Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

on the other hand because of your belief in free markets you say we should open ourselves up to cheap imports and put Australians out of work and drive Australian business to the wall.

It seems to me that people are suffering from your delusional belief in free markets just like people are suffering from delusional religious belief.

Don't you think Australian Iron ore mines are putting Chinese Iron workers out of business right now, and providing jobs for Australians? Don't you think Chinese imports of Australian produce is providing jobs?

We just have to find the products we are better at producing, and start marketing and exporting like crazy.

on balance though, a lost job in Australia is offset by a job in China, those of us with strong tribalism probably don't like that, but hey that's probably a conversation for another thread.

'Church of the non believers' run by Richard Dawkins, and you are one of his disciples/mouthpieces, putting the boots into Christianity.
Doing all you can to get rid of Religion.

You are just parrotting everything he says.

What did Richard Dawkins say, there is nothing wrong with rape -- I suppose if you don't have a base of right and wrong, you can make your own rules.
There is no value system.

I have already said, they have an Atheist Convention in Melbourne, the Atheist movement.

Lol, church of the non believers, you are crazy tink,

No Richard Dawkins didn't say there is nothing wrong with rape. Please either apologise for that or provide a link.

Can you provide a link to that statement by Dawkins ?

No she can't because it never happened

I don't have the link, but it happened last year and after he said it, supposedly it kicked up a storm.
I am sure the ones that follow Dawkins can fill us in.

You should really get your facts straight before you mouth off.

But back to the topic, please provide one piece of doctrine that this "atheist religion" I am supposed to be part of has.

 

[Value Collector]

There are various degrees of all types of crimes is what I think he was saying.

I don't know if it is what tink is talking about, but I did here him say some time ago that molestation is not always the worst type of damage the churches have done against children.

he gave an example of a woman he was friends with who had been molested as a child by her priest, but she personally felt she had been more emotionally damaged but being taught the doctrine of hell, and being told repeatedly her young Jewish friend was going to burn in hell.

She felt that she had over come the trauma of sexual assault early on, but was still messed up with the doctrines of shame and sin and threats of hell fire.

I think after retelling her story Dawkins said something like "so in some cases compared to that sort of emotional abuse a bit of inappropriate touching isn't as bad"

I guess if that last bit was taken as a sound bite and played out of context, someone looking to discredit Dawkins may beable to give people the wrong impression, I think tinks lack of skeptism leads her to get the wrong idea and never try to back it up with further research, a bit like people that just read headlines and then spread false stories about what they think the article is about.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't know if it is what tink is talking about, but I did here him say some time ago that molestation is not always the worst type of damage the churches have done against children.

he gave an example of a woman he was friends with who had been molested as a child by her priest, but she personally felt she had been more emotionally damaged but being taught the doctrine of hell, and being told repeatedly her young Jewish friend was going to burn in hell.

She felt that she had over come the trauma of sexual assault early on, but was still messed up with the doctrines of shame and sin and threats of hell fire.

I think after retelling her story Dawkins said something like "so in some cases compared to that sort of emotional abuse a bit of inappropriate touching isn't as bad"

I guess if that last bit was taken as a sound bite and played out of context, someone looking to discredit Dawkins may beable to give people the wrong impression, I think tinks lack of skeptism leads her to get the wrong idea and never try to back it up with further research, a bit like people that just read headlines and then spread false stories about what they think the article is about.

Well I suppose one would have to be abused oneself before one could agree with Dawkins on that statement, but I at least physical abuse is someone else fault , while the "burn in hell" threat actually makes the psychologically abused person think that they are the one at fault. Which is worse ? I don't know, I have never been abused either way.

 

[Value Collector]

Well I suppose one would have to be abused oneself before one could agree with Dawkins on that statement, but I at least physical abuse is someone else fault , while the "burn in hell" threat actually makes the psychologically abused person think that they are the one at fault. Which is worse ? I don't know, I have never been abused either way.

I found the video where Richard Dawkins tells the story about the lady who thought the catholic doctrine was worse abuse than here physical abuse, ( her childhood friend was Protestant, I mistakenly said Jewish earlie)

The video goes for a bit over 2 mins, and ends with a slightly aggressive interviewer trying to disprove Richard by asking the audience to raise hands if they agree with Dawkins, funnily enough alot of the audience thought the catholic doctrine was worse than physical abuse.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c1iSxEtgEGs[/video]

It's crazy how Dawkins can make a point like this, and then people like tink run around and say he said there is nothing wrong with rape. She hates Dawkins, but loves her church leaders some of whom have actually raped children and others who have covered it up.

 

[SirRumpole]

I suppose there could be good and bad aspects of the "burn in hell" doctrine. eg if a priest told someone "you will burn in hell if you commit murder", and that prevents someone committing murder, that would be a good thing wouldn't it ?

OTOH, if someone was told "you will burn in hell if you don't go to church every Sunday" that would be a bad thing because whether the person goes to church or not doesn't affect society in any way.

 

[Value Collector]

I suppose there could be good and bad aspects of the "burn in hell" doctrine. eg if a priest told someone "you will burn in hell if you commit murder", and that prevents someone committing murder, that would be a good thing wouldn't it ?

.

probably best just to raise well balanced adults with a sense of real world responsibilities and consequences of their actions.

I don't think you will find those of us who don't believe in hell are more likely to be murders, after all there are plenty of biblical and qur'anic reasons for killing.

I personally feel that given this life is the only one I am going to get, I don't want to waste it by spending life in jail.

If some one is a psycho that lacks empathy and could become a killer, I guess convincing them there is a god might stop them, but that is probably offset by the number of psychos that are convinced a god exists so go out and commit mass murders in his name, or the fruit cakes that kill their children etc because God talks to them.

Religious groups are probably the only groups that when mentally ill people say God has been talking to them, instead of saying you need help, let's get you counselling, they say "good stuff, keep talking to him and listen to what he says"' and then they go and do crazy stuff.

I have personally spoken to a 19 year old guy who was upset because he heard the North Koreans were killing Christians, and he told me that at night when he was in bed thinking about it, he got feelings from God calling him to strike back at North Koreans, now that is scary stuff, he is mistaking his private thoughts for instructions from a god, he has been taught the doctrine of hell, but is also aware of the passages to kill non believers and to defend the faith, lucky there is an ocean between him and the Koreans, and he is not talking about the local Korean take away.

 

[Value Collector]

OTOH, if someone was told "you will burn in hell if you don't go to church every Sunday" that would be a bad thing because whether the person goes to church or not doesn't affect society in any way.

Yeah, could you imagine the torment and emotional pain a person growing up and realising they are gay would go through if they were raised to believe god sends gays to hell. it would be terrible, growing up can be hard enough.

 

[Tink]

And I will post here too, just to remind you....

While the Australian legal-political tradition cannot lay claim to the historical depth of America and the United Kingdom, it too was built on solid foundations””starting with the first British fleet departing for Australia in 1787, when Captain Arthur Phillip was instructed to take such steps as were necessary for the celebration of public worship.

At the time of British settlement in Australia, Christianity formed an integral part of the theory of English law and civil government. In his seminal work, A History of English Law, Sir William Holdsworth expressed the traditional view of the close relationship between Christianity and the common law:

Christianity is part and parcel of the common law of England, and therefore is to be protected by it; now whatever strikes at the very root of Christianity tends manifestly to dissolution of civil government.

While the penal colony of New South Wales was established in 1788, English law was not recognised until the passage of the Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp.). This Act determined that all laws and statutes in force in England at that time were to be, as far as it was possible, applied in the courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land.
When the English common law was transplanted to Australia, the supreme courts of the colonies were empowered to decide which English laws were applicable to Australia.

It was at that moment that Christianity was included in the law of the land.

The place of Christianity in the common law was not only acknowledged, but unconditionally adopted by the Supreme Court of NSW in the case of Ex Parte Thackeray (1874). The reception of these principles was perhaps best encapsulated in that case by Justice Hargrave, who famously commented that:

We, the colonists of New South Wales, “bring out with us” … this first great common law maxim distinctly handed down by [Sir Edward] Coke and [Sir William] Blackstone and every other English Judge long before any of our colonies were in existence or even thought of, that ‘Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws’; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation, is part of our colonial law….

It has been said that a people without historical memory can be easily deceived by false and destructive philosophies. Although undeniably diminished and rarely acknowledged, the Christian religion has an enduring role in the Australian legal-political system.

In these days of political correctness and cultural relativism, it is always good to be reminded of our Christian heritage, which still permeates most of the present laws and socio-political institutions of this democratic nation.

To state this obvious fact is not to be ‘intolerant’ but to simply stress an undeniable truth.

 

[Value Collector]

Just because people in our history had certain superstitions, doesn't mean our modern society is based on those superstitions, because even back then they were smart enough to leave those superstitions out of government policy and left it open for religious freedom, and by then they had already started dumping a lot of the doctrines and taking power away from the churches.

 

[DB008]

Tink, have you read the book, 'The God Delusion', by Richard Dawkins?

A preeminent scientist -- and the world's most prominent atheist -- asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.

With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever muster.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618918248/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0618918248&link_code=as3&tag=atheistrepublic-20​

 

[Tink]

Why would I read an atheists extremists book?
I have already given my thoughts about extremists, you can get them in any belief system.

I have seen him in interviews, and for someone that is suppose to be an atheist, a non believer, he spends a lot of time talking about God, and his rage against God, making money off the back of the non believers.
He has his own belief system, and religion, including his followers.

As I said, they have their own Atheist Movement and Convention in Melbourne, that they run like a Church.

I have no reason to question my faith, as I have said many times, because of my own personal experiences.

 

[Value Collector]

Why would I read an atheists extremists book? .

Because you may actually learn something, its actually a very good book, very well written and in some chapters deals with the science behind some of the stuff you have struggled to understand.

I have seen him in interviews, and for someone that is suppose to be an atheist, a non believer, he spends a lot of time talking about God, and his rage against God,

No, he hates religion, he doesn't believe in god, so he doesn't hate god. If he spends any time talking about a certain religions god, it is just to point out the immorality behind that gods mythology.

I have no reason to question my faith, as I have said many times, because of my own personal experiences

Hindus, Muslims, people with lucky underpants, people who believe astrology, people that believe in ghosts, bigfoot or lochness monster and 1000's of other superstitions all say the same things.

The thing is humans constantly trick themselves into believing things, so you need to question your faith.

 

[sydboy007]

from the great state of texas comes this crime against children. It's like living in Bernardi world. After what Tink has said I would not be surprised if she would be supportive of this in Australian schools, along with daily scripture classes.

Suppressing the ability of children to critically examine issues and come to their own conclusions scares the cultists immensely. Scares the right wing politicians too, and they're usually quite chummy with the cultists.

 

[Macquack]

The only logical religion is, we should all worship the sun, because if the sun does not rise tomorrow morning we are all doomed.

But if we truly worship the sun, then we will die of skin cancer. Can't win with any bloody religion.

 

[Value Collector]

The only logical religion is, we should all worship the sun, because if the sun does not rise tomorrow morning we are all doomed.

But if we truly worship the sun, then we will die of skin cancer. Can't win with any bloody religion.

Spoiler alert!!!

The sun won't rise tomorrow, the earth will just continue to revolve on its access and we will be able to view the sun for a few hours until we revolve back into our own shadow.

So this religion will have to be polytheistic, because we will have to worship newtons laws of motion also, lol

 

[luutzu]

The only logical religion is, we should all worship the sun, because if the sun does not rise tomorrow morning we are all doomed.

But if we truly worship the sun, then we will die of skin cancer. Can't win with any bloody religion.

Can't win with any religion because some idiot will always managed to claim they can speak to the Creator/God and was chosen by said Creator to rule over them.

 

[Macquack]

Spoiler alert!!!

The sun won't rise tomorrow, the earth will just continue to revolve on its access and we will be able to view the sun for a few hours until we revolve back into our own shadow.

So this religion will have to be polytheistic, because we will have to worship newtons laws of motion also, lol

When the sun finally burns out, it won't rise even if the world is still spinning.

And if the sun is no more, all the '**** and bull' religions including "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", "Hinduism", "Buddhism etc will all vanish into the 'black hole' from which they have come (nothing).

"God", "Jesus Christ", the "Holly Spirit', "YHVH", "Allah", "Brahma", "Buda" etc
will all have their work cut out stoking up that mother of all fires.

 

[Value Collector]

When the sun finally burns out, it won't rise even if the world is still spinning.

And if the sun is no more, all the '**** and bull' religions including "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", "Hinduism", "Buddhism etc will all vanish into the 'black hole' from which they have come (nothing).

"God", "Jesus Christ", the "Holly Spirit', "YHVH", "Allah", "Brahma", "Buda" etc
will all have their work cut out stoking up that mother of all fires.

Yeah the sun would still be there, and it would continue glowing as a dwarf star for many billions of years, and we will continue orbiting it, because it will still have mass and there fore gravity.

maybe Gravity is what we should worship, because with out gravity, the sun would not burn and wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[Tisme]

Can't win with any religion because some idiot will always managed to claim they can speak to the Creator/God and was chosen by said Creator to rule over them.

It's all to do with risk ... do you take the chance of believing those trendy atheist quacks or do you go for proven God endorsed product?

You're juggling with your afterlife here ... you either get a ringside seat or you get thrown back into the armageddon battle to probably get skewered by some God dammed non believer ... is it worth the gamble?!

Look at those paragons of light, the par excellence of human evolution who reckon science gazumps religions they are generally:

educated in some elite phrontistery where they learn big words like marmalade;
hard core socialists masquerading as conservatives;
write a book about their huge success before the book makes them successful and a legend in their own lunchtime;
have a BBC or toff British accent (you notice none of them have heavy cockney accents);
highly interested in garnering their own flock of followers ;
stereotypical arguments;
etc.

It's a big risk and one they are prepared for you to take so long as they don't get the blame.

 

[bellenuit]

It's all to do with risk ... do you take the chance of believing those trendy atheist quacks or do you go for proven God endorsed product?

You're juggling with your afterlife here ... you either get a ringside seat or you get thrown back into the armageddon battle to probably get skewered by some God dammed non believer ... is it worth the gamble?!

Look at those paragons of light, the par excellence of human evolution who reckon science gazumps religions they are generally:

educated in some elite phrontistery where they learn big words like marmalade;
hard core socialists masquerading as conservatives;
write a book about their huge success before the book makes them successful and a legend in their own lunchtime;
have a BBC or toff British accent (you notice none of them have heavy cockney accents);
highly interested in garnering their own flock of followers ;
stereotypical arguments;
etc.

It's a big risk and one they are prepared for you to take so long as they don't get the blame.

Actually Tisme, you could reduce their characteristics to just the first word of the first line.

They are generally:

educated.

As for your rehash of Pascall's wager: You're juggling with your afterlife here ... you either get a ringside seat or you get thrown back into the armageddon battle to probably get skewered by some God dammed non believer ... is it worth the gamble?!

Do you really think that these are the only two alternatives? One or the other? Pascall's wager has been debunked so many times before that I won't repeat the arguments again.