Christianity, Islam and Judaihism are very similar in moral belief system except for a few cultural laws to do with dress code and what foods to eat. My major problem with Christianity begins when Christian fundamentalists think I'm a "filthy pagan that is going to hell" and that I "need saving." I usually state that Christianity is a young religion barely 2000 years old, they then say what about Adam and Eve and about how creditable the bible is.

What doesn't seem to be understood is that atheists, as well as agnostics etc don't gain anything from not having a set religion or religion at all. We still must abide by the rules set down by our own morals (which are our own, not inherited from a divine being or book as I have explained earlier in this thread) and by the rules of law in ones own respective countries. The fact that some religious people assume that we, as having no faith, surely have nothing holding us back from doing immoral and evil things says more about those individual religious people than it does about us.

Religions often claim they are being persecuted, I don't believe this to be true, they are just getting less privileges than were afforded them before (privileges that were gained for the most part via force). Non religious people have no privileges at all. (Although I do feel a certain comfort in knowing that I won't be sent to hell for wearing two different types of cloth, I really like jeans but can not abide denim shirts.)

I don't like questioning peoples faith, personally, I would love to believe in a God. I would find both the reassurance of having something to share my grief etc with and the promise of a life after death to be extremely comforting. But I don't and I can't explain why, so would not expect anyone to explain why they do.

The specifics such as the contents of the bible I don't mind arguing about though, as it is quite clearly written down for all to see. The idea that the new testament, or Jesus, or the disciples, are all lovey dovey and moral is not correct.

If our morals are our own, and not given from anybody, then how can you claim that Jesus or the disciples are not moral?

How is you claiming that something doesn't match up to your morals that you determined for yourself any different than somebody else saying that you don't match up to their morals which they took from a book?

 rockerbikie wrote:
Christianity, Islam and Judaihism are very similar in moral belief system except for a few cultural laws to do with dress code and what foods to eat. My major problem with Christianity begins when Christian fundamentalists think I'm a "filthy pagan that is going to hell" and that I "need saving." I usually state that Christianity is a young religion barely 2000 years old, they then say what about Adam and Eve and about how creditable the bible is.

Well if you don't need saving then what are you on about?

 Frazzled wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Christianity, Islam and Judaihism are very similar in moral belief system except for a few cultural laws to do with dress code and what foods to eat. My major problem with Christianity begins when Christian fundamentalists think I'm a "filthy pagan that is going to hell" and that I "need saving." I usually state that Christianity is a young religion barely 2000 years old, they then say what about Adam and Eve and about how creditable the bible is.

Well if you don't need saving then what are you on about?

I'm just sick of Christian fundamentalists trying to use their religion in moral authoritarian way to tell me how to live my life.

 d-usa wrote:
If our morals are our own, and not given from anybody, then how can you claim that Jesus or the disciples are not moral?

How is you claiming that something doesn't match up to your morals that you determined for yourself any different than somebody else saying that you don't match up to their morals which they took from a book?

I get what your saying, everyone in the bible was acting within their own morals, as everyone always does...... But by today's "standard", if such a thing can be defined, some of the things were pretty awful. (You wouldn't condemn someone to have their eyes gauged out for staring lustily at someone and then send them to hell for eternity for example)

All our personal morals are based on an inherited set of broad sweeping in-built morals, the core of which is from evolution (looking after friends, relatives, doing nice things to get nice things back (<- sound like "Christian" morals don't they... but we as a race had had these a lot longer than any particular religion).

The other more specific morals, such as not eating dogs but OK eating cows in Britain etc come from our culture, which at least near me is full of all types of religions and off shoots of Atheism, so cannot be attributed to any individual one.

I wish people would have a bit more faith in humanity really, why must all our good stuff come from something else and only the evil from ourselves.

Of course evil does happen but this is spread between the faithful and unbelievers alike, I would argue historically (and now but not to the same extent probably) mostly from the faithful.

The problem I have with the bible is that it is outdated and contradictory, you can say that the old testament is just there for historical purposes (setting up things for the new testament) but the new testament explicitly states that the old testament is the rules and it's unchangeable. The fact that we can now commit sodomy without being justly stoned to death (as encouraged in the Old testament), or that we now know it's wrong to enslave other people (slavery being encouraged in the New testament) surely writes the whole thing off. I'm not saying write off Christianity completely, just the bible, seems to be getting on OK without most of the bible anyway.

I won't quote from the bible to prove my previous point but can if requested.

If you are looking at the text without any kind of context, then it won't make sense. That is pretty obvious, look at many parts by themselves and they seem odd and stupid. It's the whole that brings it together.

As a set of laws during Old Testament times it is really not much different than most other set of laws during that time period. Most of society in the world draws from histories that had very similar laws. If you want to write off modern factions for having silly laws in their past then you would write off almost everybody.

Yes but these rules were written down and proclaimed, in the name of God, as final and unchanging (Stated in the bible itself, both new and old). Some of these laws have changed, which means that either all of us (including you d-usa) are going to hell for breaking these rules, or that God doesn't exist, or that actually he wasn't really being serious about the rules, so who are we to say he was serious about anything?

P.s. if the rules have changed from then why doesn't "He" release a FAQ, hes all powerful after all and it would shut me up.

Your last post shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the Old or New Testament or the Jewish and Christian faith other than "people say god said stuff".

And just because: you can't use the Bible and say "your book says you are going to hell because you sin" and then ignore the fact that both old and New Testament have ways to justify sinners and provide salvation. If you are going to use the Bible to make your argument then you have to acknowledge that all of it is real and that Jesus existed. Remember now, you can't jus pick and choose parts of the bible to make your point, you don't like it when people do that...

Your right.... That's why I was trying to get an understanding from you. All I've had back is to look at the context around the weird horrible sounding stuff (I have.... quite a few times, they still don't wash) and just fix any contradictions and/or out of date stuff by looking at it in a figurative way. This is how this conversation has gone all my life, with priests, imams, people who believe in a divine being etc.

I've said before I would love to believe in a god, I'm not trying to catch you out and change your mind, quite the opposite, I'm trying to catch myself out and change my mind....... Unfortunately I have failed again.

All I ever get is that people just "know", regardless of anything else. This isn't enough for me, I'm not looking for proof, that would be silly, just some non-wishy-washy replies to my (in my mind) justified queries about the legitimacy of the Bible or other religious texts.... and therefore the religions they underpin themselves.

 rockerbikie wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Christianity, Islam and Judaihism are very similar in moral belief system except for a few cultural laws to do with dress code and what foods to eat. My major problem with Christianity begins when Christian fundamentalists think I'm a "filthy pagan that is going to hell" and that I "need saving." I usually state that Christianity is a young religion barely 2000 years old, they then say what about Adam and Eve and about how creditable the bible is.

Well if you don't need saving then what are you on about?

I'm just sick of Christian fundamentalists trying to use their religion in moral authoritarian way to tell me how to live my life.

So what? I'm sick of lefty treehugger bastards trying to tell me what to do, almost asmuch as I'm sick of rightwing Biblethumpers tryign to tell me what to do. Thats life. As the immortal bard once said: SHUT UP WUSSY AND GET A JOB!

I think this all boils down to whether you have Faith or not, and understanding what Faith means.



The concept of faith is quite an interesting one, I can actually see how people apply faith to science. A lot of Atheists can't possibly comprehend the science behind understanding the universe in an non theistic way and rely on Scientists and Academics for their views. These regurgitated facts are often spat with hate and bile but with no concept of true understanding. I'm not saying this gives the stance of "Belief in Science is Faith" any credibility, but I can see where they are coming from at least.

The fundemental difference between science and faith is that science can change, without contradiction. No-one wrote a science book hundreds of years ago and set out all the laws of nature, complete and unchanging, any further developments being seen as blasphemy. Einstein proved Newton wrong when looking at the very big and the very small within mechanics for example.

Of course Christianity has changed and developed with time, but this is contradictory as it goes against the bible, which underpins Christianity as a faith.

 d-usa wrote:
If our morals are our own, and not given from anybody, then how can you claim that Jesus or the disciples are not moral?

How is you claiming that something doesn't match up to your morals that you determined for yourself any different than somebody else saying that you don't match up to their morals which they took from a book?

Your morals are only your own if you have thought about them critically, otherwise you'll just accept whatever is most convenient for you.

I'm an agnostic and I believe certain religions are great in western society, obviously the western societies are founded on ancient Judea law and we really can't complain seeing as we're the most civilized ''community'' in the world.I believe Christianity should only be based on the teachings of Christ and not all the other rubbish that surrounds him., given that objective moral duties do exist, what the content of those duties are. For example, if you were behind a veil of ignorance such that you did not know if you were or were not a Jew living in National Socialist Germany, would you think it morally permissible to incarcerate and exterminate Jews?

 d-usa wrote:
If you are looking at the text without any kind of context, then it won't make sense. That is pretty obvious, look at many parts by themselves and they seem odd and stupid. It's the whole that brings it together.

As a set of laws during Old Testament times it is really not much different than most other set of laws during that time period. Most of society in the world draws from histories that had very similar laws. If you want to write off modern factions for having silly laws in their past then you would write off almost everybody.

It sounds like you are stumbling on to moral relativism. Sam Harris wrote an interesting book on the subject (The Moral Landscape) which puts forth a strong argument on how we determine a moral system without the need of reference to a deity.

It's not difficult to make arguments against child rape for example, using conscious suffering as a scale--without any need of religion.

DacGerm wrote:
It's not just homosexuality in the New Testament though, there are bits about slavery (endorsing it, especially the bit explaining how best to whip etc), horrible sexism which led woman to be second class citizens for years (to some extent still are now) and many many more.

There are also numerous bits in the New Testament about how the Old Testament is the law of God and should be obeyed word for word.

Sure, and you could read those bits, focus entirely on them as absolute, indisputable truths given from God, or you can look at the whole book, the overall themes and messages that have real, lasting power, and put those verses on slavery/marriage etc in the context of that. Which has been the centre of the internal debate within Christianity since they first settled on what would make up the book.

I mean, on slavery for instance, there was a massive debate within Christianity, the abolitionists vs the slave holders. Both quoted scripture at each other, and in the end it only got settled after a really big civil war. Point is, this debate is old.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Well if you don't need saving then what are you on about?

I'm just sick of Christian fundamentalists trying to use their religion in moral authoritarian way to tell me how to live my life.

 sebster wrote:

DacGerm wrote:
It's not just homosexuality in the New Testament though, there are bits about slavery (endorsing it, especially the bit explaining how best to whip etc), horrible sexism which led woman to be second class citizens for years (to some extent still are now) and many many more.

There are also numerous bits in the New Testament about how the Old Testament is the law of God and should be obeyed word for word.

Sure, and you could read those bits, focus entirely on them as absolute, indisputable truths given from God, or you can look at the whole book, the overall themes and messages that have real, lasting power, and put those verses on slavery/marriage etc in the context of that. Which has been the centre of the internal debate within Christianity since they first settled on what would make up the book.

I mean, on slavery for instance, there was a massive debate within Christianity, the abolitionists vs the slave holders. Both quoted scripture at each other, and in the end it only got settled after a really big civil war. Point is, this debate is old.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Well if you don't need saving then what are you on about?

I'm just sick of Christian fundamentalists trying to use their religion in moral authoritarian way to tell me how to live my life.

But does this actually happen to you? I see your flag says Australia, and all I can think is that you must live a very different experience to most Australians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DacGerm wrote:
All I ever get is that people just "know", regardless of anything else. This isn't enough for me, I'm not looking for proof, that would be silly, just some non-wishy-washy replies to my (in my mind) justified queries about the legitimacy of the Bible or other religious texts.... and therefore the religions they underpin themselves.

I think the problem might be that you look first and foremost at the weakest point of the faith - the verses show very outdated values, and ask for an explanation. Well any explanation for that is going to sound fairly weak.

In much the same way, creationists on this website will focus in on the areas of science we don't fully understand, or where models are currently weak or perhaps contradict some evidence, and demand an explanation for that specific thing. Well the replies there that 'we don't know about that just yet' etc will sound just as wishy washy to the asker.

The point is that to really learn about science you have to start with the whole body of work, what we do know and how we learned it. From there you can put those areas where we don't really know into context. And I'd think any genuine enquiry into religion would work in the same way - start with what the religion teaches daily, and what it's good works are. From there any verses that look very dated by modern standards come to be seen in the context of the greater faith.

 rockerbikie wrote:
My family is right winged conservatives except me.

Fair enough, so like I said you live a different experienc to most Australians. Not to diminish that experience, but just to put it in perspective, for Australian society in general there really isn't a great need to fight for the right to live how we want without religious criticism.

It's not so much an issue with religion, as an issue you have with your family, is what I'm saying.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Sam Harris

He could have completely destroyed William Lane Craig in the God Debate 2. He could have feasted on his innards while he showered the extatic students with the scum's blood. He didn't

And for that, he must forever be shunned.

 sebster wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
My family is right winged conservatives except me.

Fair enough, so like I said you live a different experienc to most Australians. Not to diminish that experience, but just to put it in perspective, for Australian society in general there really isn't a great need to fight for the right to live how we want without religious criticism.

It's not so much an issue with religion, as an issue you have with your family, is what I'm saying.

I disagree. Especially when a lot of our government hold strong religious beliefs such that even the Prime Minister (a self confessed atheist) has trouble separating church from state when making decisions or
voicing her opinion. I'm sure anyone who is gay will disagree with you too.

When politicians stop saying The Lords Prayer before each sitting of parliament, then I might change my mind.

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:
I disagree. Especially when a lot of our government hold strong religious beliefs such that even the Prime Minister (a self confessed atheist) has trouble separating church from state when making decisions or
voicing her opinion. I'm sure anyone who is gay will disagree with you too.

And if you think the current policy stance in both parties has anything to do with the strength of religious belief in this country then you really, really need to start looking at some polling data.

Religious belief as a political force is almost non-existant in this country. Commentary on various social issues that should draw religious commentary is almost completely one-sided (seriously, read the letter pages of a newspaper when there's a debate about gay marriage, abortion or euthenasia, they end up these hopelessly one-sided affairs where one or two religious folk get dog-piled by dozens of non-religious folk).

Our politicians don't move forward on the issue because, quite frankly, Australian politics doesn't work that way. Our politics are almost entirely driven by economics, and social issues just don't get the same priority. Hence it taking until the 50s for aboriginals to get full citizenship. Hence abortion still being nominally illegal in many states in Australia, despite being an accepted practice for decades.

Now, you can make a lot of complaints that Australian politics shouldn't work that way, that we should place greater priority on social issues, and I'd agree. But to blame it on the utterly irrelevant religious vote is missing the point.

When politicians stop saying The Lords Prayer before each sitting of parliament, then I might change my mind.

Seriously? There's no requirement to join in, you know.

I really wish people would stop confusing religious freedom with intolerance to the practice of religion by anyone else.

 sebster wrote:


And if you think the current policy stance in both parties has anything to do with the strength of religious belief in this country then you really, really need to start looking at some polling data.

You mean aside from politicians such as Abbot and Katter openly admitting that their religion effects their policy decisions? I'm not talking about 'the religious vote'. I am talking about openly biased politico's making decisions using religion as a basis which Abbot has alluded to doing as Health Minister.

Religious belief as a political force is almost non-existant in this country. Commentary on various social issues that should draw religious commentary is almost completely one-sided (seriously, read the letter pages of a newspaper when there's a debate about gay marriage, abortion or euthenasia, they end up these hopelessly one-sided affairs where one or two religious folk get dog-piled by dozens of non-religious folk).

Good.

Our politicians don't move forward on the issue because, quite frankly, Australian politics doesn't work that way. Our politics are almost entirely driven by economics, and social issues just don't get the same priority. Hence it taking until the 50s for aboriginals to get full citizenship. Hence abortion still being nominally illegal in many states in Australia, despite being an accepted practice for decades.

And if you think the opinions of the heavily Catholic Liberal party haven't influenced any of those topics then you're not paying attention. You think the Australian Christian Lobby has no political pull with Liberals? Is it a coincidence that most of the vocal opposition comes from the religious right of both parties, but especially from Liberal? I don't think so.

Now, you can make a lot of complaints that Australian politics shouldn't work that way, that we should place greater priority on social issues, and I'd agree. But to blame it on the utterly irrelevant religious vote is missing the point.

Again, I don't blame anything on the religious vote in this country. I blame religion in parliament. Abbot, Katter, Conroy, Keating, Rudd, Pyne, Andrews, Nelson, Turnbull, Hocky... The list goes on. It's fine for these people to have a religion but it's not fine for it to be brought into the halls of parliament.

When politicians stop saying The Lords Prayer before each sitting of parliament, then I might change my mind.

Seriously? There's no requirement to join in, you know.

There's also no requirement to seek the blessing of God before each sitting of Parliament. Especially in what is essentially supposed to be a secular Government.

I really wish people would stop confusing religious freedom with intolerance to the practice of religion by anyone else.

Religious freedom is all well and good when you keep it in your home. When you bring it out into the streets and put it in Government, that's when I take issue. You can worship your fething coffee table while you're at home for all I give a gak.

When you start taking things like abortion, gay marriage, school curriculum etc and injecting your religion into it it is totally inappropriate.

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:
When you start taking things like abortion, gay marriage, school curriculum etc and injecting your religion into it it is totally inappropriate.

So you believe religious individuals should be banned from politics? Does that simply include running for office, or does it also extend to voting?

 Seaward wrote:

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:
When you start taking things like abortion, gay marriage, school curriculum etc and injecting your religion into it it is totally inappropriate.

So you believe religious individuals should be banned from politics? Does that simply include running for office, or does it also extend to voting?

No that's not what I said at all. People are entirely capable of performing their job without letting their religious views compromise their judgement. Whether it be a doctor prescribing contraceptives or a politician agreeing that Evolution should be taught in schools.

I am what has been described to me as Militantly Atheist in my personal life. However, I routinely deal with religious people at my work place without smashing them in the forehead with my views and, even if asked I probably wouldn't give them because it's unprofessional. One of my favorite customers in fact is a nice old Greek Orthodox Catholic and another is a practicing Minister. Neither of these fella's have tried to proselytize me and I don't openly mock their religion in front of them.

It's entirely possible for a politician to do their job without bringing their religion into it but if they can't do that then they should step down.

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:

Religious freedom is all well and good when you keep it in your home. When you bring it out into the streets and put it in Government, that's when I take issue. You can worship your fething coffee table while you're at home for all I give a gak.

When you start taking things like abortion, gay marriage, school curriculum etc and injecting your religion into it it is totally inappropriate.

So basically, religious freedom is all well and good as long as you only enjoy that freedom in secret. What is the point of having any sort of freedom if it doesn't extend at least some extent into the public sphere?

 Hordini wrote:

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:

Religious freedom is all well and good when you keep it in your home. When you bring it out into the streets and put it in Government, that's when I take issue. You can worship your fething coffee table while you're at home for all I give a gak.

When you start taking things like abortion, gay marriage, school curriculum etc and injecting your religion into it it is totally inappropriate.

So basically, religious freedom is all well and good as long as you only enjoy that freedom in secret. What is the point of having any sort of freedom if it doesn't extend at least some extent into the public sphere?

Obviously a misrepresentation of what I said. I don't remember putting 'secret' in there at all but fine, I'll rephrase it for the nit-pickers - Religious freedom is all well and good when you keep it in your personal life.

You have churches, friends, groups of people, internet chat rooms etc etc etc etc. Did I really need to spell that out?

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:
No that's not what I said at all. People are entirely capable of performing their job without letting their religious views compromise their judgement. Whether it be a doctor prescribing contraceptives or a politician agreeing that Evolution should be taught in schools.

It is what you said, actually. You said that people should not allow their religious views to interfere with politics. The trouble with that is, for an awful lot of religious people, their religion is the font of their morality. One's stance on controversial issues often comes down to a determination of what's moral, and, for a religious person, that is, by default, going to be influenced by their religiously-inspired morals. So, to get what you want, you'd need to prevent religious people from being involved in politics.

Or are they perfectly fine to vote against abortion as long as they don't say why?

 Seaward wrote:

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:
No that's not what I said at all. People are entirely capable of performing their job without letting their religious views compromise their judgement. Whether it be a doctor prescribing contraceptives or a politician agreeing that Evolution should be taught in schools.

It is what you said, actually. You said that people should not allow their religious views to interfere with politics. The trouble with that is, for an awful lot of religious people, their religion is the font of their morality. One's stance on controversial issues often comes down to a determination of what's moral, and, for a religious person, that is, by default, going to be influenced by their religiously-inspired morals. So, to get what you want, you'd need to prevent religious people from being involved in politics.

Or are they perfectly fine to vote against abortion as long as they don't say why?

Then perhaps they should abstain from a vote that they cannot in good conscience participate in due to a previously held bias... like any reasonable person should do when faced with something controversial that they cannot hold an objective opinion on. Not only that, but it's often a vote on something which will influence millions of people many, of which don't hold even remotely similar beliefs or morals to them making their actions that much more selfish.

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:
Then perhaps they should abstain from a vote that they cannot in good conscience participate in due to a previously held bias... like any reasonable person should do when faced with something controversial that they cannot hold an objective opinion on. Not only that, but it's often a vote on something which will influence millions of people many, of which don't hold even remotely similar beliefs or morals to them making their actions that much more selfish.

Ah, so you think your morality is purely objective, then?

As for whether or not millions of people disagree, I fail to see why that's a reasonable argument. Millions of people will disagree with them, but millions of people will agree with them. Furthermore, millions of people will agree with you, but millions of people will disagree with you. What gives you the right to impose your morality on them?

Then perhaps they should abstain from a vote that they cannot in good conscience participate in due to a previously held bias

Yeah, cause the religious are the only ones who vote with a bias.

If you think people with bias shouldn't vote, then the election will get determined by a few dozen people every year.

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:

Religious freedom is all well and good when you keep it in your home. When you bring it out into the streets and put it in Government, that's when I take issue. You can worship your fething coffee table while you're at home for all I give a gak.

When you start taking things like abortion, gay marriage, school curriculum etc and injecting your religion into it it is totally inappropriate.

So basically, religious freedom is all well and good as long as you only enjoy that freedom in secret. What is the point of having any sort of freedom if it doesn't extend at least some extent into the public sphere?

Obviously a misrepresentation of what I said. I don't remember putting 'secret' in there at all but fine, I'll rephrase it for the nit-pickers - Religious freedom is all well and good when you keep it in your personal life.

You have churches, friends, groups of people, internet chat rooms etc etc etc etc. Did I really need to spell that out?

It's not an exact quote of what you said, but I don't think it's a misrepresentation. You said "religious freedom is all well and good when you keep it in your home." If you can only practice your religion at home, that would imply keeping it from others, or in other words, secret. At least in terms of the general public.

Well obvious Hordini he just shouldn't vote. I mean, if we ever have a referendum on whether or not religious people should be allowed to voice their religion in public, he'd vote no. Clearly he's biased.

It's never been about the morality of man that bothers me. What bothers me is the historical progression of sin and blood sacrifice in the face of man's eminent death. It's difficult to accept that this is the basis for all human reality. That the connection between an all powerful and loving God, and mortal man is so fragile as to rest on a mystical contract based on blood sacrifice. Then fear of death hits and well...we all die alone. Judgement day.

 LordofHats wrote:
Well obvious Hordini he just shouldn't vote. I mean, if we ever have a referendum on whether or not religious people should be allowed to voice their religion in public, he'd vote no. Clearly he's biased.

Everyone is biased one way or the other, this bias is often referred to as opinion.

I think the key is that religion cannot be changed, therefore giving that person an unchangeable bias. Abortion, according to the Bible is wrong as it is murder, and gay marriage is not allowed. These biases can never be changed, as it is set in stone (so to speak), so no matter how good the argument the bias cannot be shifted.

When you remove yourself from Religion you are not automatically saying everything should be the opposite of the Bible, your bias can be changed with reasonably argument. (For example a non-religious argument against gay marriage is that when two gay people get married they have no rights if they catch their partner cheating with someone of the same sex, as "infidelity" is defined as happening between a man and a woman within marriage, so they have more rights in a Civil Partnership, in UK anyways)

Of course if you are a Christian that does not take he whole of the bible as writ (as it seems most do) then your bias is changeable by reasonably argument, and therefore that bias is fine.

Hope this makes sense.

DacGerm wrote:


I think the key is that religion cannot be changed, therefore giving that person an unchangeable bias.

Then you don't know much about religion. Evangelists 200 years ago would be shocked at how liberal modern Christians are. And 1000 years ago?

EDIT: And I wasn't being serious. I was pointing out how ridiculous another posters comment was on its face.

DacGerm wrote:
I think the key is that religion cannot be changed

Except for when it does, which is all the time. Sure, for some, religion is stone, but for many it is a journey and about reflection on the nature of self, god, and the relationship between the two. It isn't that people who break from older modes of thinking are not practicing their religion, they very much often are. This is why you have many Christians who are ok with gay marriages, nuns calling for birth control, and a myriad of other things that don't fit the paradigm of hate and intolerance that is used to paint the religious. There is no reason to believe that people can expand their understanding of religion with time just as we expand our understanding of any field of endeavor. For example, people are still transforming and coming up with meaning in secular writings like that of Jung and Freud in psychology.

I was only saying that the whole bias thing only applies to people who are unwilling to listen to reasoned arguments (i.e. someone fundamentally religious who sticks to the bible, or numerous other examples, religious or not).

I know that most Christians don't stick to the bible word for word, as I said at the end of my post.

The bias that isn't wanted is the unchangeable kind, which I imagine would be the minority (in religious and nonreligious alike), that was my only point.

It's pretty simple to understand what I've said so I don't feel the need to address all the nit-picks and strawman's.

If it's okay for religion to effect what laws are made in any country, then it is okay for extreme interpretations of Sharia law to be imposed. It's okay for Scientology to demand that every child in our schools are tested for Thetans (or whatever it is those loony's do) and that the teachings of the Greek Pantheon be used as school curriculum instead of Evolution. It's okay for blood transfusions to be outlawed for everyone, because Jehovah's Witnesses are against them. Contraception to be banned. On and on and on it goes. I can even invent a religion if I get enough followers and then I can start making laws too!! Now that's a scary thought!

Oh but wait... we all know there IS a problem with all those things don't we? One by one we're eliminating them all. Slowly we're gaining equality for women. No crazy people allowed near our medicine anymore. Contraception given out freely. Evolution is taught in (most) schools. Slowly we're approaching a society where there is some real equality and some real religious freedom, at least in Australia. All we have left are the really tough issues... The ones that the religious don't want to let go of. Those will all get resolved too because most reasonable people agree that your religion should not have an effect on how I choose to live my life.

Since all religions are as valid as each other then there's no problem with putting a country under a law which says woman are not equal to men, allowed to go to school or divorce their husbands. That is the long and the short of allowing religion into government. Just because it's predominantly catholic politicians in my country it doesn't change the fact that policy decisions should not be based on ANY religious doctrine and if a person cannot put aside their religious beliefs in order to govern effectively, then they should step down.

To use the truncated language of the internet:

>> complains about straw men
>> introduces false choice fallacy

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:
Those will all get resolved too because most reasonable people agree that your religion should not have an effect on how I choose to live my life.

Why should your own personal morality have an effect on how I choose to live mine?

As long as a government is based on democracy there is no problem with proposing laws based on any particular religion.

The proposals that do not find favour with the majority will not pass into the statutes.

 Paint_To_Redemption wrote:
You mean aside from politicians such as Abbot and Katter openly admitting that their religion effects their policy decisions? I'm not talking about 'the religious vote'. I am talking about openly biased politico's making decisions using religion as a basis which Abbot has alluded to doing as Health Minister.

Yeah, we all know about Abbott and his run as health minister. And we know that when he tried to block RU-486 he was openly attacked by most sections of Australian society, and backed down on the issue as quickly as possible.

And when your other reference point is a lunatic that both parties ignore as much as possible, well then... I think you can see my point is quite correct.

And if you think the opinions of the heavily Catholic Liberal party haven't influenced any of those topics then you're not paying attention. You think the Australian Christian Lobby has no political pull with Liberals? Is it a coincidence that most of the vocal opposition comes from the religious right of both parties, but especially from Liberal? I don't think so.

Heavily Catholic Liberal Party? The fething what? I mean, do you follow politics in this country at all?

Because there is decades of discussion about the strength of Catholic groups within NSW Labor... and while there ability to influence policy remains heavily debated to this day, there is nothing like that within the Liberal party.

It seems to me all you've done is notice the Opposition Leader is a Catholic and figured they must control the party. Read more.

Again, I don't blame anything on the religious vote in this country. I blame religion in parliament. Abbot, Katter, Conroy, Keating, Rudd, Pyne, Andrews, Nelson, Turnbull, Hocky... The list goes on. It's fine for these people to have a religion but it's not fine for it to be brought into the halls of parliament.

Turnbull opposes Roman Catholic teaching on abortion and stem cells. Read.

There's also no requirement to seek the blessing of God before each sitting of Parliament. Especially in what is essentially supposed to be a secular Government.

And when that's the issue you have to resort to in order to fidn something to complain about, that's pretty good evidence there really isn't an issue at all.

Religious freedom is all well and good when you keep it in your home. When you bring it out into the streets and put it in Government, that's when I take issue. You can worship your fething coffee table while you're at home for all I give a gak.

Yeah, that's you dressing up your religious intolerance as religious freedom. "Oh, you can be as religious as you want, but you can't do it in the streets." It's douchebaggery of the first kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
So basically, religious freedom is all well and good as long as you only enjoy that freedom in secret. What is the point of having any sort of freedom if it doesn't extend at least some extent into the public sphere?

Exactly. Well said.

It's fairly common for religious people to dress up their own intolerance to others as religious freedom, and now from this thread it appears there's at least one atheist doing the same bs.

FWIW, I don't think it's religious people doing this on one hand and atheists doing it on the other. Religious people and atheist people from the same society seem to have more in common than is different between them. Intolerance is possible in certain societies even if the religions or a-religious values that also exist in those societies do not support or even actively oppose it.