannot give up the notion that they are in control of everything, that they refuse to look beyond their limited boundaries. I know because that was once me. No more.  Been there, done that, futile and finite.

Now I am presupposing, do forgive me, that you will rubbish what I have said, that is ok if it makes you feel good. All I can keep saying is, you are missing out on the best by insisting on being so pedantic and obtuse in insisting God must fit with you, not you with Him. That will never happen and you will never know. There is more, much more. Search on, dare to doubt your reality.

Steely Dan says:

10:48pm | 13/11/10

@ True Believer

“Now I am presupposing, do forgive me, that you will rubbish what I have said, that is ok if it makes you feel good.”
It doesn’t make me feel good, it makes me feel sad for you.  You didn’t address the issue at all - surprise, surprise.  Instead, you admitted that you couldn’t support your position logically, and accused me of having too much pride to know the truth.  If you can’t see what’s wrong with that non-reasoning, there may be no hope for you.

True Believer says:

12:48pm | 14/11/10

Steely Dan:
Thank you for your reply to my post. Please do not feel sad for me I am not in need of your sympathy.  There are many who post on these pages on whom it would not be wasted however.

You wish to argue against God who is infinite and the source of all Truth using the feeble tool of human logic. I understand that is all you have, I too have been in that predicament and been a mocker of Christians. I feel empathy for your situation and please do not read that as condescension.

I am not patronising you, I have been where you are. You have yet to come where I am, not by any cleverness in you, certainly not by any cleverness in me, but by the Grace of God and that alone. You cannot earn that place by your good works, or clever thoughts, only by acknowledging to yourself and Him your lost plight. There is no salvation in logic.  It is interesting I admit, but does not offer the fulfillment faith brings or the true life we are meant to have.

I am where I am not by any cleverness in me I assure you. I was and am totally unworthy of the amazing gift I have received through Jesus my Lord. It is a free gift given to those who turn, repent and believe.  Nothing humanity can offer for all its undoubted riches in so many areas can come even close to having a relationship with the Living God through Jesus Christ His Son.

How then can we discuss something where you are not willing/unable to venture into the realm of the unknowable?  You refuse to look beyond your rationalism and logistics. Do you want my God to be a “god” who can be scrutinized by you and diminished to the human level?  That is really illogical.

He came, He walked as a human, He died at the hands of mockers and unbelievers and He confounded them then as He continues to do today by refusing to be held by the tomb.

I could ask you on what do you base your world view?
Where do your values come from and why should they be shared by anyone else on the planet? What is the logic for that?  I can ask does this world view you have hold hope, joy, the peace that passes all human understanding, spiritual life, contentment, love for your fellow human being to the point of being willing to lay down your life, does it give you the assurance of a life beyond the grave?  Can you truly answer me and say “yes I am totally fulfilled in every way”?  Can you say as I can “I am never alone - no matter what the circumstances” - my friend - when you can answer my questions with an honest heart as well as a logical mind we can discuss this further.

Enjoy your week.

Steely Dan says:

11:16am | 15/11/10

@ TB

Like most believers, you want to say that belief is rational until you’re backed into a corner, then you engage in special pleading and question the validity of logic.  It’s dishonest, and clearly a waste of time.

What you’re advocating is absolute faith - that is, turning off your brain and stating that you believe.  If I put on a blindfold, you’d call me an idiot - and rightly so.  If I said that I had faith that I can drive without looking, would you commend me?

“I could ask you on what do you base your world view?
Where do your values come from and why should they be shared by anyone else on the planet? What is the logic for that?”
I could answer - but that would be changing the topic entirely.  You’d have to show that the invalidation of my epistemology would validate yours. 
So here’s a thought experiment instead: what if somebody were to tell you that they had faith that there wasn’t a god?

Aidan says:

11:48am | 15/11/10

@ Steely Dan & True Believer

You two boys should have your own talk show!

True Believer says:

01:10pm | 15/11/10

Steely Dan:

Well you disappoint me, but then I guess I am not really surprised. I didn’t think you would be able to answer my questions.  You do not have answers do you?  Not ones that would stand up to scrutiny. Tis easier to fire darts at the beliefs of others rather than disclose your own.

You see my friend you have a spiritual blindfold on, that is why you are in the dark on matters of faith.  I know what that is like.

One has to acknowledge their spiritual need to have that removed so yes you are in the dark spiritually. If you would just give yourself permission to put aside your intellectualizing long enough to accept that you might, yes even you, might possibly be missing the best part. 

You protest too much methinks. I am not sure who you are trying to convince, me or you???  I can only keep challenging you to look beyond what you think you know - that is not all there is. But hey you are not going to give yourself that chance. You doggedly hold on to what you think you know, it is your little life raft. Why?  There is nothing to fear and everything to gain in taking the leap of faith. There are Arms there to catch you I promise you. Have a good day. :0)

Aiden: Thanks for your post but I am not a “boy” :0) not even a “girl” any longer - I am an adult woman.  I think Steely Dan and I would continue to talk past one another even on a talk show. :0)

Appreciate your humour though.

Steely Dan says:

01:39pm | 15/11/10

@ TB

“You do not have answers do you?”
I do.  But you’re not getting out of it that easily.  To repeat, unless you can show that invalidation of my epistemology would validate yours, you’re just trying to switch topics and/or the burden of proof.

“Not ones that would stand up to scrutiny.”
So mine have to - but yours don’t?  What did reason ever do to you, TB?

“One has to acknowledge their spiritual need to have that removed so yes you are in the dark spiritually.”
So the steps to knowing the truth are:
1. Believe it’s the truth.
Well, that seems robust.

“You protest too much methinks.”
Should I have just said “Pathetic” and left it at that?

Aidan says:

02:23pm | 15/11/10

@ True Believer

Am I to assume the two of you are married?

True Believer says:

03:14pm | 15/11/10

Aiden:  God forbid :0) - who could live with such a pedantic person - who is always right and everyone else is wrong. Not me for sure.

Steely Dan:

I have answered you - my God can not be brought down to the level of the human mind to be “proven” - if you can only believe what you think has been proven - an I use “think” advisedly - then you lack the capacity to explore a realm which is improvable in human terms.

I still ask you - on what do you base your beliefs, values, and does your beliefs bring you total fulfillment, peace that passes all human understanding, the sure knowledge of never being on one’s own in any situation and a family of believers which embraces at least 33% of the population of the world????

Reason is quite admirable as far as it goes, but it has necessary limitations.  It never led me where I am today nor promised me what I have now find. It is there for you too if you take off your intellectual blinkers and dare to look.

You cannot answer, be honest at least with yourself if not publicly. I think you keep tripping over your pride. :0) Hope you are having a great day.

Steely Dan says:

04:23pm | 15/11/10

@ TB

“I have answered you - my God can not be brought down to the level of the human mind to be “proven”
Evidently not.  Your claim is that the only way to justify your position is not to justify it at all - to simply accept it uncritically.

“...if you can only believe what you think has been proven…”
‘Proof’ isn’t necessary for belief.  But evidence that points to probability would be nice.

I think we’ve established that you are unable to validate your position logically.  Your position is emotional, and nothing more.

“I still ask you - on what do you base your beliefs”
I base my beliefs on observations of the real world, checking my perceptions against the perceptions of those around me to ensure that my senses are as accurate as they can be.  From these observations we can derive basic philosophical rules (‘A is never not A’ etc).  I observe that I don’t like suffering, and that I don’t like seeing others suffering, and the elimination of suffering forms the basis of my values.

“and does your beliefs bring you total fulfillment, peace that passes all human understanding, the sure knowledge of never being on one’s own in any situation and a family of believers which embraces at least 33% of the population of the world”
No.  Does that make them untrue?  You would argue that it doesn’t matter - for you, truth is what you want it to be, not what the evidence suggests it is.

“Reason is quite admirable as far as it goes, but it has necessary limitations.”
Which are?

“It never led me where I am today nor promised me what I have now find.”
Do you understand what reason is?  Try driving a car unreasonably - no, don’t.  You’d kill someone.  Actually, do.  Without reason you aren’t likely to get the key into the ignition.

“I think you keep tripping over your pride.”
If wanting to know the truth is pride, then I am way too prideful indeed.  If I wanted to settle for ignorance, I’d probably have taken up dangerous hallucinogens.

xyz says:

06:36pm | 15/11/10

Steely Dan:

There’s no point continuing, although it has been very entertaining!

Remember the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case heard in 2005 in the US. This case was about the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. It failed with Judge Jones concluding that:

“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. “

At the end of the trial it was clear that no matter how much peer-reviewed scientific evidence was presented to refute each and every claim… the true-believers would not be swayed.

... she’s not called ‘True Believer’ for nothng

True Believer says:

08:27pm | 15/11/10

Steely Dan:

Again you retreat into intellectualizing - it really has you by the short and curly doesn’t it.  I notice also, now you know I am a woman you also predictably bring out the “emotional” barb - so endemic of the emotionally immature male.  Lash out at that of which he has no understanding. 

So here we have an intellectualizing, prideful, sexist, emotionally immature male apparently fearful of accepting that which he cannot comprehend through his senses or the senses of others whom he finds like minded?? Have I missed anything?  I apologise in advance if I have misread you.  These are certainly the characteristics you exhibit in discussing a subject on which you are so obviously on shaky ground.  Understandable. I respect that is your perception.

You assert the position I have taken is that my faith cannot be justified - I have already tried at great length to explain to you my God is not One who can be proven by human means. If He was He would not be God. I accept you are apparently unable to comprehend that.

You say that your beliefs are based on the “real world checking against the the perceptions of those around me”  - now let us suppose you are a young man in Hitler’s Germany. You perceive the reality there is that everyone is following the Fuhrer - he represents human reality at that time for those many thousands of people.  You check your perceptions against those around you, the reality of the situation - do you come up with the reality that it ok to kill six million Jews???  I hear you say “no of course not”, but hang on, you are there in the midst of this madness that is your reality, the people, the writings, the ravings of a madman and his supporters your only points of reference, how then would you think differently?  Human perception alone is at best fragile, at worst deceitful. 

The lack of fulfillment, peace etc emanating from your beliefs does not make them untrue, but to the thinking person searching for truth it would raise some serious questions surely, that perhaps there is more…................

The limitations of human reason is that those who cling just to that are held captive to a very narrow understanding of what it means to be a whole human being. Reason is necessarily limited by the fallibility of the human mind.  With such limited reason a person is like a torch without a battery, the switch functions, everything is intact physically speaking, but without power the light will not come on. :0)

To conclude, you seem to be ok with pride - well I can tell you - it does come before a fall.  Pride will never lead you to spiritual knowledge or freedom, you will remain captive to it and the lies it tells you.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

xyz says:

10:40pm | 15/11/10

True Believer, do you even know who you are replying to anymore?

Your long rants are truely starting to sound just a bit unhinged (and you forgot your manners about 5 posts ago).

True Believer says:

08:38am | 16/11/10

xyz:

You are right to advise Steely Dan that it is pointless to argue with me, I will not waver from what I know to be true and that not by the strivings of my intellect. :0)

Yes I do know who I am writing to. I too have found this entertaining if just a little sad that so many probably lovely people are so close- minded to anything beyond their senses or the teachings of man.

As for manners, that is rich, there are enough insults in the posts here to give Question Time in Canberra a rich resource.

As for the nasty little “unhinged” comment. Says more about you than it does about me that you would stoop to using among your insults the plight of those who do have mental illness. So many in here also find it ok apparently to use the words indicating mental illness to prop up their sad little arguments. 

That, having spent many years working in that field, I find particularly loathsome. I know at first hand how those with mental health problems suffer and I care. Do you,or is it more important to use their plight against a fellow citizen because her beliefs differ from yours?

Steely Dan says:

09:50am | 16/11/10

@ TB

“Again you retreat into intellectualizing”
That’s a retreat?

“I notice also, now you know I am a woman you also predictably bring out the “emotional” barb - so endemic of the emotionally immature male.”
No.  I declared you to be emotional and not rational after you stated this:
“Reason is quite admirable as far as it goes, but it has necessary limitations.  It never led me where I am today nor promised me what I have now find.” 

“So here we have an intellectualizing, prideful…”
Guilty as charged.

“sexist, emotionally immature male”
Nice try!  As an atheist, there’s no compelling reason to be sexist. 

“apparently fearful of accepting that which he cannot comprehend through his senses”
You don’t comprehend with your senses.  That’s the job of the brain.

“or the senses of others whom he finds like minded??”
No.  Because I want to know the truth (it’s a weird compulsion I have, I don’t expect you to understand), I use all available perceptions, and try to filter biases (in science a blind, double-blind or triple-blind test may be employed to act as a filter).

“I have already tried at great length to explain to you my God is not One who can be proven by human means.”
So your position is justifiable - just not justifiable by human means?  Do you understand why I (a human, as it turns out) might think that claim sounds suspect?  Unjustifiable by human means is indistinguishable from unjustifiable.

“If He was He would not be God. I accept you are apparently unable to comprehend that.”
I can comprehend a magical get-out-of-logic-free card.  I just can’t comprehend why you think - no, feel, that it exists.

“You check your perceptions against those around you, the reality of the situation - do you come up with the reality that it ok to kill six million Jews???”
Godwin’s. And this has been answered above.  The object of seeking other observers is to try and establish a non-biased standard.  And ‘killing the Jews’ is a mad Luther-inspired conclusion - I’m talking about observations, not conclusions.

“but to the thinking person searching for truth it would raise some serious questions surely, that perhaps there is more”
Of course it does.  It raises lots of questions.  But just asking ‘is there more’ does not justify believing that there is ‘more’. 

“To conclude, you seem to be ok with pride”
Yes.  As we discussed, you’ve defined pride as ‘wanting to know the truth’.  And by that definition, I am very, very prideful.

“Pride will never lead you to spiritual knowledge or freedom, you will remain captive to it and the lies it tells you.”
Looking for the truth will only give you lies, so believe whatever, and you’ll be fine.  Is that an accurate summary of your position?

True Believer says:

02:58pm | 16/11/10

Steely Dan:

“that’s a retreat” - yes because if you don’t know of it it does not exist seems to be how you approach the bigger questions of life.

Well you probably are unaware but the usual insults some men hand out to women are - “emotional, irrationall” so yes your comments identify a classic mcp - ask yourself, would you have said that to another fellow??? I think not. It is only irrational to you because you do not understand it.  In time, with maturity…...................

“Nice try!  As an atheist, there’s no compelling reason to be sexist.” - now who is being irrational - what has atheism got to do with sexism except they are both pretty hollow and without substance??

Science has enough problems contradicting itself - look at the climate change and the deniers - plenty of scientists on both sides there.  It is limited - some things are beyond even the greatest human minds - yes my friend, even yours. :0)

“Unjustifiagle” - I am justified by faith - you just cannot accept there is much more than what you think you understand. 

Not sure how you tie up Luther and killing the Jews - stretching it a very long way there. :0) Into the realm of imaginings? - surely not!

Pride has nothing to do with “knowing the truth” - pride is thinking you know it all.  You will never get to know Jesus while that is your stance believe me.

Looking for truth but wanting to cram it into your own tiny understanding is setting yourself up to buy a lot of lies and Jesus told us who the “father of lies is” - that one has no part in me I can assure you.

Thanks for the discussion. I think we should call it a day now, till the next time….......................God bless.

Steely Dan says:

05:09pm | 16/11/10

@ True Believer

“yes because if you don’t know of it it does not exist seems to be how you approach the bigger questions of life.”
No.  If I don’t have a compelling reason to believe something exists, I won’t believe it.  If you can’t see the difference, I can’t help.

“ask yourself, would you have said that to another fellow??? I think not.”
I have.  And will again, for your benefit - Ben Stein, your unwillingness to accept evolution because you don’t like reality is a stupid position based on emotion alone!

“now who is being irrational”
Wait - isn’t irrationality a virtue in your world?

“what has atheism got to do with sexism except they are both pretty hollow and without substance??”
Nothing.  But a lot of sexism can be traced back to religious culture’s deplorable treatment of women.  A rational view of the world shows no reason to be sexist.  And atheism is as hollow as not collecting stamps.  And you keep thinking that atheism is a philosophy.

“Science has enough problems contradicting itself - look at the climate change and the deniers - plenty of scientists on both sides there.”
Well, plenty on one side… but that’s not science ‘contradicting itself’.  That’s scientists disagreeing.  Scientists are not the scientific method.

“I am justified by faith”
Faith is belief without justification!

“Not sure how you tie up Luther and killing the Jews”
It’s a knowledge thing.  Martin Luther, ‘On the Jews and Their lies’, 1543.  Yes, the German Reformation leader was as anti-Semitic as the title of his book suggests.  And it played a major part in fostering anti-Semitism in Europe.

“pride is thinking you know it all.”
How is saying that there is no evidence for a god declaring that I ‘know it all’?  You should learn how to say ‘I don’t know’ instead of ‘Goddidit’.
“Thanks for the discussion. I think we should call it a day now”
I wasn’t engaged in this for your benefit, TB - anybody who is selectively rational is beyond hope.  I did it to demonstrate the absurdity of belief to others.

True Believer says:

08:51am | 17/11/10

Re need for compelling reason.

I do understand that, it is a dilemma I too once struggled with.  Perhaps you have not yet been invited, I think for every person there comes a time when they can accept or reject Jesus’ free gift of abundant life. He does the inviting.

I do not need your help. I am trying to show you something you are missing out on, not win an argument. If you could see that we would both be winners. :0)

“Emotional, irrational” are words commonly used by some men trying to put down a woman who holds an opinion which differs from his. Tis a bully tactic, not admirable. I accept however, you were not intending to do that.

I cannot recall every discussing evolution with you - if you are happy that your ancestors hung from trees or crawled out of a swamp I have no wish to disillusion you. :0)

On being irrational - no my “world” (I prefer to say my understanding of my wholeness as a person) is not based on irrationality.  You choose to dismiss that which is beyond your human understanding.  I no longer have that problem thankfully.

On atheism and sexism.  All I can say to your comment there is that there must be many more “religious” (to use your terminology) men in government, business,  and positions of power over others than I realised!
 
Sexism is a symptom of male pride and desire to control and the foolishness of some women to accept that. Unfortunately, yes, that has become a pattern in many Christian denominations I will give you that. I do not follow a denomination, I follow Jesus. He never treated women as second class citizens. It is also endemic of man-made religions, cults etc. Christianity is the poorer for this human perception of male domination.

Again you put words in my mouth saying I believe ‘atheism is a philosophy‘, I don’t think it is anything, it is a belief in nothingness beyond human understanding. It is not a philosophy - it is a anti-spiritual affliction.

On the fallibility of science. Well science cannot be held up as absolute, whilst ever there are contradictions by those using its methodology it remains flawed. It cannot be the basis for an infallible view of the meaning of life. That would be a nonsense.

On faith being without justification - that is merely your perception of what constitutes justification. You justify yourself by imprecise science and philosophy, I am justified by the grace of the Living God. Not by my own works or understanding. That requires humility and a realisation of what is really important about our brief stay on planet ear

Luther did indeed take on anti-Semitic views although that was not his original stance. All that proves is that, like every human on the face of the earth he was capable of serious error. Only One walked the earth who was above such errors in thinking. I do not follow the teachings of man without question, I try within my human limitations to follow the Word of God and where human knowledge contradicts God’s wisdom I accept the latter.

I think it is making a huge leap of you faith in human wisdom to associate Luther’s flawed thinking on this with the actions of a madman, (who also was convinced he was right), to endeavour to exterminate the Jews in one of the most evil acts of humanity. 

“How is saying that there is no evidence for a god declaring that I ‘know it all’?  You should learn how to say ‘I don’t know’ instead of ‘Goddit.” 

Well my friend if you set yourself up to be an expert on the non-existence of God. You have declared you position. Therefore you presume to know, or have access to, all there is.  As I keep saying, there is more, much more, but you have locked yourself into a position of intransigence from which you are apparently unable/unwilling to move.

I cannot deny my God because I would be lying. I know He is there, I know He loves and cares for me just as He does for you also, but you choose to reject Him, I chose to accept Him. That is the difference between human knowledge with its fallibility and faith with its willingness to trust beyond human understanding.

“Thanks for the discussion. I think we should call it a day now”I wasn’t engaged in this for your benefit, TB - anybody who is selectively rational is beyond hope.  I did it to demonstrate the absurdity of belief to others.”

Again you set yourself up to be the expert on the non-existence of God, you write off my faith and that of 33% of the population of the planet as absurd. Could it be that you and your minority of like-minded unbelievers may be making a dreadful error?. Can your mind even venture there??? Be brave my friend, there is much more.

Thanks again for your post. Have a great day.

Aidan says:

11:12am | 17/11/10

Hi guys

Sorry to butt in on your conversation again. I just had a question TB;

You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that you were once a fairly militant atheist yourself and enjoyed mocking Christians.
I was just wondering what it was that changed your world view (personal experiences, reading the Bible, etc)?

Steely Dan says:

11:27am | 17/11/10

@ TB

“Perhaps you have not yet been invited”
Perhaps.  And perhaps Vishnu hasn’t invited you either.  But until Thor gives me a personal invitation I would be irrational to think he exists.  Right?

“I accept however, you were not intending to do that.”
I don’t accept your apology.  We’re both aware that you didn’t think for a second that I was being sexist (just as you didn’t think for a second that xyz was trying to demean those with a mental illness) but you were happy to throw the label as a (pathetic) defence mechanism.  Every time somebody uses the term ‘sexist’ for no good reason they do a disservice to those women who are genuine victims of sexual discrimination.

“if you are happy that your ancestors hung from trees or crawled out of a swamp”
This is why I called you emotional and not rational.  Are you ‘happy’ that Hitler invaded Poland?  I’d hope not.  But I bet you accept that it happened, regardless of how the event makes you feel.  Funny how you’re happy to accept reality when it doesn’t compromise your get-out-of-logic-free card.  I’m not ‘happy’ that our ancestors weren’t homo sapiens.  I’m completely indifferent.

“You choose to dismiss that which is beyond your human understanding.”
Right, I refuse to believe something which makes no sense.  As I said, I don’t want to be irrational.

“there must be many more “religious” (to use your terminology) men in government, business,  and positions of power over others than I realised!”
About three quarters of men are religious in this country.  That’s a lot.

“I do not follow a denomination, I follow Jesus. He never treated women as second class citizens.”
Matt 5:18 shows us that the Jesus of the Bible endorsed the old laws.  Is a man who supports the laws of Exodus progressive?

“Again you put words in my mouth saying I believe ‘atheism is a philosophy‘, I don’t think it is anything, it is a belief in nothingness beyond human understanding.”
Well, there’s another contradiction – a belief in ‘nothingness beyond human understanding’ isn’t nothing.  Of course, that’s not atheism.  As I’ve had to explain to you before, I don’t believe that there isn’t anything beyond our understanding – I just realise that asserting that we know what is beyond our understanding is irrational.

“Well science cannot be held up as absolute, whilst ever there are contradictions by those using its methodology it remains flawed.”
Thanks, TB.  But we already know this.  We’ve known it for millennia.  I don’t recall anybody suggesting science was infallible.

“On faith being without justification - that is merely your perception of what constitutes justification.”
So I could justify a belief in pixies if I really like the idea of pixies?  If you want to throw out any rational standard for justification, you’ve justified pixie worship.  Congratulations.

“Luther did indeed take on anti-Semitic views although that was not his original stance.”
I’ll do it for you then. “Oh, it looks like I was wrong.” 

“I think it is making a huge leap of you faith in human wisdom to associate Luther’s flawed thinking on this with the actions of a madman”
Why?  You don’t think promoting a culture of race-hate might contribute to race-hate?

“Well my friend if you set yourself up to be an expert on the non-existence of God… Therefore you presume to know, or have access to, all there is.”
Saying that you don’t know the answers to everything is not presuming anything.  It’s a position of humility and intellectual honesty that is entirely alien to you.  You need to learn how to say it, and accept that you have no reason to assume that not knowing everything somehow validates belief in a god.

“you write off my faith and that of 33% of the population of the planet as absurd.”
Just as you write off the other 67%.  If 33% of the planet had a good reason to believe you’d think one of them would have presented it.

“Could it be that you and your minority of like-minded unbelievers may be making a dreadful error?”
You asked me this before.  Remember?  I responded with the following:  …until somebody presents a valid argument to show that my reasoning is flawed, I’m not going to assume that it is.

True Believer says:

01:17pm | 17/11/10

Aiden:

Thank you for your question. I was a believer as a child, my mother taught me to pray. I saw many amazing answers to prayer, then of course in came rationalization, things of the world and I drifted off to the position of rejecting Him for many years. 

When I came back, repented, accepted Him as my Lord an Saviour I instantly knew He was there. It was like meeting an old friend, I felt a fool for having rejected Him for so many years.  Then having met the Author, I read His book.

He opened the Scriptures to me and enabled me to understand them from a spiritual point of view, it is a spiritual book and is beyond the understanding of the carnal mind.

I have never looked back. I would not swap what I have and know now for all the world has to offer. It pales in the light of knowing Jesus.

Seano says:

07:47am | 11/11/10

It’s called luck dude.

Cliff Maurer says:

08:39am | 11/11/10

When a person declares their atheism (not athiesm), they are not saying very much at all about the beliefs and convictions that inform their ethical judgment.  When I have asked friends that have told me of their atheism, I have found that they were expressing rejection of religious doctrine, usually rejection of Christian theology. Most expressed metaphysical religious beliefs of some kind.
Strictly speaking, theism is the belief in the existence of god AND belief that the existence of god cannot be proven, can be shown by personal revelation, but can only be accepted on faith. In that strict sense, most Christians are not theists, as they claim that there is proof of god.
Theists reject creationism for the same reason.
It appears atheists can be theists. In fact they can hold almost any belief system- the term is virtually meaningless.
So when you state that you voted for Gillard because of her atheism, my interpretation is that you prefer a leader whose beliefs are not stated.

Steely Dan says:

09:17am | 11/11/10

@ Questioning Believer

“However, when a Christian loves, she does so logically, in full accordance with her most basic beliefs”
So she does so not for love’s sake, but because she has been ordered to do so?

“The question I am pondering is this: is there anything in an atheist’s viewpoint that can logically inspire love and logically prevent hate?”
It depends on the viewpoints of the atheist in question.  Atheism isn’t a philosophy.  Me telling you that I’m an atheist can only tell you what I don’t believe in, not what I do believe in.

“Or is atheism compatible with any life course”
‘Life course’?

Akrasiel Rising says:

03:03pm | 11/11/10

@ Questioning Believer… Great question (I previously stated I would bow out of this thread but your question deserves an answer)

Love of fellow man/woman is imperative for the continuation of the species. Following a basic moral code that promotes unity and harmonious coexistence is necessary to ensure basic survival.

In the biblical context this was put forward by way of the 10 commandments, of which the first five are religious tenets, the sixth is a good idea in a time when the family unit was large and very hierarchical and only the last four are necessary for a functioning stable society… don’t kill, cheat, lie or steal.

While many Christians cite the commandments as the basis for morality, these four basic tenets had been around since time in memoriam and were all punishable offences well before they became the basis for the Christian moral code. Love and hate are emotional states that are hardwired into human beings, they can be found the world over in every race, culture, creed and, indeed, species (love birds and chimps just to cite two documented cases). It is therefore very reasonable that Atheists are more than capable of each of these emotions and through necessity alone would agree to a logical moral code that precluded rejecting those four moral codes.

The key difference is that an Atheist will choose to honour or reject those rules based on their own knowledge of the consequences of those effects on themselves and those around them as opposed to abiding by the rules because they fear reprisals from an ethereal being. Again, this is not to say that people of any faith are incapable of seeing the consequences of an action just that the Atheist can not seek forgiveness based on the belief that, if he is truly sorry, all will be forgiven. There is no out for the Atheist, if you do the crime you do the time… for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.

True Believer says:

04:27pm | 11/11/10

Questioning Believer:

Good questions

Steely Dan: Pathetic response.

Steely Dan says:

09:38am | 12/11/10

@ True Believer

“Steely Dan: Pathetic response.”
How comprehensive.  Care to offer up constructive criticism at the grown-up’s table?

LittleG says:

12:20pm | 11/11/10

Stu, while the Bible is generally considered to be ‘canonical’ as far as Christian belief is concerned, there are a wide range of non-canonical works that are given varying levels of credence. Investigate the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, or simply run a web search for ‘extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus’.
Incidentally, ‘Jesus’ was a rather popular name at the time (as were its derivations). Somebody by that name existed and caused enough uproar to inspire a religion - whether this Jesus was the Christ is a matter of faith.

Stu says:

10:47am | 12/11/10

@ Little G: Neither Josephus or Tacitus were contemporaries of the biblical JC and there is no evidence to date of any eyewitness accounts of the biblical JC. Lots of things have inspired religions, including just making stuff up.

NK says:

10:32am | 11/11/10

I am an atheist. That means I don’t think “god” exists. This is not a belief system, I have many “beliefs” just not this one. It does not preclude me from seeing the beauty in the world, in fact it makes it sharper and more real (for me, I understand that others differ and that’s fine by me) because I believe in it for its own sake, not because something “created it”.

One thing that astonishes me is the idea that a-theist = a-moral. I have a strong set of values and a moral code by which I live. Because it was not dictated to me by a “god” (whatever your belief system) does not make it any less viable. I’m sure Mr Abbot and Ms Gillard, to whatever extent, both have moral codes and values that differ from church doctrine somewhere along the line - even the Pope does!

I do not think, however, that this has anything at all to do with politics in Australia - except when Julia keeps saying that she’s “praying” for something, or how she used “Jesus” as an expletive during one of her election press conferences (at least respect the right of people to believe and not use their prophets or messiahs as swear words!). She should be more careful in her speech - unless of course “praying” or I pray” has just become part of the vernacular?

Watch your language and leave the rest to logic (or political expediency) Ms Gillard. And Mr Abbot, well we can guess most, but don’t forget not all, of his moral position.

Steely Dan says:

10:54am | 11/11/10

@ Sasquatch

“Those who say “there is no G-d” have locked themselves out of the mysteries.”
Those who say “there is a God” deny that we can ever understand anything.  The more gaps in our knowledge, the more places you can tuck your ‘G-d’ into.  I’m not satisfied with saying ‘that’s a mystery’ and leaving it at that.  I want to know the truth, so I don’t settle for three-letter answers that rely on a lack of information for validation among believers.

Steely Dan says:

10:46am | 11/11/10

@ al

“agnostisim = believes it LIKELY there IS a creator/s”
1) It’s ‘agnosticism’.
2) Agnosticism is when an individual does not claim to know the ‘truth’ of the claim, and does not tell us anything about the beliefs of the individual.  You can be an agnostic theist (there’s not many out there, but they exist) and state that you believe in a god, although you have insufficient information to claim that you ‘know’ there is one.  And you can be an agnostic atheist (there’s heaps of them, I’m one), who claim that the existence of a god is unknown/unknowable, and that you don’t believe the claim that there is a god is justified.  Of course we can get into epistemological battles about what constitutes ‘knowledge’ - but what matters for the purpose of the definition is what the believer or non-believer states is their threshold for knowledge.

A lot of people seem to make the mistake of seeing agnosticism as something or everything ‘between’ the absolute claims of theism and antitheism.

Aidan says:

07:29am | 12/11/10

Back in second grade I BELIEVED I could PERFORM the Jedi mind trick on the school bully. But instead I got my arse kicked.

Just sayin’

Steely Dan says:

09:44am | 12/11/10

@ Dan

Then donate all your money to charity.  All of it.