http://www.eastturkestan.net/china05.html

Why cant I hear athiest voices objecting to these crimes. The silence is deafening.

Why aren't there athiests in the streets protesting against these attrocities. Is there silence and indication that all athiests agree with the actions of there athiest brothers.

Why hasn't the athiest world done anything to stop this behavior.

Athiests all over the world must stand up and say NOT IN MY NAME!

Atheism isn't a collective or pro-position and China isn't communism.

EC we had a similar discussion in the Christian extremist thread. I think Les started a whole bunch of new threads with titles he knew to be absurd or wrong in protest against some people attributing Islam as a cause of oppression in the middle east. Apparently it is just as obvious that the west is to blame for the problems in the middle east as it is that these perpetrators are not extremist atheists.

Quote:

EC we had a similar discussion in the Christian extremist thread. I think Les started a whole bunch of new threads with titles he knew to be absurd or wrong in protest against some people attributing Islam as a cause of oppression in the middle east. Apparently it is just as obvious that the west is to blame for the problems in the middle east as it is that these perpetrators are not extremist atheists.

I will just precis that down to the relevant points.
Lestat, wrong and absurd.
That should do it.

Lestat wrote on Aug 21^st, 2008 at 4:34pm:

http://www.eastturkestan.net/china05.html Why cant I hear athiest voices objecting to these crimes. The silence is deafening. Why aren't there athiests in the streets protesting against these attrocities. Is there silence and indication that all athiests agree with the actions of there athiest brothers. Why hasn't the athiest world done anything to stop this behavior. Athiests all over the world must stand up and say NOT IN MY NAME!

LOL

Is China not an athiest countries.

When a muslim does something, you bigots hold all of Islam responsible.

Yet when an athiest does something, why don't you apply your same set of standards?

Cause your hypocrites...thats why.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 11:41pm:

Quote: EC we had a similar discussion in the Christian extremist thread. I think Les started a whole bunch of new threads with titles he knew to be absurd or wrong in protest against some people attributing Islam as a cause of oppression in the middle east. Apparently it is just as obvious that the west is to blame for the problems in the middle east as it is that these perpetrators are not extremist atheists. I will just precis that down to the relevant points. Lestat, wrong and absurd. That should do it.

Is China an athiest country?

Lestat wrote on Aug 27^th, 2008 at 10:10am:

Is China not an athiest countries. When a muslim does something, you bigots hold all of Islam responsible. Yet when an athiest does something, why don't you apply your same set of standards? Cause your hypocrites...thats why.

Yeah... OR organised religion and non-belief in something are completely different...


Lestat wrote on Aug 27^th, 2008 at 10:10am:

mozzaok wrote on Aug 25th, 2008 at 11:41pm: Quote: EC we had a similar discussion in the Christian extremist thread. I think Les started a whole bunch of new threads with titles he knew to be absurd or wrong in protest against some people attributing Islam as a cause of oppression in the middle east. Apparently it is just as obvious that the west is to blame for the problems in the middle east as it is that these perpetrators are not extremist atheists. I will just precis that down to the relevant points. Lestat, wrong and absurd. That should do it. Is China an athiest country?

...there is no such thing as an athiest country or an atheist country.

Yes there is.

Cuba is officially atheist.
Pretty much all other Communist countries have all been atheist.

Also the countries we consider to be 'secular' are in fact atheist. As the ruling system has rejected any form of religion (in most cases) and has adopted an atheistic belief which it implements. Just because they don't actively prevent citizens from being religious, doesn't mean the government itself and therefore the state is not atheist.

This all relies on the question of what is a religious state, to define what is a non-religious or atheist state. Certaily it doesn't just refer to the beliefs held by the majority of the population, as I think you're suggesting.

Anyway if you don't believe any state is actually atheist read this

Atheists have no trouble with god, we don't bother him, he doesn't bother us.

It is organised religion that atheists have a problem with, hence the whole terminology is somewhat skewed in representing atheism accurately.

Atheists merely wish to see a society where our common humanity is the focus, rather than divisive religious groupings.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:40am:

Yes there is. Cuba is officially atheist. Pretty much all other Communist countries have all been atheist. Also the countries we consider to be 'secular' are in fact atheist. As the ruling system has rejected any form of religion (in most cases) and has adopted an atheistic belief which it implements. Just because they don't actively prevent citizens from being religious, doesn't mean the government itself and therefore the state is not atheist. This all relies on the question of what is a religious state, to define what is a non-religious or atheist state. Certaily it doesn't just refer to the beliefs held by the majority of the population, as I think you're suggesting. Anyway if you don't believe any state is actually atheist read this

So you think Australia is an athiest country do you abu? you must we are a secular country, but who cares anyway? whats wrong with athiests?

Also the countries we consider to be 'secular' are in fact atheist. As the ruling system has rejected any form of religion (in most cases) and has adopted an atheistic belief which it implements.

That doesn't make sense Abu. Can you give one example of the implimentation of an atheistic belief? Did they somehow destroy God? What other ideologies do atheists have?

Lestat wrote on Aug 21^st, 2008 at 4:34pm:

http://www.eastturkestan.net/china05.html Why cant I hear athiest voices objecting to these crimes. The silence is deafening. Why aren't there athiests in the streets protesting against these attrocities. Is there silence and indication that all athiests agree with the actions of there athiest brothers. Why hasn't the athiest world done anything to stop this behavior. Athiests all over the world must stand up and say NOT IN MY NAME!

You know, I think I sympathise with your cause. In this case however, the atrocities are linked to a more fundamental common characteristic.

HUMAN BEINGS all over the world must stand up and say NOT IN MY NAME!

mozzaok wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 8:20am:

It is organised religion that atheists have a problem with, hence the whole terminology is somewhat skewed in representing atheism accurately.

Here we go again. You're describing a collective attribute of atheists that has nothing to do with the definition of atheist.

I love organised religion. I enjoy singing sacred music. I even pray with religious people and try to imagine how they are feeling, although for me it is totally empty.  

I wouldn't dream of telling a grieving relative that their loved one is basically just chemical residue, and that everything finishes with the end of life. For many people, religion is a private place of refuge that should be violated under no circumstances.

Does that make me less of an atheist? I don't think so, but it probably makes me more human.

Atheist - one who doesn't believe in god(s)

If your brand of atheists all (to a man) have a problem with organised religion, then it sounds like they are following an organised religion themselves.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:40am:

Yes there is. Cuba is officially atheist. Pretty much all other Communist countries have all been atheist.

Abu - a country cannot be atheist. A country does not have the capacity to believe or not believe. The capacity to believe is the property of an individual human being.

Look at Russia for example. The old Soviet Union endorsed atheism, however Russian Orthodox religion still thrives today.

You can't control what I believe just as I can't control what you believe. In the same way a state cannot control what its people believe.  

Religious people seem to find this disconcerting. I remember the last Jehovah Witness who visited me with his small son. I said to the child. "It's up to you what you believe. You have a choice. Remember that"

They have never bothered  me since.

It is just you muso, you're weird. ;D

To declare their is no commonality amongst atheists is not something I agree with you about, muso, I have never taken a show of hands, but I would venture to say that the majority do feel much more like me, than you.



Most Atheists recognise that organised religions seek to impose their standards onto the broader community, based on their heavenly divination of god's will to do so.

I believe that Abu is saying that atheists do the same thing, through regimes that enact oppressive legislation or worse, against religious groups.

In some cases he may well have a point, but I would strongly contend that any oppression of that kind would be for political purposes, rather than any hope of promoting a disbelief in god amongst the people.

Atheists come into conflict with believers when the believers ascribe that what they choose is ordained by god, that is something an atheist cannot respect, it is the definition of delusional thinking for us.

Most have no problem with happy clappers if they do not try to impose their standards onto others.

Mozz, most atheists do not hold the bitterness towards religion that you do. Of course, the ones that do tend to seek each other out and reinforce and validate each other's bitterness. Most do not try to undermine religious rights like you do, for example by trying to put arbitrary limitations on choice in education. The sort of views you promote are based on an assumption that religion is inherently bad, and you seem very keen to impose those views on others in the most sustainable way - by gradually (rather than rapidly) removing people's rights and freedoms.

I don't see that Mozzaok has any biterness toward religion.
Though in his case it is surely warranted.
He is able to differentiate between spirituality and a manmade organisation.


ANY belief should be capable of being questioned without any reprisals.
If it can't, it is surely very suspect. To say the least.

How would you know what most atheists think  FD?

Have you spoken to many, enquired of their views, perhaps you have taken a show of hands, but I doubt it.

Characterising my disdain for religion as bitterness, implies it is an emotional response, rather than an intellectual stance against religious vagaries, which are totally unsupportable by any definition of fairness.

As we have been over in regard to Islam, misdeeds committed by religious people, inspired by their taught religious beliefs, and religious texts, can be fairly be ascribed as being the responsibility of that religion.
When a lunatic Christian says gays are an abhomination, he is quoting what he demands we accept as god's word, because it is what is stated in his bible.

When an Islamic zealot hacks off the head of a jew and proclaims he has secured his place in paradise by his actions, he is inspired by the koran.

When kids do not have this garbage forced onto their young minds as religious education, we will all be better off.

When religion stops being a source of justification for acts of repression and violence, then, and only then, does it deserve the right to claim any rights or freedoms.

But your arguments are full of emotion. Your views are political, not academic. It is not academic to characterise religion by the actions of it's extremists. Nor is it fair to deny people rights because of the actions of extremists. You are no less extreme than those you detest, because you also try to justify denying everyone their inalienable rights with agitprop that tars everyone with the samne brush. You see a single path to peace, one that can only be achieved by everyone sharing your doctrine, rather than the proven path to peace of tolerance and the right to be different to you.

mozzaoks comments are equally spread, witty and humerous.
It is justified to attach extremists actions to a belief if it is an action repeated.
If the extremists quote a text in justification and if the text is there.
In essence, such a characterisation of a belief is agreeing with the extermists.

Some paths others decide upon are noncompatible with the free world.
That IS the goal of some people.
The free world cannot tolerate this behaviour, or it will be free no longer.

mozzaok, like me, is quite ambivilant with what people wish to believe or do.
As long as they do NOT force it upon others and try to dominate the globe.
Which is the goal of many in europe and has been admitted here.

Sprint, people have done nasty things in the name of Christianity all throughout history. Does that mean we should tar all Christians with the same brush? You insist that it is the repeatability of the actions that matter. That implies a historical context, which would paint Christianity as being far more dangerous than Islam. A pause that is only temporary from a historical perspective, does not mean it isn't repeatable, just on hold.

Furthermore, you should be careful about denying Christians the right to practice their religion how they see fit. Once it starts, it will not stop wherever you happen to think it should stop. Once there is a precedent that allows the state to come between parents and their children because athiests view the belief system of the parents as dangerous, there is no way to tell where it will stop. But you can be sure it will go a lot further than you are comfortable with.

Mozz, The only extremist atheists I've come across have been on Internet Forums. I'd say that my views are fairly typical of the non vocal majority.

I just don't see the need to promote my own position on religion, because  (Hey!) religion is just not part of my life. It's not important to me and I don't spend much time thinking about it.

If on the other hand you do spend a lot of time concentrating on the fact that you don't believe in an aspect of somebody else's religion, then good on you. Whatever  cranks your dial I guess - and you call me weird? It's like someone who objects to Stamp collecting standing up and berating a collector who's proudly showing off his collection of 19th century stamps. "Stamp collecting is the root of all evil" he yells as the men in the white coats quietly whisk him out the side exit.  

Maybe It is me that is weird. Not many people stand on a soap box and shout "Live and let live", but when it comes to the crunch ,  religion is inoffensive to me. It's just a part of life for many people. I feel the need to redress the balance because of the recent wave of intolerant atheism that seems to be rearing its ugly head of late. Otherwise I'd just go back to being my usual low profile self.

FD bangs on about freedom of religion, I disagree with the concept as it is applied in our society.
What we see in the name of freedom of religion are demands for special treatment, frankly I have seen no argument why this should be considered acceptable.

The Aussie high court which agreed to give scientology the rights of a religion highlights the ridiculousness of the criteria the state must use to define a religion.
Basically, if it's followers say it is a religion, then it is a religion.

In fact freedom from scrutiny is one of religions most highly cherished and protected freedoms, especially the fact that all religions actually transgress against freedom of religion laws.

The indoctrination of children to accept their parents religious beliefs violates their right to freely choose their religion. :D

We see more of the silliness of this religious freedom concept where the version of Islam that millions follow, demands they hold other religions in contempt, so their religious freedom demands that we respect their right, to not respect, other peoples religious freedom. ;)

Freedom of religion includes freedom to change one's religion, now who was it that has some rule against changing religions??

Religion demands special treatment, I say it, FD tells me I am full of crap, but I will not relent, why?

Religions command members to follow practices which society finds unacceptable, but because it is a religion they get away with it.
Female Genital Mutilation is banned, religions still condone and practice it with impunity.
Spousal abuse is illegal(got your feather out Abu?)some religions claim it is their duty.
Arranged marriages?
Polygamy?
Sexism?

Well you get the picture.

Freedom of religion is a crock.

While I understand many of your points, it should be noted that a great many charities and other beneficial organisations exist because of religion.

Malik has spoken of an organisation that meets with prisoners of Islamic faith and provides them with solace during their period of imprisonment. The same goes for Christian organisations. In fact the vast majority of humanitarian organisations have some religious foundation. These organisations, such as the Salvation Army are there to provide hope and guidance where nobody else is there to provide the same service. The Red Cross and Red Crescent have religious foundations, and the list goes on - St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare etc.

In general, religion manages to find the good side of human nature. In my view, human beings are capable of doing good things and bad things. Both come naturally. Human nature being what it is, you find examples of child abuse, the promotion of violence etc in all walks of life, even occasionally by those using religion as a cover for their activities. Religion tends to act as a magnifier for both good and evil, but in general has more good effects than bad. I know whole families that are deeply religious. The kids do well at Eisteddfods, and they generally manage to get a great deal of enjoyment out of life. In my book, that's a good thing.

I know people from many walks of life and from many religions. Generally it is fair to say that if a person uses religion as a model for their lives, the effects will be beneficial. There are examples where lives are wasted, but on the whole, the overall effect is positive.

Although we represent totally different religious positions, I tend to agree with fd that religious freedom is paramount. The loonie extremists can always be controlled by specific legislation.

Even if you take away religious freedom in schools , it will still exist at home, and in the mind. My example of the Soviet Union is a good illustration of this. As far as the loonie extremists are concerned, what would you advocate as the best approach - ban them and make them into determined martyrs?  or allow them to hang themselves with their own rope? Their own actions and their own words will often condemn them to oblivion.

It's a far better solution to regulate and manage a hazard of this kind with full transparency than to drive it underground.

I don't think all religions spout hate against others. Malik talked about how Muslim schools provided accommodation for Catholic pilgrims recently. My observation is that there is a kind of distant respect between most religious groups. Of course there are some exceptions but most of them are harmless. (How's your day going, Sprint?  ;) )

Conversation between two six year olds.

A, says to B, "When I die I will go to heaven and will be with all my friends and family forever, but you won't be allowed in because you don't believe in god, so you will never see your friends and family again."

Yes muso, religion is inherently good isn't it?
Teaching this to tiny children gives them great moral character.

This is not an abherration, this is not an extremist belief, this is religions bread and butter.

Religion is not a force for good, decent people do, do good in the name of religion, but they do it because they are decent people, in spite of their religion, not because of it.
The good and decent people do not follow their religions teachings strictly, because they are too repugnant for a decent person to follow, they cherry pick the good points, and choose to ignore the bad bits.
That is a pretty clear indicator of the decency of the individual overcoming the evils of what their religion teaches, that is why fundies are so bad, because they accept the evil bits as well.

The fundies do not invent the evil bits, they merely carry them out, the religion invented them.

What we see in the name of freedom of religion are demands for special treatment

Freedom is not special treatment, unless you consider oppression normal.

The Aussie high court which agreed to give scientology the rights of a religion highlights the ridiculousness of the criteria the state must use to define a religion.

It seems like a religion to me. Just because you think it is absurd does not mean it isn't a religion.

In fact freedom from scrutiny is one of religions most highly cherished and protected freedoms, especially the fact that all religions actually transgress against freedom of religion laws.

All religions are open to scrutiny. That's another important freedom. In fact without it you don't really have freedom of religion.

The indoctrination of children to accept their parents religious beliefs violates their right to freely choose their religion.

No it doesn't, any more than not having apples in the local store violates your freedom to choose between apples and oranges.

Religions command members to follow practices which society finds unacceptable, but because it is a religion they get away with it.

No they don't. If it is illegal, they can't do it. If it is legal, they can.

Female Genital Mutilation is banned, religions still condone and practice it with impunity.

Crap.

A, says to B, "When I die I will go to heaven and will be with all my friends and family forever, but you won't be allowed in because you don't believe in god, so you will never see your friends and family again."

Yes Mozz, that is freedom of religion. Why does this bother you so much?

Religion is not a force for good, decent people do, do good in the name of religion, but they do it because they are decent people, in spite of their religion, not because of it.

There are plenty of indecent people who do good in the name of religion.

The good and decent people do not follow their religions teachings strictly, because they are too repugnant for a decent person to follow, they cherry pick the good points, and choose to ignore the bad bits.

Why do you have a problem with this? How is this a valid argument against freedom of religion?

Quote:

What we see in the name of freedom of religion are demands for special treatment Freedom is not special treatment, unless you consider oppression normal.

Quote:

Tax exemptions to Australian churches are costing federal, state and local governments more than $500 million a year, new figures show. Critics of religious exemptions claim taxpayers are subsidising church and charity-run commercial operations, which sometimes use tax advantages to undercut commercial rivals. They say this is unfair competition and distorts markets. The Melbourne City Council told a Productivity Commission inquiry into charities that church exemptions from rates cost it $10 million a year, pushing up charges for other ratepayers by 10 per cent.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/churches-reap-the-benefits-of-belief-500-million-in-taxexemptions/2006/04/28/1146198351877.html

Scientology being recognised as a religion is a sad joke, I used it to show why a trans-national corporation would seek to gain the status of a religion so that it may reap the benefits that come with the preferential treatment given to religion.
It was founded as the 'Science' of dianetics, and only sought religious status to secure the preferential treatment that religions unfairly demand.


"Do as I say, not as I do", could well be the slogan of many churches who resist public scrutiny of their finances and the actions of their principles, they cite freedom of religion as their right to try and hide vast sums of money, and cover up illicit behaviour amongst church members.
How many evangelist ministries could that apply to?

I contend that imprinting a single religious doctrine onto children from infancy does contradict the sentiment of people being able to freely choose their religion.
These kids have no say in it, their beliefs are imposed onto them, and like much teaching to kids in their formative years, the imprint stays with them forever.
Sure many will question and reject it in later life, IF, they have the ability to freely examine and question what they were taught, many do not, so they are "born" as a certain religion, that is a denial of their freedom to choose.

FGM is legally banned, but still widely practiced with no interference from the state in many muslim countries, so crap to you.


Quote:

A, says to B, "When I die I will go to heaven and will be with all my friends and family forever, but you won't be allowed in because you don't believe in god, so you will never see your friends and family again." Yes Mozz, that is freedom of religion. Why does this bother you so much?

A is my daughter's best friend, B is my daughter, I do not like to see her suffer because of religious lies taught to kids, that is why it bothers me.
I know that religions all try and instil guilt and fear into children, and that is totally f...in sick.


Quote:

There are plenty of indecent people who do good in the name of religion.

How? Do they give them a lollipop after they molest them?


Quote:

The good and decent people do not follow their religions teachings strictly, because they are too repugnant for a decent person to follow, they cherry pick the good points, and choose to ignore the bad bits. Why do you have a problem with this? How is this a valid argument against freedom of religion?

Because if they actually follow their religious texts and teachings to the letter, they invariably have to condone, if not perpetrate wrong and evil actions.
These wrong and evil actions are part of their religions teachings, and so only by not following them can they be truly decent people.
This is contrary to the statement that religion inspires goodness, it is actually the good, rejecting the bad parts of their religions teachings which allows them to be good, not the teachings, but the rejection of them.

Religion sucks.

I contend that imprinting a single religious doctrine onto children from infancy does contradict the sentiment of people being able to freely choose their religion.

Well you are wrong. Everything parents do imprints on a child. They make every decision for them. They even wipe their arse for them. None of this undermines their freedom to choose later in life. The is nothing different in religion in this matter. The only difference is that you don't like it and you want to interfere. You want the nanny state to interfere. Having the government impose themselves is a far greater crime than having the parents impose themselves. You see a problem and insist on any solution, even if it makes it worse.

FGM is legally banned, but still widely practiced with no interference from the state in many muslim countries, so crap to you.

That is a problem with the state then isn't it. It is not a valid reason for attacking religious rights in Australia. It is an absurd excuse.

A is my daughter's best friend, B is my daughter, I do not like to see her suffer because of religious lies taught to kids, that is why it bothers me.

Neither does A want your child to suffer, for all eternity. This isn't even freedom of religion. This is freedom of speech. The freedom to say something you might not like. You cannot protect your daughter from these ideas. She has to learn to handle them herself. She can always get a new friend if she doesn't like the one she's got.

I know that religions all try and instil guilt and fear into children, and that is totally f...in sick.

So do parents. So does everyone who has to handle children. IMO, children are by far the better manipulators.

Because if they actually follow their religious texts and teachings to the letter, they invariably have to condone, if not perpetrate wrong and evil actions.

You do not get to decide for other people what their religion is. You do not get to interpret it for them. You do not get to protect them from themselves.

Do you find it hard to defend the indefensible FD?
That was a big pile of steaming .....

To equate the teaching of any rubbish the parent sees fit as their right, and that the child has no rights, is offensive.

If a crazy nazi teaches his kids that jews are evil, and should be exterminated, is he exercising his right as a parent, or indoctrinating an impressionable child with wrong and evil beliefs?

Kids telling other kids they will burn is hell is not freedom of speech, it is a child who has been brainwashed with religious bulldust parroting what he has been taught, it is totally f...in sick.

FGM, a problem with the state? Yes, because the state has created the environment where these religions believe they can act with impunity, because of their right to religious freedom.

I do not get to decide what their religion is.

Absolutely right FD.

The religion also does not have the right to tell them what their religion is, but it uses it's freedom of religion to do so, it is only the wholesale rejection of the taught religious beliefs by these crazy religions that make them seem less perverse than they actually are.

Religion sucks.

That's actually really Selfish Mozz. You want to deny the parents of A the right to bring their children up the best way they can, all so that your daughter can be friends with her without being exposed to different ideologies. That's not good for the parents of A, it's not good for A, it's not good for your daughter and I don't see how it is good for you either. Wouldn't it be better to help your daughter learn how to deal with difference in a more mature way than taking away the right of other people to be different? I certainly hope you aren't indoctrinating your own daughter with the same one eyed intolerant views. The government should liberate children from parents like you and place them in state run homes where they can be forced to recite politically correct mantras and trained in the use of inclusive language.

If a crazy nazi teaches his kids that jews are evil, and should be exterminated, is he exercising his right as a parent, or indoctrinating an impressionable child with wrong and evil beliefs?

Lets apply a bit of common sense here Mozz. We should draw the line where actual harm is done, not where the indoctrination differs from your own view of the world.

Kids telling other kids they will burn is hell is not freedom of speech

Yes it is.

FGM, a problem with the state? Yes, because the state has created the environment where these religions believe they can act with impunity, because of their right to religious freedom.

Again, do you understand that this is not an excuse to deny people freedom of religion? If FGM is bad, outlaw it, don't outlaw religion as well. That would be no different to making atheism illegal the first time someone does something wrong in the name of atheism.

The religion also does not have the right to tell them what their religion is

Obviously. People have to choose for themselves. A religion is only what people make of it. It is not a separate conscious entity.

Religion sucks.

So does freedom, but it sucks a lot less than the alternative. You just can't see how evil your alternative is. What, other than naivete, makes you think that government sponsored atheism is going to be any better than the other government sponsored ideologies we have suffered under in the past?

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:40am:

Yes there is. Cuba is officially atheist. Pretty much all other Communist countries have all been atheist.

Cuba is officially atheist? I must have missed the memo... and it isn't communism.


Quote:

Also the countries we consider to be 'secular' are in fact atheist. As the ruling system has rejected any form of religion (in most cases) and has adopted an atheistic belief which it implements. Just because they don't actively prevent citizens from being religious, doesn't mean the government itself and therefore the state is not atheist. This all relies on the question of what is a religious state, to define what is a non-religious or atheist state. Certaily it doesn't just refer to the beliefs held by the majority of the population, as I think you're suggesting. Anyway if you don't believe any state is actually atheist read this

A state cannot be 'atheist' it can only be 'secular', not the same thing.

Are you arguing for the sake of it or are you being deliberately obtuse FD?

The only difference between the church and the nazi is that you only recognise one as having a wrong teaching, the principle you are defending, that it is a parents' right to teach their kids whatever they want, is identical.

Kids telling other kids they will burn in hell is not free speech.

Do you know why it isn't free speech?

I think you do, but choose to avoid the fact.
The reason it is not free speech, is because it is not the child,s beliefs or ideas he is conveying, he is merely parroting the lies he has been taught, and that is very different, that is freedom to indoctrinate.

The only difference between the church and the nazi is that you only recognise one as having a wrong teaching, the principle you are defending, that it is a parents' right to teach their kids whatever they want, is identical

Wrong. Nazi ideology espouses real, genuine harm to others. The church doesn't. That is the difference. My position is that genuine harm must be shown before you can even begin to justify denying people their rights. You are not even at that first stage.

The reason it is not free speech, is because it is not the child,s beliefs or ideas he is conveying

Yes it is. If the child didn't believe it, they wouldn;t be saying it. All beliefs belonged to someone else first. Very few people invent their own from scratch.

You are coming up with some very twisted logic here. If the same logic were to be applied to anything else we would be in an absurd mess. The only thing that separates out religion from your one eyed intolerant atheist ideology is that you don't like religion. That's all it boils down it, and that's all you have to justify denying people their rights. You are an extremist. You are no better than those who would use the state to undermine all other beliefs bar their own. What you promote is tyranny in the name of conformity. Parents indoctrinate their kids into all sorts of wierd ideas. This is their right and the state has no place to get between parents and their children, even if do-gooder busy body atheists think it would be really nice if they did.

WOW.
If you think religion does not do real harm, you are more deluded than I thought.

People do real harm. Religion does not. Taking it away does not prevent harm. People are entitled to believe whatever they want. It's their actions by which they may be condemend, not their beliefs.

You seem be be stuck in a logical fallacy. Throughout history, most evil actas could be associated with religion in some way. However, this is not because religion was the cause. Rather it was because most people were religious. Your whole argument is based on nothing more than an association fallacy. Some people do bad things. Some claim to do it in the name of religion. Therefor all religion is bad. It's an infantile argument.

I think you even went on to claim that if religion does actually motivate someone to do great good, that motivation was personal and cannot be attributed to religion.

Kids can be incredibly cruel to each other. It comes from immaturity. It's hardly an exclusive influence of religion.

I remember when I was a kid taking most of a day to make a very elaborate sandcastle. My repugnant neighbour knocked on the door in the evening to say that he had knocked it down. He was all of 6. I was devastated.

I don't have a problem with kids. I don't have a problem with religion either, but I do have a problem with deliberate cruelty.

It's a question of identifying what you have a problem with. In the case of the two little girls, it was the behaviour that was at fault. Religion was just used as an excuse for bad behaviour. If it wasn't religion, she would have found some other excuse.

It's the same as terrorism. I don't have a problem with Islam, but I do have a problem with violence. I'd say most Muslims feel the same way as I do too.

Let's turn the story around and say that the daughter of the atheist parents said to the other girl, "My dad thinks that you lot are all deluded", wouldn't that be just as bad?

The story sounds very similar to Richard Dawkins' example in "The God Delusion". Again it was a very weak argument. It didn't exactly convince me that religion was evil.

fd - similar points - great minds think alike.

It is you who is stuck FD, I said people do good despite religion, not because of it.

Religion can only be viewed as not practically malevolent, if you cherry pick the good teachings out, and separate them from the bad ones, if you do that, you are following a personal philosophy, not a religion.
It really isn't too hard to follow.

Well muso, I will have to mark that down as the silliest thing you have ever posted.

A six year old kid, coming out of religious studies, telling the other kid she will go to hell, because she doesn't believe in jesus.

No, couldn't possibly have anything to do with what they were taught by their religious instructor could it.

The kid wasn't being mean, he was passing on information which he had just been taught as fact, that is totally buggered up.

My wife would have let her do religious studies, she doesn't care, she has never been religious, or been through a religious institution.
Ignorance of the level of malevolence in religion is mostly due to ignorance about it, from people who have not been closely exposed to it.
As one who has been through it, I would never want my kids to have anything to do with it.

After the incident she came to me and asked me if jesus was god, I told her that some people think so, but I don't.
She asked me what god was, I said, "what do you think god is?", she said, "I think god is the love inside us"

I told her she was exactly right, and she already knew more about god than all the kids doing religious studies, she was happy with that.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 8:42pm:

She asked me what god was, I said, "what do you think god is?", she said, "I think god is the love inside us" I told her she was exactly right, and she already knew more about god than all the kids doing religious studies, she was happy with that.

Well you didn't tell us the specifics before, but it looks as if you defused the situation extremely well. That response was inspired (Divine inspiration?  ;D ).

It also acknowledges what I've been saying all along. God exists to many people - just not to me. Maybe that part of my mind that inspires me to do better things is what other people interpret as God. They just seem to attach a lot more baggage to it.

But you've got to admit that kids have to go through a lot of other meanness and cruelty from other kids. In this case it was more a kind of tribal jibe than anything else. (Nya-nya My team is better than your team)

I think you probably have an anti-religion frame caused by your upbringing. My upbringing in terms of religion was very laissez faire. There was no forced religion. My parents didn't go to church and didn't have any strong views on religion. It had no relevance. I attended religious instruction at school, but like virtually all others in my class, we found it boring beyond belief. The "why are we here" question assumed a whole new significance- It became "why are we here when we could be out playing". We didn't have many fervently religious kids in our class - at least not that I was aware of. The ones that existed were regarded as slightly strange.  

I only began looking for this elusive God character later on when I was in my late teens. I tried all kinds of places of worship. I tried to participate, but the whole idea of an external benevolent God just didn't click with me, much in the same way that I never did understand the finer points of differential calculus. Maybe God did exist, but I seemed to enjoy life quite well without him.

I have never had an anti-God frame in my entire life. I've always been curious about what other people experience and in some ways I wished I could experience it too, because they seemed to be having fun, or at least they were totally genuine and getting something out of it. However to participate for me would be to pretend that I believed, and for me that would have been hypocritical to the extreme.

I just put it down to the way my brain is wired.

It is you who is stuck FD, I said people do good despite religion, not because of it.

So they do good despite religion, but do evil because of it? This is hardly a sound basis for denying people rights or taking their kids away from them. You attribute your own bitter experiences to religion, and you think that is enough to take rights away from everyone else. It isn't. You attribute the difference of opinion to ignorance on everyone else's part, yet you cannot look beyond your own need to blame something.

Quote:

So they do good despite religion, but do evil because of it?

Yes, that is exactly right.

I think it is the god word that people get hung up on.

We attempt to define god, and for each and every one of us, IT  HAS TO BE A PERSONAL DEFINITION, churches force the opposite of that.

Obviously if you interpret people's actions that way, it will paint a pretty bleak picture of religion. But it is only a reflection of your biases, not of reality.

IT  HAS TO BE A PERSONAL DEFINITION

Why? That doesn't make any sense anyway. Churches can't force people to accept their definition. People have to choose it. Just because they accept the church's definition does not make it impersonal. You want to take away people's freedom to choose, not enable it. People aren't free to choose if you place arbitrary limitations on their choices. You can't free people and make their choices for them at the same time. Freedom means accepting people's choices even if you disagree with them. This still boils down to nothing more than your own biases and intolerance of difference.

believers have personal conversations with their god of choice, the fact that they belong to differing religious organisations, that are mutually exclusive, indicates the level of personal association.
There big mistake is not accepting it as a purely personal experience, and throwing in with a group they are led to believe is like minded, when they are not.
It is, and must be, purely personal, to have any real value.

Ask Abu, or Sprint, they will acknowledge that there most fulfilling spiritual experiences would have come in such a way.
It has to be personal, or it is not relevant.

I think there are extremist atheists just as there are extremist Christians, Muslims, and for that matter feral internet users.

All I can say is that if you haven't experienced it, don't knock it.

It's easy to get a negative frame about just about anything. Some of your comments about religion could be just as easily applied to "Internet Users". Substitute the word Internet for religion in some of your posts and see what I mean.  

We all use internet here, and for most of it, it's a positive experience.  There are of course 'ferals' who try to rip people off, hack websites, exploit children etc. You could arguably make the same arguments about Internet.

Imagine somebody who has never used internet in their life and believe it to be evil. (You'd probably have to go back about 15 years or so to make this a credible analogy.) They take the steps of approaching their local MP, and he is also against Internet. He has never experienced Internet but keeps hearing these terrible stories about pedophile rings and criminals who lurk in the anonymity of Internet.

As a result of this, we have a new movement that is opposed to the Internet. They want to shut it down.

As an internet user, how would you feel about this new group? They have never experienced Internet themselves, but are trying to ban it.

Hopefully you now have a taste of what it must be like for a theist in these days when we have a growing anti-theist movement. (Call it extremist atheist if you like).

Religions have their bad points, just like any human activity, but it doesn't matter what you do, you can't extract the bad side of human nature from any human activity.

You seriously need to reframe religion as yet another human activity. If you get bitten by a dog, it's all too easy to hate all dogs. It's much more difficult to recognise that hatred as irrational.

If dogs were inherently evil, your argument may work.
Dogs aren't evil, religion is.

Religion is inherently immoral, and evil, it is what it is.

Likewise Mozz your argument may hold water if religion were inherently evil, but it isn't. You merely assume that it is, then create a convoluted circular argument that inevitably comes back to your assumption. Assumptions are not a valid reason for taking peoples rights or children away from them.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 31^st, 2008 at 9:45am:

If dogs were inherently evil, your argument may work. Dogs aren't evil, religion is. Religion is inherently immoral, and evil, it is what it is.

The tendency to fall to disorder is the natural state of affairs in the context of...well just about everything. (Second Law of thermodynamics)

How do you define immoral and evil? Harmful to you? - to society?

They sound like they need a religious explanation.

It all comes down to who defines religion as being evil and immoral, and on what basis.

Mahatma Gandi once said "Love the sinner, hate the sin". I think that about sums it up. Everybody does something wrong in their lives at some stage. Hate the thing you or they did wrong, not the fact that they are atheist or Christian or Muslim.  

It's all to easy to retreat into subjective truth and cultural relativity to avoid the issue. But acknowledge that this is what you are doing. You aren't providing a solution.

I'm a bit more audacious than that. I think we can say that religion is inherently evil and I think there are pretty sound reasons to say so.

Religions are first and foremost institutions of control. They play on the most innate human fear, that of our inevitable demise. They manipulate and console us with false hope and a false sense of security. They stymie free thought and encourage hate towards minorities.

Now, you can say I've forgotten about the "love your neighbour" and the other good things religions have to say (On a side note, "love your neighbour" probably meant love jews at the exclusion of others as jews only ever lived around other jews in the first century C.E.). But I think it quite obvious that the good things religions have had to say have always been innate in humans. You don't have to teach a child the golden rule. They can figure it out by themselves.

I'm not saying we should do away with religion, that would be imposing just as much control as religions do. But I don't think we have to be tolerant of reasoning based upon faith alone. Belief in the absence of evidence is laughed at in every other sphere of discourse but tolerated when it comes to our view of the world and our place in it. Doesn't make sense to me.

But I think it quite obvious that the good things religions have had to say have always been innate in humans.

And the bad things? You think religion came up with those?

I'm not saying we should do away with religion, that would be imposing just as much control as religions do. But I don't think we have to be tolerant of reasoning based upon faith alone.

So what exactly are you proposing? Free speech?

Belief in the absence of evidence is laughed at in every other sphere of discourse but tolerated when it comes to our view of the world and our place in it. Doesn't make sense to me.

Not really. Belief in the absence of evidence is the norm before evidence comes along. Think of a lot of early science and medicine - a lot of this looks like belief in the absence of evidence. Modern psychology is in a similar state. Of course, we make do with whatever evidence we can find and convince ourselves we are right based on the flimsiest of evidence. There is nothing unusual about this.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2008 at 10:27pm:

But I think it quite obvious that the good things religions have had to say have always been innate in humans. And the bad things? You think religion came up with those? I'm not saying we should do away with religion, that would be imposing just as much control as religions do. But I don't think we have to be tolerant of reasoning based upon faith alone. So what exactly are you proposing? Free speech? Belief in the absence of evidence is laughed at in every other sphere of discourse but tolerated when it comes to our view of the world and our place in it. Doesn't make sense to me. Not really. Belief in the absence of evidence is the norm before evidence comes along. Think of a lot of early science and medicine - a lot of this looks like belief in the absence of evidence. Modern psychology is in a similar state. Of course, we make do with whatever evidence we can find and convince ourselves we are right based on the flimsiest of evidence. There is nothing unusual about this.

1. Whether they came up with it or not is irrelevant, when it comes to controlling the masses noone does it better than organized religion.

2. The way I see it, it's our best option. The rise of extremist Islam and Doomsday Christianity with easy access to weapons of mass destruction doesn't paint a pretty picture. There will be an exhange. Either of ideas or warheads. I'd prefer the former. That means not shying away and worrying about offending people.

3. I really disagree with your assessment of the history of science. I'm a psychology student myself and the way I understand science, in particular Psychology, is that we don't try to make ultimate truth claims. We offer theories which account for the evidence we have observed. The Ancient Greeks had theories for the observations they were able to make with their limited equipment. They got some of them right and were able to develop more refined equipment and make more/better observations and it becomes a cycle. It's continuing today. They weren't making claims in the absence of evidence they were making claims on (retrospectively) little evidence. We certainly don't convince ourselves we are right. We say: This works best at the moment. Lets use it.

My Point: You don't trust a homeopath to cure your hepatitis. You don't look to a clairvoyant for stock tips. Why not? Because you end up dead or broke. Don't look to a clergyman for an explanation of natural phenomena, and certainly don't look to them for morals.

liam511 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2008 at 10:14pm:

Belief in the absence of evidence is laughed at in every other sphere of discourse but tolerated when it comes to our view of the world and our place in it. Doesn't make sense to me.

Here we go again. It's atheism according to the book of Dawkins. Dawkins has had the effect of channeling atheist thought in an anti-religious manner. It's destructive, and I object to it because I was an 'atheist' long before Dawkins wrote his books, and now I'm being labelled as an extremist just because of this Johnny Come Lately.

I take offense at attacking religion and calling it evil simply because in doing so you're attacking people, or at least a very personal and emotionally charged part of their lives.

Dawkins' gambit of "faith is belief without evidence" is a typical example. The irony is that people are starting to believe that creed as an act of faith.

Faith is a lot more than simple belief without lack of evidence. Whenever we push ourselves to do great things, we need to have faith in our ability to achieve these things. Do we know that we'll do it? Well no - because we may not have done it before. In a way, it's belief without evidence, but it's pretty useful belief without evidence. I'm running in a race next week. I have gradually improved my time by using faith. Faith in my ability is not something that I can put a finger on. It's just a tool I use to advance myself.

Why then do you take exception to the fact that religious people use faith in God to inspire, motivate and better themselves? Is there much difference?

Just in case you haven't grasped it, I'm an atheist. To me, that is not a central tenet of what makes me human. The fact that I am an atheist is about as relevant as the fact that I'm wearing green underwear today.

If being an atheist is something that is of fundamental importance to you, maybe it's time to question just why that is the case.

Just as a side note, it is funny how we construct arguments to defend an idea, or principle we do not feel strongly about, or have a lesser interest in, as compared to, the things we feel more passionately about.

Muso is attempting some even handedness, but frankly his arguments are very lame on this subject, perhaps because, as he said himself, he has little interest in it.

Compare that with his arguments in other areas, where they are concise, insightful, and eloquent, most notably in the area of Climate Change, where I look to his posts more than any, for enlightenment in an area that has been shadowed by too much obfuscation from the denialist camp.

So rather than engage in a half hearted debate on a subject that he is at best, ambivalent about, I will just say,
RELIGION IS EVIL!!!!

I may start a thread in the spirituality forum with my arguments about why religion, by it's nature is inherently immoral, and definitely evil.
I am flat out for the rest of the week, so maybe one evening, or at worst, by sunday, should give me time to collect enough arguments to enrage the sensibilities of the immoral majority.

I'm a psychology student myself and the way I understand science, in particular Psychology, is that we don't try to make ultimate truth claims. We offer theories which account for the evidence we have observed.

True, that's what science is about. But people still believe it.

Liam what exactly are you proposing, beyond free speech? The reason I ask is that other members here support the erosion of certain rights and freedoms.

Just as a side note, it is funny how we construct arguments to defend an idea, or principle we do not feel strongly about, or have a lesser interest in, as compared to, the things we feel more passionately about.

Mozz he may not feel passionate about faith or atheism, but he probably is passionate about people's right to choose for themselves what to believe and how to bring up their kids, without the government deciding for them which beliefs are acceptable. There is a big difference between supporting something, and supporting people's right to it.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 9:09am:

So rather than engage in a half hearted debate on a subject that he is at best, ambivalent about, I will just say, RELIGION IS EVIL!!!!

That's like saying Politics is evil, or life is evil. I do feel passionate about not eroding personal freedoms, as FD pointed out, however there are many things that we don't see eye to eye on.

I still think that we need controls for some of the more extremist groups among us, but we're not going to achieve the desired level of control by applying blanket rules on all religions. If a dog bites you, the last thing you should do is kick it, because the next time it sees you, you'll get bitten again. What exactly do you want to do anyway?

I think that religious education is fine as long as kids are given the opportunity to question and think for themselves.

Somehow as a society, we need to encourage tolerance of people who have different beliefs. We can't do that by encouraging exclusivist educational systems that encourage kids to think that they are somehow better than the rest of the population. Society is cosmopolitan just about anywhere you go in the world. We need to encourage tolerance and discourage divisive practices. If we don't start understanding each other, we're heading for World War III or at least civil war that makes the Cronulla riots look like a picnic.  

It won't be the fault of the Muslims, or the Jews or the Fundamentalist Christians or the rednecks. It will be the fault of government that actively encourages division in society.

I don't have a ready made solution for the woes of our growing dysfunctional society, but my suggestion of a compulsary class that encourages acceptance of different cultures and religions may go some way to addressing that.

The fact that we are cosmopolitan is a reality. We're not in the steak and eggs 50's anymore, we have no chance of going back there and it's probably a good thing. We need to work toward a society where we use our differences to build our strength. Diversity can actually improve cohesion. Any team where people can see things from different perspectives is a strong team, as long as they can stick together and respect each other.

Go Team Australia!

Well, I have to wonder why you would believe religion does not promote division within society.
It has as it's central tenet, that it's followers are the only ones that know the real truth, and all the others, heathens, infidels, unbelievers, will deservingly burn in hell for eternity, unless they reject their personal beliefs, and accept the beliefs that religion tells them they must.

That seems pretty divisive to me.

Freedom promotes division in society. Taking people's freedom away promotes unity. For example, allowing people to join different political parties promotes divisions, and a lot of those parties act in a similar manner to how you describe religion. Your argument sounds just like all the bullshit excuses tyrants give for taking away other freedoms.

None of this is a valid reason for taking people's freedom away. If the cost of unity is the loss of freedom, then the price is too high.

It's also a bit arrogant (and naive) to expect people to unite under your ideology.

Faith is a lot more than simple belief without lack of evidence. Whenever we push ourselves to do great things, we need to have faith in our ability to achieve these things. Do we know that we'll do it? Well no - because we may not have done it before. In a way, it's belief without evidence, but it's pretty useful belief without evidence. I'm running in a race next week. I have gradually improved my time by using faith. Faith in my ability is not something that I can put a finger on. It's just a tool I use to advance myself.


I think you're being intellectually dishonest by using the term faith so loosely. It may sound poetic but it's not accurate. The reasoning behind your ability to run your race a little faster each week is grounded heavily in induction. You know how much you have exercise, you know how well other athletes compete with similar amounts of exercise, therefore you can make a reasonable prediction as to how well you will go. Faith is the opposite. Faith is when you have never run before. Have never exercise. Have no idea what is an acheivable time. And THEN claim that you know how fast you will run.

Why then do you take exception to the fact that religious people use faith in God to inspire, motivate and better themselves? Is there much difference?

Because they won't just keep it to themsevles. As I said in my first post, religion is bent on control. I hope I don't need to rattle off examples - aids in africa, stem cell research, gay bashings. Faith is the trump card theists use to justify these atrocities.

Liam what exactly are you proposing, beyond free speech? The reason I ask is that other members here support the erosion of certain rights and freedoms.

I'd like to see something similar to what Muso just proposed. Compulsory primary school education in world religion/philosophy/critical thought. As I said before, I don't want to do away with peoples right to believe whatever they want to beleive. I do want a climate where we can criticize people who purport to know things they simply can't know.

My ideology?

Interesting concept.
So far my ideology, as you  refer to it, is to remove from society, the preferential treatment which religious organisations have demanded and received.

Why is not condoning special treatment for groups whose beliefs inspire division so frightening?

My contention is that these groups requiring that we accept they have the right to exclusively force their belief system onto their children, is the point you have trouble with.

You continually cite it is the parents right to do with their kids as they see fit, I contend that society and children have rights also, and if the parents rights are contrary to the best outcome for the children and society then it is right to limit those parental rights.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 12:09pm:

My ideology? Interesting concept. So far my ideology, as you  refer to it, is to remove from society, the preferential treatment which religious organisations have demanded and received. Why is not condoning special treatment for groups whose beliefs inspire division so frightening? My contention is that these groups requiring that we accept they have the right to exclusively force their belief system onto their children, is the point you have trouble with. You continually cite it is the parents right to do with their kids as they see fit, I contend that society and children have rights also, and if the parents rights are contrary to the best outcome for the children and society then it is right to limit those parental rights.

I completely agree with you on that last point! It's time we realised children are humans with rights and not the property/playthings of their parents.

Not having the government take your children away from you because some busy-body do gooder disagrees with how you bring them up is not special treament.

Whatever problems you see in parents choosing how to raise their own children, they are insignificant compared to the government deciding for them.

Quote:

Whatever problems you see in parents choosing how to raise their own children, they are insignificant compared to the government deciding for them.

Damn straight!
Those busy body do-gooders want me to send my kids to school!
Well I have too much to do, to worry about school, I am so sick of the government telling me what to do, if I want to raise my kids uneducated then that is my right as a parent.

Seriously FD, your extrapolation of delivering rights to kids, as having to turn into some orwellian nightmare is, dare I say it, extreme?

I already posted of the actions that the swedish government has taken in regard to the teaching of religion, and indicated that I think it is a good idea, perhaps if we stick to reality, instead of imagined outcomes, we may get a clearer understanding of what each of us is actually saying, rather than interpreting what you think they are saying may lead to.

Those busy body do-gooders want me to send my kids to school!

No they don't. They want your kids to have an education. You are welcome to do it yourself at home, to pay someone else to do it, or to use the free service they provide. This is a far cry from forcing all children to undergo the same indoctrination.

Seriously FD, your extrapolation of delivering rights to kids, as having to turn into some orwellian nightmare is, dare I say it, extreme?

No it is not extreme. You talk about evil - but what you propose is evil. The government has no place in deciding which ideologies are acceptable. It is reasonable for them to set a minimum standard for education so children can get by in our society, but they have no place in banning certain schools because you disagree with their ideology.

Government sponsored atheism is no less immoral than government sponsored religion.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 11:32am:

Well, I have to wonder why you would believe religion does not promote division within society. It has as it's central tenet, that it's followers are the only ones that know the real truth, and all the others, heathens, infidels, unbelievers, will deservingly burn in hell for eternity, unless they reject their personal beliefs, and accept the beliefs that religion tells them they must. That seems pretty divisive to me.

Again, you're taking the feral extremists as an example and tarring them all with the same brush just because they have a faith. There is a difference between diversity and division. In my opinion, we thrive on  diversity, but we need to avoid division at all cost.

The vast majority of religious people would not dream of having such a stereotypical viewpoint.  The two biggest religious groups in the 2006 census are Anglicans and Catholics, roughly 60:40. Together they account for about 50% of the total population.   Presbyterian, Uniting Church, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox, again mostly pretty moderate, make up another 20% together.

If you look at the more extreme vocal groups, you'll find that they account for a tiny proportion of the total.

On the whole, Roman Catholics are generally about as tolerant a lot as you can get. I got our marriage confirmed in an RC church for my wife's benefit, and when I didn't repeat the vows, the priest didn't bat an eyelid. He understood that it takes all sorts to make a world.

The same goes for Anglicans. We tend to stereotype them as jolly old eccentric vicars that enjoy a drink now and again, but basically they are very tolerant of others.

I've been inside the churches of most denominations when I was about 17. There was only one group that made me feel unwelcome. The preacher said something like "There are those among our midst who are not of the flock" or something like that. So I got the flock out of there as soon as possible after the obligatory sing song.  

On the whole though, the vast majority of religious people are very tolerant, just like the vast majority of atheists. So why should the majority be penalised because of the lunatic fringe?  

Quote:

They want your kids to have an education.

It is not the government's role to decide that.

It is a parent's right to choose what is best for their kids, if I want them to have no education, and work in my factory, what right has a government to say I shouldn't.

Is that a fair example of a parent's right FD?

Your advocating that parent's rights and religion's rights, surpass society's rights, and children's rights, is where we disagree.
No one group has a valid claim to more rights than another.

You can deny your child a great deal of the free education made available to them and make them work in your factory instead.

The difference is Mozz that the government should only interfere if genuine harm can be demonstrated. Denying a child the ability to read and write will do genuine harm to them. Religion does not. You fail to distuinguish between real, demonstrable harm and your bias against religion. All you can come up with is empty slogans like 'religion is evil', which is actually kind of ironic, though the irony seem to be lost on you.

It is reasonable for the government to hold an official position on whether a basic education is good or bad. It is not reasonable for the government to choose a side in spiritual or religious matters.

freediver wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 1:26pm:

Government sponsored atheism is no less immoral than government sponsored religion.

Actually, it depends on your definition of morality :) A Roman Catholic (if he was really on the ball) might disagree. The RC view is that morality ultimately derives from God because God created man and nature and that the ultimate sanction for immorality is the loss of a relationship with God

Perhaps ethical would have been a better choice.

Quote:

you're taking the feral extremists as an example

OK Muso, what you are confusing is what religious doctrine teaches, and what religious followers practice.

Those whom you classify as "feral extremists", could pose a credible argument that they are actually the only true and faithful practitioners of their religion's teachings.

The normal religious folk, use their personal judgement, and acceptance of social norms, to moderate their interpretation of their religion's teachings into a more sensible personal doctrine, but do not forget that in doing so, they are rejecting much of their religion's actual doctrine, and replacing it with their own.

That is why I keep saying that the good people do the right thing in spite of their religion, not because of it.

When I talk of religion I am not trying to express any antipathy toward decent people who have spiritual beliefs, but I do oppose the fact that they need to filter the teachings of their religion on a personal level, to reject the unwholesome and evil teachings that are part of all religious doctrines.
The ability, and degree of 'filtering' of these teachings, is why we see so many people spouting unwholesome beliefs in religion's name, some use the worst teachings to validate their own prejudices, I would prefer they did not have the excuse of religious doctrine to do so.

That's a bit naive Mozz. There are plenty of people who will openly admit to being evil and having no morals in the absence of those given to them by religion. They would credit most of the bad things they have done to lack of religion, and the godo things they have done to religion.

Also, you do not get to say who is the true follower and who isn't.

some use the worst teachings to validate their own prejudices, I would prefer they did not have the excuse of religious doctrine to do so.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If religion is used to validate their prejudice, then it doesn't cause their prejudice. Furthermore it would be naive to think they would give up their prejudice due to lack of valdidation because you try to deny them their religious freedom. They would just find something else.

Bottom line is, you are applying a glaring double standard to religion that if applied to anything else (eg political parties) would also see them banned.

Quote:

genuine harm

This is very much the point we disagree on, I categorise indoctrinating tiny children with the belief that unless they accept religion's teachings about their particular god of choice, that they will burn in hell forever, is very real, and very genuine harm.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 2:04pm:

The normal religious folk, use their personal judgement, and acceptance of social norms, to moderate their interpretation of their religion's teachings into a more sensible personal doctrine, but do not forget that in doing so, they are rejecting much of their religion's actual doctrine, and replacing it with their own.

I can only speak with some authority on Catholicism, but I don't think they are rejecting any such thing -

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself."

That's not exactly going against the teachings of the church - it's the catechism (sp?) - the central tenet of Catholicism.

Ecclesiastes 7:25 -

So I turned my mind to understand,
to investigate and to search out wisdom and the scheme of things
and to understand the stupidity of wickedness
and the madness of folly.

But you are using circular reasoning to do so. You think harm is being done because a child believes something you disagree with. But you have nothing more to go on than the fact that you disagree with it. That's pretty flimsy. You have to be objective about these things. You have to be able to demonstrate harm in a way that doesn't require people to accept your ideology in order to recognise the harm. You are asking for the government to reinforce your ideology, and the only grounds you have for doing so is that you think the other ideologies are inherently harmful. You are repeating the same mistake that lead to all the evils perpetrated by various church/state alliances in the past. Of course it seems benign to begin with, just as a church/state alliance may seem benign to a Christian when it is first suggested. But think about what you are doing - you are asking the government to take on an ideology and raise it above all the others and start imposing it on people.

You're only justification for your position is that 'religion is evil'. For the government to justify adopting your suggestions, it would also have to take on that position. Once the government labels something as evil, it is a threat to society and you can justify all sorts of 'bad' things in order to rid society of that evil. Who knows where it would stop, but you would have to be pretty naive to believe it would stop with your proposals.

I think it's time to apply Occam's razor. Your right to tell people that their religion is evil is protected (just like it protects their right to say you are going to hell). If you cannot convince them that their religion or institution is in fact evil, then maybe you should accept that it isn't evil, rather than using the government to impose your ideology on others because you are unable to get them to adopt it freely.

Societies are always undergoing some kind of ideological war or struggle, with different ideologies competing against each other for acceptance. Ethical people will allow ideologies to compete on an even palying field and acknowledge that people are the best judge of the comepting ideologies. Unethical people (ie extremists) will get fed up that their ideology isn't winning and will try to cheat by getting the government to impose it on other people. They get so hung up on their ideology that that are willing to sacrifice their values to see it win out.

This thread seems to be getting pretty topsy turvy.

When it comes to social issues I consider myself pretty libertarian. I believe in human rights - free speach, freedom of belief etc very strongy. Especially when it's something I disagree with.

But it's a two way street. If you are free to believe that gay's are at fault for hurricanes in Northern England then I am free to provide evidence to the contrary and expose you as a bigot.

If progress is to be made, criticism is essential.

I chose that particular example because it was a claim made by an Anglican archbishop.

While Roman Catholics and Anglicans may not be explicitly murdering thousands of people and running around with bombs strapped to themselves their dogma is the source of terrible suffering around the world.

That sounds reasonable. It's only when someone tries to get the government to take people's rights or children away from them that I object.

liam511 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 7:20pm:

While Roman Catholics and Anglicans may not be explicitly murdering thousands of people and running around with bombs strapped to themselves their dogma is the source of terrible suffering around the world.

I guess an example is the papal stance on condom use. I think that the argument is a total crock because both Anglicans and Catholics alike are encouraged to use their noggin (their brain). I've been all through Africa, and there is a strong drive for the use of condoms.

The argument that the church position is causing deaths is pretty lame. You could say that the church also says that you should not have sex outside marriage and that all marriages must be sanctioned by the church etc. The reality is that people there do what they have done for centuries. They will f--- as casually as they will shake hands and think nothing of it. (I had plenty of offers with no money attached- it did the ego the world of good, but I wasn't so stupid as to accept)

The ironic thing is that if they stuck to the principles of their religions, both Christian and Muslim, AIDS would not be such an issue in Subsaharan Africa.  

So give me some real examples of how the church dogma is leading to misery and we'll see how they stack up in the cold light of reality.

You claim some knowledge of catholicism muso, yet you lack a basic understanding of the influence of religious indoctrination.
By the qualifications of sins into a ranking system, and the accessibility of the get out of jail free card, confession, behavioural conditioning, is openly practised by the church.
The fact is that weaknesses of the flesh, like lust, are a daily challenge for religious people, who have heavenly imposed guilt associated to their actions by the dictums of the church,which may, or may not, reflect actual moral imperatives.

While the, just say no to sex, argument may seem compelling to those who seek to determine the ethical framework for those who ascribe to a particular doctrine.
The fact that this goes against all human behavioural instincts does not deter them from preaching it as the church's dogma, and that disobeying it is a sin.
So the faithful attempt to follow this unfollowable rule, and fall to temptation, and sin, they may resist, but the devil tempts them beyond their control.
Using condoms brings in a wholly different sin, premeditated planning to commit the sin of sex, and preparing for it by responsibly using condoms negates the excuse of merely falling into temptation.

It is quite subtle, but nonetheless a determining factor in why many would accept the church's teaching about not using condoms, while still being susceptible to fall into temptation and have sex.

So I do not accept your argument that they look upon all church dictums equally, and  agree with Liam, that this teaching of the church is responsible for greater suffering than if it recanted on this arbitrary, and unethical edict.

Now sing, "Every sperm is sacred......"

mozzaok wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2008 at 10:51am:

Using condoms brings in a wholly different sin, premeditated planning to commit the sin of sex, and preparing for it by responsibly using condoms negates the excuse of merely falling into temptation. It is quite subtle, but nonetheless a determining factor in why many would accept the church's teaching about not using condoms, while still being susceptible to fall into temptation and have sex. So I do not accept your argument that they look upon all church dictums equally, and  agree with Liam, that this teaching of the church is responsible for greater suffering than if it recanted on this arbitrary, and unethical edict. Now sing, "Every sperm is sacred......"

I loved that Movie.  ;D

Sorry, but in terms of Africa, that argument just doesn't hold fast. In theory, yes, but in practice - no.  The condom use in countries that have large Catholic populations is about the same as Anglican or Lutheran populations. (and that's abysmally low in most cases) The success stories are often in countries in West Africa, such as Guinea which is Muslim/ Catholic, and that has much more to do with the health policies of the government than the church or mosque influences.

The teachings of the church might have more influence to the more educated inhabitants, but it has virtually no effect anywhere else.

You are probably right about the government policy bit, all I am saying is the church chiming in with edicts is a negative influence we just do not need.

I agree that the catholic church has a bad policy on condom use. This doesn't make them evil. A good start would be for our government to stop yielding to pressure from the catholic church to prevent foreign aid being spent on family planning. That is the rational response.

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2008 at 1:04pm:

I agree that the catholic church has a bad policy on condom use. This doesn't make them evil. A good start would be for our government to stop yielding to pressure from the catholic church to prevent foreign aid being spent on family planning. That is the rational response.

Do they ?  :o

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172285897/13#13

It's the same story in the US too.

here is an interesting quote, can you guess who said it?


Quote:

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith … we need believing people.

You did, but you swapped secular and religious?

Facetiousness should be beneath you FD, but apparently not.

Come on guess, you will like it, it is a he, and he was a great leader whose first name begins with A.

You've got me. Tell us Mozz, what great leader are you trying to emulate with your intolerance and rhetoric?

Adolf Hitler.

Look I do not intend to just trot out all the atrocities perpetrated by religious people in god's name, that is way too easy.
I will explain why religion, with it's own inherent teachings, is demonstrably immoral, and evil.
As it is more than a brief sentence to structure the evidence I will do so later on when I can give it some time.

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2008 at 6:02pm:

You did, but you swapped secular and religious?

a classic  ;D  (laughing at the joke, not mozz)

Sure, it was a little bit funny, and of course I never saw it coming ::), but nonetheless, the point remains valid, and just by FD, wrongly identifying my aim is to take kids from parents, and impose unfair restrictions onto religious people, by making wild misinterpretations, and extrapolations from what I actually said, I have no doubt that he will continue to do so, rather than defend his own claims about religion's inalienable rights.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 9:27am:

Sure, it was a little bit funny, and of course I never saw it coming ::), but nonetheless, the point remains valid, and just by FD, wrongly identifying my aim is to take kids from parents, and impose unfair restrictions onto religious people, by making wild misinterpretations, and extrapolations from what I actually said, I have no doubt that he will continue to do so, rather than defend his own claims about religion's inalienable rights.

I can actually see your point to some extent. Some religious indoctrination is unreasonable if it promotes intolerance or hatred towards others who have a different worldview. In such cases there should be controls, and generally speaking there are.

To come from a position of "all religion is evil" is quite frankly Quixotic and you are unlikely to gain any friends or influence people from such a stance.

That position is about as extreme as some of the fundamentalists that don't even recognise other Christians. It represents a tiny proportion of the population. You wouldn't even fill the village hall.

Sure, it was a little bit funny, and of course I never saw it coming

It seemed pretty obvious to me. If you substitute Judaism for religion, and Jews for religious people, you could take your posts here and bind them together and call it Mein Kampf. You attribute some bitter experiences from your youth to religion, now you spend your life looking for ways to scapegoat religion for societies problems. You can't back up your irrational argument, but instead you chant your little mantra that religion is evil. You are blinded by your own bias against religion to the evil that is welling up within you. The parallels are striking if you can get over your own righteousness.

So Mozz, if religion is so evil, what is your 'final solution' for getting rid of it? I hope you don't expect to get very far just by stealing a few children from uncooperative parents. If anything that will cause your enemies to rise up.

and just by FD, wrongly identifying my aim is to take kids from parents

That may not be your intended aim, but that would be the outcome of your oppressive rules.

and impose unfair restrictions onto religious people

But that is exactly what you propose. You think that you know better than them how to bring their children up and you want to force them to do it your way. You want the government to adopt a policy that religion is evil and start acting on it. You would bring about a new dark of oppression.

Obviously I must accept responsibility for not clearly annunciating any coherent argument to support my contention tha, 'Religion is Evil'.

By the same token, replying with my belief being that 'all religion is evil', carries with it the inference that I believe all 'Aspects" of religion are evil, and I most certainly do not, most religions have wonderful teachings of charity, hope, faith, and love, and if they would content themselves with, or even abide to, those principles, I would have no issue with them.

Obviously they do not, along with the great truths, are packaged the great lies, and this overriding threat of, "believe what we tell you completely, and you will share eternal bliss, reject it and you will suffer eternal damnation", is the most evil, and greatest lie of all, and the root principle of all these death cults.

Yes I am deliberately provocative, I do not expect to sway any who have committed their life to believing this lie, but I certainly would like them to feel free to be able to question it, rather than have them accept it as an inviolable truth.

FD you really are lost on this.

OK, you are saying that what I have posed equates to some dictatorial assault on people's freedom, and can prove it by merely changing what I say, into what you think I say.
Great argument, have a go at creating my unfair views from my own words, without changing them, and we will see what you come up with.

No Mozz, I am going by what you actually say. You say religion is evil. You use it as a scapegoat for societies problems. You want the government to take up your bias and act on it by taking children away from their parents and forcing the rest to bring up their children your way.

Remember, Hitler was elected democratically, not on a policy of killing Jews, but on a policy of scapegopating them for society's problems. You want to unleash a monster, but cannot see past the loosing of the chains.

That's IT.
Come the revolution, you'll be the first to go. ;D

Seriously though, why do you keep saying I want to take children away from their parents?

Not allowing religious indoctrination in schools is hardly forcing anything on them is it?
It is actually the opposite, it is not allowing religious indoctrination to be forced upon them at school.

Seriously though, why do you keep saying I want to take children away from their parents?

Not allowing religious indoctrination in schools is hardly forcing anything on them is it?

Well what are you going to do if they don't do what you say? Slap them on the wrist? You don't expect it to be easy to take away people's freedom to practice their religion how they see fit, do you?

Quote:

Well what are you going to do if they don't do what you say?

Vee haff vays orf making dem.

It is a little thing called 'The Law'.

You may not be aware but some people don't want to follow the law, and choose to disobey it.
Society gets to choose which laws are appropriate for it.
If they don't like a law they can try and have it changed.

I don't like the law that allows kid's to face indoctrination into "Particular" religious dogmas from the time they enter school, at an age when we consider them to be too immature to make informed decisions.

My contention is that school is the wrong time and place to inflict  a religious dogma on them.

It is hardly revolutionary, merely respectful of childrens' rights to be allowed to freely choose a dogma, when and if they want to, without school being used to validate ONE particular dogma as true and correct, from the age of four or five years old.

So you do want to take children away from their parents, but it's OK because you will use the law to do it? It's OK to break up families and deny people fundamental rights if it's for their own good?

Are you on any medication FD?

If so, maybe alter the dosage.

If not, maybe it is an option worth considering. :o

Religion is not a problem. When religious people try to use the government to impose their views on others, that is a problem, just like when atheists try to use the government to impose their views on others.

You are not preventing views being imposed on children, you are imposing your own views on them and on their parents. You are relegating their parents to the role of children and making their choices for them. The views you are imposing are not better. You think that banning certain things is not imposing your own views, but it is. You are taking away choice, and denying children the ability to choose for themselves, because they might choose to follow the adivce of their parents.

All this, and you still lack any objective justification. You have nothing more than 'my beliefs are better than their beliefs'.

You are getting ridiculously convoluted in your objections FD.

Religion is not educative.

School is for education.

End of argument.

Religion is not educative.

School is for education.

According to you, but certainly not others. This is an ideology you want to force upon others by taking their children away from them.

Defending people's rights and freedoms against arbitrary attacks is not convoluted, it is simple. You are not defending children, you are denying them fundamental human rights.

But what about the children!!!

---

How about instead of trying to take people's children away from them, you try to convince them of the advantages of your ideology? Surely if you are right then you don't need the government to force people's hand for you. That would only be necessary if you were wrong.

FD - Just what is your ideology? If you don't want to say in public, please PM.

I think people should have freedom to choose their own religion, or lack thereof.

As with all other freedoms, where a child cannot or does not make a choice on their own behalf, it should fall to the parents to make that decision for them, not to some zealot who wants to take advantage to create clones of themselves.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

I think people should have freedom to choose their own religion, or lack thereof. As with all other freedoms, where a child cannot or does not make a choice on their own behalf, it should fall to the parents to make that decision for them, not to some zealot who wants to take advantage to create clones of themselves.

Sorry, I meant your religion :)

mozzaok wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2008 at 5:53pm:

here is an interesting quote, can you guess who said it? Quote: Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith … we need believing people.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173336342/119#119

---

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/questions.html

13. Hasn’t the overall influence of Christianity been negative?

A balanced response to this old question has been given by Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor, Yale University:

Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World.

Wars have often been waged in the name of Christianity. They have attained their most colossal dimensions through weapons and large–scale organization initiated in (nominal) Christendom. Yet from no other source have there come as many and as strong movements to eliminate or regulate war and to ease the suffering brought by war. From its first centuries, the Christian faith has caused many of its adherents to be uneasy about war. It has led minorities to refuse to have any part in it. It has impelled others to seek to limit war by defining what, in their judgment, from the Christian standpoint is a "just war." In the turbulent Middle Ages of Europe it gave rise to the Truce of God and the Peace of God. In a later era it was the main impulse in the formulation of international law. But for it, the League of Nations and the United Nations would not have been. By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature.

---

The guy who put that (above) together also claimed that while evil is the logical consequence of atheist ideology, evil committed by Christians contradicts the teaching of Jesus.

Quote:

Re: Extremist Athiests attrocities against civilians Reply #108 - Sep 5th, 2008, 2:30pm Alert Board Moderator about this Post! Quote I think people should have freedom to choose their own religion, or lack thereof. As with all other freedoms, where a child cannot or does not make a choice on their own behalf, it should fall to the parents to make that decision for them, not to some zealot who wants to take advantage to create clones of themselves.

You must be sh1tting me?

So not allowing kids to be brainwashed in schools, as well as at home and church, is atheists attempting to clone non believers, talk about trying to push sh1t uphill with a wet rope.
Methinks you have the whole question @rse about face.

Atheists don't give a flying fig what people want to believe, unless it impinges on their rights, or basic human rights, I think somebody said something about how our society puts the rights of children first, sure it does.

So not allowing kids to be brainwashed in schools, as well as at home and church, is atheists attempting to clone non believers, talk about trying to push sh1t uphill with a wet rope.
Methinks you have the whole question @rse about face.

No, you do. Not allowing parents to decide what is best for their own children, be it religion, food, clothes or whatever, is a violation of fundamental human rights. Getting the state to interfere on your behalf to take children away from parents, on the flimsiest of grounds that you disapprove of the parents choices, is a violation of fundamental human rights. Taking away a child's right to choose to be with their family is a violation of fundamental human rights. If you don't think this is what you are doing, try asking the child if they want to be taken away from their parents for protection from their religion.

You are not defending the rights of a child by removing them from their parents, you are imposing your own ideology on them. You have no objective grounds for this, other than your own misplaced sense of superiority.

Like it or not, it is the parents right to choose. Always has been, always will be. It will never be your right to make that choice for them or take their children away from them. Your are not speaking on behalf of the children, you are speaking for yourself.

3fc1f2e1ae1334d2

Quote:

Yet from no other source have there come as many and as strong movements to eliminate or regulate war and to ease the suffering brought by war. From its first centuries, the Christian faith has caused many of its adherents to be uneasy about war. It has led minorities to refuse to have any part in it. It has impelled others to seek to limit war by defining what, in their judgment, from the Christian standpoint is a "just war." In the turbulent Middle Ages of Europe it gave rise to the Truce of God and the Peace of God. In a later era it was the main impulse in the formulation of international law. But for it, the League of Nations and the United Nations would not have been. By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature.

This assertion is absurd. Not many hu's and none with an iq over 100 needs a religion to tell them fighting is not a good idea.  

Grey wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2011 at 9:33pm:

Quote: Yet from no other source have there come as many and as strong movements to eliminate or regulate war and to ease the suffering brought by war. From its first centuries, the Christian faith has caused many of its adherents to be uneasy about war. It has led minorities to refuse to have any part in it. It has impelled others to seek to limit war by defining what, in their judgment, from the Christian standpoint is a "just war." In the turbulent Middle Ages of Europe it gave rise to the Truce of God and the Peace of God. In a later era it was the main impulse in the formulation of international law. But for it, the League of Nations and the United Nations would not have been. By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature. This assertion is absurd. Not many hu's and none with an iq over 100 needs a religion to tell them fighting is not a good idea.

It is if you're the winner.