From: michael 2/10/99 10:02:32 Subject: Soulless Nation! post id: 41861 Why is it recognised overseas that Australia is an 'athesist' nation by in large?The US has no problems with discussion of say christianity..where in Australia we seem to wince when the topic is addressed. Most other countries have these things as 'normal' or cultural...do we then stand alone as soulless aussies or brave questioners? From: MichaelT 2/10/99 10:11:21 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41862 It may be possible that places like Europe have grown up with Christianity and are used to it, and accept it because it has always been there. America on the other hand seem to have a lot of very vocal christians who influence the general acceptance of religion by brute force. Australia are generally a bunch of battlers who have grown out of such spiritual needs, and are able to make up our own minds without influence from third parties. Well, that's my view of things anyway. Yours may vary, contents may settle in transit. Regards, MichaelT From: =MadDog= 2/10/99 10:27:59 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41868 Atheist = soulless? Not sure what point exactly you are making but I wouldn't have thought the world viewed us as an atheist nation. You only need to view our parliament question time to see the Lords prayer being said. The proposed preamble to our constitution states that we are "under God"? (now that makes me wince). Since the "soul" is an imaginary and illogical concept I can't comment on that but as for the common misconception that atheists have no "morals" I find this to be quite absurd. On the contrary I believe that Christian teaching convinces most people that 1/ humans are the chosen ones (made in the image of God himself) and that the beasts and animals have been put there by God for our benefit and enjoyment. ( bit of a worry that one) 2/ All the "saved" will go to heaven and all us "unsaved" will go to hell come the Judgement Day so........it doesnt really matter what state we leave the planet in does it?? None of this makes me proud to be part of a Christian nation. I just wish more of us were atheists and not afraid to admit it! From: sam 2/10/99 10:59:07 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41875 how about agnostic.. I'd say a large proportion of people would really be agnostic in essence, even though through tradition they stay with one church - I mean, I'm supposed to be anglican, but it's only in name, and yeah, my beliefs, while entirely in transit at the moment, rest on agnostic. From: =MadDog= 2/10/99 11:10:33 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41881 Agnostic? what a cop-out! Talk about sitting on the fence. Like almost ALL of my acquaintances you will go through life not really believing but keeping your options open "just in case" ? "there must be something in it if so many people believe it"? I'm pretty sure you've never accepted anything else in life without "reasonable" proof or "evidence" so why sit on the fence with this one? The influence of religion on our politics ,society ,laws etc is only possible because the churches have few critics in Australia who are brave enough to speak out. Please dont take this personally sam as its certainly not aimed at you. And yes for those of you who are going to point out to me that this is a science forum.....its because of my love of science that I feel so strongly about religious beliefs and their effect on our society. Regards =MadDog= From: sam 2/10/99 11:17:09 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41883 :) I can see why you'd say that - but why does it have to be a cop out. If there are so many religions out there, (and there are) how are we supposed to be able to decide which is the 'right' one? Certainly we've seen the scientific rationalism doesn't work in such cases. It seems to me that we basically accept the church that we're brought up with for a good while, then either continue with that for the sake of it, or become aetheist. I don't like organised religion no, the fact that they can vary so much also poses a problem to me. While I tend to be scientifically minded, I'm not prepared to rule out the existence of God just yet, but I do think that organised religion is more politics than religion. In a sense you're right that I'm sitting on the fence - I haven't made up my on whether I do believe or not... I am studying many arguments in philosophy, but unfortunately neither side has convinced me that the other is wrong of yet. What convinced you, if yuo don't mind me asking? From: Lib 2/10/99 11:29:27 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41884 Being a biologist I have real trouble with the Christian faith. As far as I'm concerned humans are just another animal that has evolved on this planet. The only problem is our brains are too big and we're now out of control - shitting in our own nest. I find myself most attracted to the beliefs of the aboriginal people of many countries - spirit in the land, water, plants and animals. My church is the wilderness - corny I know - but to me it is the most spiritual of places. Maybe this is just a rebellion from having been religiously brow beaten during six years at an Anglican school. My only concession is that I think there may have been a greater force (god like or otherwise) at work initially. After all, what created the Big Bang??? What was there before the Big Bang? Maybe we are just someone’s long running experiment on a giant petri dish! From: sam 2/10/99 11:33:51 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41886 That's pretty much my problem Lib - certainly if I did choose to believe in god, it wouldn't be an interventionist god. The only thing that religion offers is a solution to the infinite regress that science suffers from. I have lots of problems with christianity, and the other religions as well, but like I said, I haven't ruled out some 'higher' power that started it all off - like you say, before the big bang. Equally, there might have been some other, secular explanation, which I also have not discounted yet. From: =MadDog= 2/10/99 11:35:18 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41887 "If there are so many religions out there, (and there are) how are we supposed to be able to decide which is the 'right' one?" Why does there have to be a right one sam? "Certainly we've seen the scientific rationalism doesn't work in such cases." Well you're probably right sam but an example would be good. As to why Im an atheist I wish you hadn't asked ;-) Basically like yourself and many others I was brought up in a religious family (Methodist) and believed what I was expected to for many years (shame my school teachers didn't give me more motivation to be skeptical and enquiring) But of course I did become skeptical and started to wonder if my mother can lie about santa clause and where babies come from and Noahs ark etc then maybe I better start looking deeper. I was probably agnostic till about 25 years old. I am now over 40 years old and figure thats its about time to just admit what Ive allways felt and that is that there is allways a rational scientific explanation for "almost" everything and if there isnt one........then dont neccassarily go for the supernatural explanation. Surely you can see that religion was almost a neccessity in human evolution to explain and predict the world to early humans.But the early priests became so proficient at deception and basically have built an empire that is based on fear and ignorance. regards =MadDog= From: Lib 2/10/99 11:45:52 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41889 "If there are so many religions out there, (and there are) how are we supposed to be able to decide which is the 'right' one?" Ever seen the skit by Rowan Atkinson? From: =MadDog= 2/10/99 11:49:40 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41890 which skit Lib? Im sure I would have seen it but I can't think which one you mean now? From: mjr 2/10/99 11:49:55 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41891 I have seen the skit your talking about..... And my Dad's a Lawyer....think I will be affected???*lol* From: Lib 2/10/99 11:52:44 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41892 The one where he plays the devil greeting people of various religions to hell. From: sam 2/10/99 11:57:31 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41893 Why does there have to be a right one? Well, you said yourself that there's a rational scientific explanation for almost everything... this would suggest an objective 'truth' yeah? So (excluding quantum mechanics here.. :) something either is, or it isn't. I'm not saying it's black and white and grey doesn't exist - but in the cases of many relgions which are vastly different, then it is logically impossible for both to be true - therefore necessarily either one or both is wrong (which doesn't of course mean that the other is right). I see what you mean, it could well be that all of them are wrong... but then all scientific theory might be wrong too, and we still choose to believe in parts of that. An example of scientific rationalism not working for religion... ooohhh... go back a fair way - I think there's a few threads... try doing a search for "Kansas" or something (I think the thread was called I don't think we're in Kansas anymore....). I'm too scared to try to elaborate... :) Yeah, I grew up in a sort of religious family - never went to church or anything though. My mother was catholic and my father methodist... I think us being anglican was a compromise, which is just ironic. I questioned it of course... but I'm sure you've found that rationally questioning someone's belief, when that belief is based solely on faith and tradition is pointless. They just won't look at other possibilities... which is why it's hard to find rational arguments for either. That's why I find philosophy interesting. I don't accept the bible, I've never even read the whole thing - it's full of a lot of stuff that I find is contradictory, both to itself and the ideal of christianity. And you're right - we shouldn't automatically go for the supernatural explanation - inference to the best explanation is full of problems - but then if science has no explanation, how can we rationally rule it out as a possibility? That seems to be as stubborn as blind faith. Again, I agree that perhaps religion was evolutionarily necessary, we do need something to believe in now... but if it was necessary, why can we drop it now? Because of the progress of science? Maybe. Like I said, I do think organised religion is more political than relgious, and no doubt god fearing people = church fearing people, it provides a good basis of power. We only need to look at the Church during the Renaissance when it struggled for power with the emperors for power of Europe. Sadly, that is too true, which forms the basis for agnosticism for me. Lastly (whew) you say that relgion is based on ignorance - as in w hat - trying to explain the unknown? - Isn't that just what science does to? :) To be fair, perhaps the only reason that I'm giving faith the benefit of the doubt when I'm not sure and trying to decide, is because of my upbringing. Certainly it's not a case of Pascal's wager or anything. From: Lib 2/10/99 12:00:29 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41895 Sorry, my mind must be going. Doesn't have much to do with religion at all actually. Found the transcript of the sketch at last. Lib A Warm Welcome [The Devil, carrying a clipboard, descends from stairs amid swirling smoke and screams of anguish. The Devil looks at the audience and starts his speech:] "Ah hello!. It's nice to see you all here. As the more perceptive of you probably realised by now, this is Hell. And I am the Devil, good evening, but you can call me Toby, if you like. We try to keep things informal in here, as well as infernal. That's just a little joke of mine. I tell it every time. Now, you're all here for ..... Eternity! Ooh, which I hardly need tell you is a heck of a long time, so you'll all get to know each other pretty well by the end. But for now I'm going to have to split you up in groups. Will you stop Screaming! Thank you. Now, murderers? Murderers over here, please. Thank you. Looters and Pillagers over there. Thieves, if you could join them, and Lawyers, you're in that lot too. Fornicators, if you could step forward? My God, there are a lot of you! Could I split you up into Adulterers and the rest. Male adulterers, if you could just form a line in front of that small Guillotine in the corner. Em... The French, are you here? If you could just like to come down here with the Germans. I'm sure you'll have plenty to talk about. Okay, atheists? Atheists over here please. You must be feeling a right bunch of Nitwits. Never mind. And finally, christians. Christians? Ah, yes, I'm sorry but I'm afraid the Jews were right. If you would come down here, that would be really fine. Okay! Right, well are there any questions? Yes. No, I'm afraid there aren't any toilets. If you read your Bible, you might have seen that it was damnation without relief, so if you did not go before you came, then I'm afraid you're not going to enjoy yourself very much, but then I believe that's the idea. Okay. Well, it's over to you, Adolf! And I'll catch you all later at the barbecue. Bye! From: =MadDog= 2/10/99 12:09:56 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41898 yeah I simply meant that most religions dont encourage people to search for truth if its going to contradict the biblical teaching. Maybe not so much in Australia but in other countries where Catholicism is the norm Im sure that science takes a back seat to religious studies in most schools. And Lib I have the vaguest recollection of Rowan Atkinson doing that skit but alas I dont remember one of the gags :( I could quote Monty Python skits word for word though ;-) From: Chris W (Avatar) 2/10/99 12:12:29 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41899 I am very happy to live in a (largely) secular state, where neither religion nor the military have substantial power within government. If the rest of the world sees this as negative then so be it. I too, wince at the proposed wording of the preamble, not because I'm anti-religion, but because it excludes those (substantial) numbers that either have no religious belief in a god, or believe in a god or gods of a non-Christian flavour. These people, myself included, are as much Australians as the others. It took some time to provide god-less affirmations that could be used in place of the original oaths in the constitution, and now we seek to put God right up there. To drag this back toward a science related discussion for a moment... Agnosticism is compatible with a scientific viewpoint. To "leave one's options open" toward the existence of a god-like entity is compatible with the open-mindedness required by scientific endeavours. After all, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. A God, with all that entails, is a concept that is necessarily outside the realm of scientific proof or disproof. So, science will not provide the evidence to support moving off the fence toward either atheism or religious fervour. Religious fundamentalism is responsible for suppression of scientific knowledge in many places. Recently Christian fundamentalists succeeded in having evolution remove from school curricula in several US states. I don't think following the lead in this area is a good thing. Perhaps a soul-less secular state should be held up as a shining example. From: =MadDog= 2/10/99 12:24:11 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41900 LOL thanks so much Lib!!! I really appreciate you finding that for me I remember it well now!! Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? ;-) Regards =MadDog= From: sam 2/10/99 12:32:07 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41901 MadDog... Yeah, I agree with you - most religions don't encourage searching at all, and for supposedly tolerant and forgiving beliefs, they can be surprisingingly intolerant and unforgiving at times (ie burn in hell for eternity... :) It's sad when you see the church interfering with learning in schools and the like - Steve(primus) told us about being asked to leave one catholic (i think) school he was visiting when he insisted the world was as old as is scientifically believed to be. On the skit... unfortunately I haven't seen him do anything other than Mr. Bean, so I have this odd picture of Mr. Bean as the devil now... :) (hey, I'm only young - I was little when black adder was on...) Chris W - yep, me too. Secular state is good for me, as I keep saying over and over, I think that religion is overstepping its role when it tries to interfere with politics. That pre-amble was pretty bad, wasn't it... ? :) I guess little johnny had a strong religious upbringing. Perhaps people should look at it like a scientific theory - unproven, so believe in it if you wish. Certainly they wouldn't put some unsubstantiated scientific claim in it, and in that sense the absurdity is similar. There's always gonig to be a problem with the preamble anyway - national identity is forever changing, more than ever with the increasing globalisation. Changing the constitution altogether is considered too dangerous - and yet we can see that what was relevent and socially consistent 100 years is now not so. It's prob'ly an ignorant view, but to me it seems that the constitution itself merely an outdated document which enshrines the values of society 100 years ago. To be safest, since they are so reluctant to change anything it would surely be best to be as general as possible, and find a real bottom line, something that all australians have in common, rather than sections. Mind you, jeff's was pretty bad too... :) Umm, yes, agnosticism does seem to be compatible with scientific thought, which is another reason that I like it - unlike religion, you can hold it without discounting science out of hand. In that sense, perhaps it is sort of more tolerant... I don't know. You said that religious fundamentalism is responsible for suppression of scientific knowledge in many places... again, I have to agree with you, and that they were able to remove evolutionary theory from the curriculum is a disgrace. At the very least, they could offer both to the student, and let them decide for themselves. From: Em 2/10/99 12:34:25 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41902 I think the perception that we are a souless nation, by other countries, is more a product of media manipulation by that particular country than active promotion by our own country. Esp. in the USA. Think of how 'The Aussie' is portrayed. As far as my personal beliefs, I'm agnostic, I simply can't believe in the concept of 'gods and goddesses' supernatural being, but I can't actively disbelieve or disprove them either. So I'm stuck on the proverbial fence. It's too reassuring/comforting in a way, that the concept that we all are equal in a beings eyes, and have someone looking out for us when our parents or loved ones have passed on, when we are in need and to keep us in check morally. It is also frightening and awe-inspiring that such a being may exist. And finally that, beyond my biological purpose, there is another purpose to my existance. Although the some forms of faith (christian (mainly catholic), muslim) don't have any morals IMHO and have a lot to answer for. Esp. as far as women are concerned. Anyone read Darwins Dangerous Idea by DC Dennett? From: steve(primus) 2/10/99 12:34:55 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41903 I agree about the preamble Chris. Without those four words at the start, I could vote for it, even though I don't think it goes far enough. With the first four words, there is no way I can vote for it. Religion achieves two things. Humans are possibly the only animals that know they are going to die. The offer of an afterlife, which is common to all religions, allows us to get on with an orderly existence on Earth. The second aspect is to explain the inexplicable. As science explains more and more of our universe, so religious beliefs decline. The fundamentalists do not accept this and so they fight science wherever they can. There is certainly room for both science and religion. Many notable scientists have strongly held religious beliefs. The major religions adapt to scientific discoveries but still reinforce the belief in the afterlife. I have no problem with that. I think the difference between the USA and Australia in regard to religion is that although both countries were British penal colonies, the religious oppression that marked early America did not occur in Australia. We did not have religious laws but secular ones, while in pre-revolution America, heresy was a capital offence in some colonies. Although both the USA and Australia have no State religion, the USA is seen as a predominantly Protestant country while Australia is seen as more tolerant. From: sam 2/10/99 12:43:47 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41905 I was watching that 'unreal tv' a week or three ago, and there was this thing from America, some show of a preacher of sorts. It had this big sing a long thing, and then they started having all these scenes of heaven and the angels (picturing all of this of course in your usual corny american style) as well as God standing in the middle saying, gesturing to heaven about him - "all this can be yours..." Like a game show... :) From: Em 2/10/99 13:53:45 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41909 Evangelists than feed of the insecurities of us all are weak and vultures. They deserved to be mocked on unreal tv, and the saddest thing is some people actually believe that crap. IMHO From: sam 2/10/99 14:13:27 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41910 Yes, I agree with you Em... I had this email sent to me out of nowhere... Hello Friend… The Lord put it in my heart to write this letter and send it to as many people as possible. So I am doing it for his glory. The reason for this letter is to give you an invitation to become a child of God! This is the most valuable gift anyone can receive and yet it costs nothing to have. Jesus Christ came down to this Earth and paid the price for you and I, and that is why it is a free gift. He was ridiculed and mocked and yet he opened not his mouth and was crucified on a cross, because he loves us so very much. You are probably asking what must I do to receive this Gift of ETERNAL SALVATION? Well the answer is so simple, most people dont accept it, and think they aren't good enough or too much of a sinner for God to love them. But that is so far from the truth, you see that is why Jesus came to Earth, for the sinners. He came to give us life where there was only death. HE LOVES YOU very much and please do not let anyone ever tell you differently. In John 3:16 it says, "For God so loved the world, he gave his only son, that WHOSOEVER believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". and in Romans 10:13 it says, "WHOSOEVER shall call on the name of the Lord shall be Saved" that means YOU and me. Some people think they are so bad that God doesn't want them, but that word WHOSOEVER means all of us. So smile, God wants you as well. To receive the gift of salvation, we need to acknowledge that we are sinners and we need to repent of our sins. The word repent means to turn away from the sin. Then we need to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Meaning to believe in our heart that Jesus came to Earth and died for our sins! By praying a simple but powerful prayer called the "sinners prayer". Its not just saying some words and moving on, you see God looks at the person’s heart. That is why when you pray the prayer, it has to be from your whole heart. ARE YOU READY TO PRAY? Pray these words from your heart God, I'm sorry for my sins. Right now, I turn from My sins and ask you to forgive me. Thank you for Sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross for my sins. Jesus, I ask you to come into my life and be my Lord, Savior, and Friend. Thank you for forgiving Me and giving me eternal life. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen If you prayed this prayer and meant it, you can be sure that God has forgiven you and received you into his family! To start your new life in Jesus, take these proven steps: 1. Get into a local Church--find a good bible believing, teaching church. A healthy church will give you opportunities to expand your new life in Jesus. 2. Read the bible everyday--thats God's way of talking to his children. Start with the New Testament book of Mark; ask the Lord to teach you as you read. The bible has power to speak to your daily life. 3. Speak to God each day in prayer--Bring your troubles and problems to God because he cares for you. Give thanks to God for all that you do. The Lord will guide you because he is committed to your new life. God Bless You, The Lord's Servant Also: The letter has been sent to saved and unsaved people of the world. I pray that the unsaved, accept the free gift of eternal salvation. And I pray the saved, that receive this letter will pass it on to their unsaved friends and relatives. We are all trying to reach the lost in some way, so I hope and pray this letter the Holy Spirit led me to write will be a blessing to everyone who reads it. God Bless You Send you mockery to : Servant Of the Lord :) From: sam 2/10/99 14:15:17 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41911 No idea where it came from... maybe I'm on a cyber sinners' list... :) From: Em 2/10/99 14:37:42 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41912 Urgh, hope i don't get it, what a load of crap. I wonder, has the concept of cyber-sin entered the vatican (ie pope) and religious thought? Is cyber-sex a sin, like traffic offences? From: Artos 2/10/99 15:52:05 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41913 Having just read through this whole thread with a great deal of interest, I thought I'd put my two cents worth in...(kinda like the old collection plate!) I'm a "lapsed" Catholic...I stopped going to church and participating in Catholicism in my early twenties, when it finally dawned on me how pernisious much of the present Pope's teachings are and the extent to which this nonsense was unthinkingly promulgated throughout the church... I don't have an argument with religion per se...in fact, I have a deep interest in theology and philosophy...the problem as I see it is when individuals maintain exclusivist views about their religion. In such a context, their religion is "the truth" and all other systems of thought and faith are either "wrong" or "evil". Such exclusivism, of course, is better known as fundamentalism. This kind of fundamentalism is not only practiced by tele-evangelists and the so-called "charismatic" churches (an incredibly dangerous, money-grabbing lot) but by the heirarchy of the "established" or "mainstream" churches. For example, in a recent visit to Cuba, the Pope condemned socialism and called on Castro to democratise that nation. All well and good, but highly hypocritical from someone who runs an organisation that recently condemned Australian Catholic bishops for allowing "Australian egalitarianism" to "infest" the church. In addition to which, the Catholic church is plagued by a host of "secret societies" (my grandfather was a member of one) that spy on priests to ensure they preach "God's word" as interpreted by PJPII, as well as threaten catholics who publish books critical of the Vatican with excommunication. (For an example of fundamentalism at work in another "mainstream" church, read Dr Peter Cameron' excellent - though frigtening - book, "Heretic"). I prefer to speak in terms of ethics as opposed to morals. The difference? As far as I see it,morals are "codes" which are imposed by third parties...thou shalt not, and thou does, then thou shalt go to hell! On the other hand, i think ethics are things which evolve from within, and derive essentially from a capacity to place ourselves "in the other person's shoes" - in other words, from a sense of empathy. The essential difference is that moral codes are self-contained and deny the validity of other perspectives; ethics, on the other hand, are open-minded, and receptive to the views and feelings of others. That's why i decided to leave the Church...because I made an ethical decision that I could no longer be party to an organisation that, as a matter of "faith", discriminated against people on the basis of their gender and sexuality. And all of this under the justification of papal "infallibility", a bankrupt doctrine invented in the 19th century in an attempt to shore up papal authority. That's why I think science is so valuable...because it is the only system of human thought or belief which is self-correcting. No matter how delayed, or grudging initially, when even the greatest scientists are discovered to have made a mistake, that mistake is recognised and corrected...and then the "new" version is tested again and again and again...in this way, nothing becomes an "orthodoxy". As for my own beliefs...I'm not sure what label, if any, could be applied to them. I was deeply influenced by the "Meditations" of Marcus Aurelius in my late teens and remain so to this day. There is also much in Buddhist, Taoist, Jain, Hindu and Christian teaching (as distinct from the dogma of the church) that i think is admirable. As for a belief in a God...I think Carl Sagan summed it up best when he said: "I would be more inclined to believe in a cosmic god as opposed to a specific god for our planet." But whether or not such a God exists...who knows? I'm not sure it's even relevant. I guess at this time I'm pretty much like Christiaan Huygens: "Science is my religion, the world my home". And though I don't want science becomming "religious" I think it's as about as close as we're likely to get to a "pure" system of thought. Artos :0) From: Artos 2/10/99 16:16:51 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41918 Having just re-read my tome, I think I should provide a couple of clarifications: Fundamentalists, of course, are only dangerous if they are able to assume positions of power and authority. Whether within churches, society, government, or elsewhere, fundamentalists are otherwise helpless unless, through neglect, apathy, or just sheer laziness, we allow them to take over. Corny and nationalistic it might sound, but Jefferson was right when he said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Unless we want to succumb to intellectual fascism, we need to ensure fundamentalists remain powerless. Having said that, I would in no way advocate a crackdown or persecution of fundamentalists. The hardest thing about being a "progressive" (and I consider myself one) is to allow others the freedom we claim for ourselves. That necessarily means allowing others the freedom to be fascists. Progressivism must always fight fascism (intellectual, political, or religious) in the marketplace of ideas and the free-for-all of intellectual exchange. From my previous post, you might have thought I was "down" on the Catholic Church. In fact, I'm not. My anger comes from a sense of the good that established churches might otherwise be capable, and the extent to which this is squandered for the sake of control over the lives of religious adherents. For an example of the good that churches and priests are capable, refer the so-called "liberation theologists" who have been at the forefront of democracy movements in places like East Timor and Latin America (a group who, incidentally, have also come under attack from the present Pope). I might also say I admire groups within the church such as the Jesuits. Due largely to their commitment to education and learning, the Jesuits have gone from being the "shock troops" of the papacy to the de facto progressive opposition to the Vatican's reactionaryism (sp?). In fact, an ex-partner of mine once told me she hadn't even heard of socialism until introduced to it by a group of Jesuits!! I think the problem of all religions in essence is that they don't cultivate a sense of doubt - "happy are those who have not seen and yet believe". I think the best thing the church could do is establish an Order of St Thomas the Doubter, because faith without doubt is fundamentalism. Artos :0) From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 2/10/99 16:57:26 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41923 Does anyone have access to statistics on church attendance and 'stated religion' across different nations? Although I have none such, I would be surprised if the proportion of Australians that identified as atheist is greater than the corresponding proportion of French, German, Netherlandic, UKian etc. From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 2/10/99 17:03:01 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41924 With regard to the constitutional preamble... I think the preamble should focus on those issues that unite Australians. Although I am an atheist, I would oppose a preamble that contained a phrase such as "Safe in the knowledge of God's absence..." or "Triumphing without need of God...", because it would exclude a great portion of the nation. Boviously, and for similar reasons, "With hope in God" should also omitted. From: Em 2/10/99 17:06:23 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41926 Could our souless nation possibly also be due to the terms being mixed up in surveys? Alot of people I know confuse athiests with agnostics, or don't define between the two. From: kelvin fox 2/10/99 17:55:43 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41937 Hi There I will expouse my personal belief so be prepared for gratituous personal statement From the scientific side I do not believe there is a need for a god or for there to be a God to create thigss: (that is if you believe in the principles of cosmology, evolutionary biology geology as taught today). God is a wonderful mechanism to enable people to feel carm in moments of bad feeling etc etc etc Kelvin From: Artos 2/10/99 17:55:49 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41938 I'm not sure what the terms used in a survey would have to do with our being "souless". For example, I think it would be feasible to argue that an atheist has a soul, they simply don't believe the fact, or that it necessarily has an "afterlife". Of course, I suppose you could argue that an atheist, simply by virtue of being an atheist, either has no soul, or loses their soul. The problem, as I see it, is at what point does the state of "soulessness" occur? And by whose direction? Perceptions about Australia being a souless nation, of course, arise from other peoples' perceptions about what it is to have a soul (or, indeed, exactly what constitutes a soul). And there's nothing to say those perceptions are correct or even relevant... Artos :0) From: Artos 2/10/99 18:01:17 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41940 I agree, Kevin... In fact, I think the question of whether or not god or gods exist is essentially irrelevant. As I said in an earlier post, I was deeply affected by reading the "Meditations" of Marcus Aurelius. He posed very much the same question and came up with the conclusion that, irrespective of whether or not god or gods exist, our duty as human beings is to deal with one another in terms of dignity and justice. I kind of like the idea. Artos :0) From: phoebe 2/10/99 18:49:33 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41944 I was disgusted at the preamble, and I can't even vote! The discrimination in it was a little too forward for my liking. In primary school we were taught religion, and even 8 year-old country bumpkins beat the crap out of religion there! Being too young to understand the concept of faith and stuff, as well as racism, sadly, we asked questions about the dinosaurs and where they came from if the only animals on Earth were those from Eden, etc. She was a really nice teacher too, but we just gave her science. With science, religion is becoming outdated. There's nothing much else to say. Happiness! Phoebe (a self-confessed athiest) From: Bigs 2/10/99 22:15:02 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 41994 well I think its more todo with the fact that we have a much more multi-cultural society that alot of other countries, the fact that we have so many people from so many cultural backgrounds we (by we i mean the polliticians) really can't afford to say too much about religion other wise they'll offend some one and have to make a formal apology. From: =MadDog= 3/10/99 2:03:04 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 42015 Phoebe I'm stoked! I allways thought you were nice but to see that you were the only one apart from me in this entire thread that was proud to admit to being an atheist just made my day! I believe in our society it takes quite a deal of courage to admit that openly and Im so glad that youve made that choice. Regards =MadDog= From: sam 3/10/99 8:01:50 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 42023 I find it amazing actually, just how many young people are aethiests - amazing that is, considering the upbringing most of us get. I know lots and lots of people who are calling themselves aethiest by 14... (phoebe the aethiest... or if she had to choose a religion zen buddhist... :) From: Artos 3/10/99 9:12:04 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 42026 Hello all. Bigs, I wouldn't worry too much about our pollies giving apologies for insensitive remarks...witness Young Johnny who has "regrets" but never says sorry... As I've said in an earlier post, I have a sence of ethics derived from much of my reading of philosophy and theology...I just think the question of whether or not there exists god or gods is irrelevant. Does that make me an atheist...or a non-theist, perhaps? Artos :0) From: phoebe 3/10/99 10:39:12 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 42031 Oh yes, next time I get PMT you're in for it sam... Another reason why so many people (ie australians) are athiests is that we juat can't be bothered to actually go to church or just plain have faith. It's too much hassle when you could be doing something worthwhile - like drinking beer, playing sport or applying for one of the two availible science jobs being offered this year. I'm not used to being praised, but I thought if I ever did get praised it wouldn't be for being an athiest. Thanks maddog! Happiness to you all! Phoebe From: Chris W (Avatar) 3/10/99 12:01:19 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 42045 For example, in a recent visit to Cuba, the Pope condemned socialism and called on Castro to democratise that nation. I may be mistaken, but the Vatican has a similar form of government to that of socialist states. A one party system, that elects a president for life, and accepts the doctrine of that president unswervingly. Hypocrisy indeed! On the topic of the decline of Christian church attendance.. My recollection of the Bible (I don't own one to check) is that the decline of the church is foretold as a sign of the second coming of Christ. Perhaps those 'saved' souls should see that as a good thing, for surely the will get to live forever in paradise. From: Dan B. 4/10/99 9:27:45 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 42125 In Melbourne, I believe the main religion is Sport... ;-) Dan. From: Roger 7/10/99 12:23:28 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 42717 Maddog, I don't follow where you're coming from. I know far more non-religious people than religious, and i know very few people who are "afraid" to speak against the church, in fact, its been a number of years since i've heard anyone say anything NICE about the church. From: Roger 7/10/99 12:24:04 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 42719 Maddog, I don't follow where you're coming from. I know far more non-religious people than religious, and i know very few people who are "afraid" to speak against the church, in fact, its been a number of years since i've heard anyone say anything NICE about the church. From: phoebe 9/10/99 19:58:28 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 43084 And why is this? Because just recently in the grand scale of things we got the right to slander it as much as we like... ooh, isn't it nice, finally we get revenge. After hundreds of years in virtual slavery to religion people have the opportunity to do what they damn well like, which is why so many people do what they do, bitch about the church, pursue science for 3 peanuts a year, murder schoolmates in America, etc. It really sums up humanity, doesn't it? Happiness! Phoebe From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) 9/10/99 20:23:39 Subject: re: Soulless Nation! post id: 43089 You're right, beehop. In the good old days, only the church had the right to murder kids. Oops, I've just swallowed my pebble. Now I'll never know if it was dry. This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.