Saturday, June 7, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

by SMH

Thanks to Michael Murray for the link.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/adele-horin/faith-no-more-as-world-youth-day-fans-flames-of-disbelief/2008/06/06/1212259114360.html

Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

I don't know how World Youth Day is going down in your household but in mine it's fanning the flames of militant atheism.

As the family member with the oldest pedigree as a non-believer, I find myself in the odd position of fervently preaching religious tolerance to cool the antagonism World Youth Day is engendering around my dinner table.

The event has succeeded in thrusting religion onto the front pages and into the nightly news bulletins in a way unusual in Australia. From the clocks ticking off the days, to the bus-shelter advertising, to the debate over the $129 million taxpayer contribution, reminders of World Youth Day are omnipresent. But far from piquing sympathetic interest in religion, the constant exposure to the imminent mass gathering of young Catholics from around the world is proving counter-productive with the youth in my family - and my experience is not unique.

Religions are best kept as a private matter of faith, with the state favouring none. When religion is in the heart or in the church, it can be happily ignored by non-believers or defended, if necessary, on the grounds of live and let live. When religion turns into a massive, publicly funded event that is in your face on a daily basis, the advocates of religious tolerance face a tougher task.

For a start, young non-believers become exposed to the more arcane aspects of faith and ask in supercilious tones whether people really believe a woman was cured of lung cancer because she prayed to a nun.

It has been hard enough these past years to hold the line on religious tolerance in my household. Militant Islamists, the wacky Christian right, and Jewish extremists, each believing their religion is the one true path and prepared to wage war to prove it, have not been helpful.

The fundamentalists have been poor advertisements for the spiritual life. And not for the reason you might expect. To young non-believers, inclined to see the world in black and white, the zealots with their literal interpretation of the holy books embody the authentically religious in all their absurdity. Moderate Muslims, Christians or Jews are dismissed with contempt as hypocrites who cherry-pick the palatable bits from the holy books - how futile it is for rich folk to wriggle their way into heaven, for example - but ignore the homophobia, sexism, and animal sacrifice.

It has been possible to mount a credible defence against the argument that religious people are either fundamentalists or phonies. The children's grandfather, grandmother, uncle - a minister and theologian - and family friends could be called upon as examples of moderate-minded people with sincere religious belief.

Then along came Richard Dawkins. It was not I who brought The God Delusion into the house. But for all its supposed flaws - its hectoring tone, dubious grasp of theology, uncertain science - it weaseled its way into the boys' hearts and became their dog-eared bible. Its clear call to put rationality above stupidity appeals to young people of a certain uncompromising caste of mind, and so my task got tougher. Dawkins began to harden their atheism into disdain towards all those who sought comfort in "mumbo jumbo".

From the 2006 census I know there are as many non-believers in Australia as there are Anglicans (3.7 million) and many more non-believers than Pentecostals (220,000). The proportion of Christians has fallen steeply over 10 years (by 7 per cent) and the number of non-believers has grown (by 2 per cent). But despite the trends, believers (13.8 million) far outnumber us "no religions". It is important not to cause offence when so many people believe, not necessarily in a personal god, but in "something out there", as a recent survey of Australian teenagers put it. There is much to admire in the words of Jesus, in the thrust of Buddhism, in Judaism's rich culture and rituals, in the commitment to social justice of some faiths. So I take my job seriously of trying to instil religious tolerance in my sons.

But frankly, under the pressure of World Youth Day, I am worn out defending people's right to believe stuff I rejected as a 14-year-old. I could never accept that religion was the only source of morality, or that the only reason to do good was because God - or "something out there" - was watching. God did not seem interested in stopping wars or hunger; only people could do that. Mainstream churches, it seemed to me, saved their firepower not to challenge poverty and inequality but to oppress homosexuals and women.

Religion will come under the kind of scrutiny over the next month I wish it could be spared. When the dead body of Pier Giorgio Frassati, a sacred Catholic who died 83 years ago, arrives from Italy to lie in St Mary's Cathedral, I will be hard-pressed to explain the ghoulishness. The pope's well-known position on condoms has already been raised in disbelief.

For all the youth galvanised in their faith, or converted by World Youth Day, there must be others like my sons, hardened in their atheism and tipped towards contempt. And for all the parents, heartened by the sight of so many young Christians, there must be others like me, wearily gearing up to fight the fight for religious tolerance.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, June 7, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 70 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #189788 by F_A_F on June 7, 2008 at 9:22 am

Even after the slightly pandering tone of this article, it's nice to see that some people see atheism as "accepting the facts" instead of just "bible-basher-bashing"....

It's a commonly held misbelief that us atheists want to eradicate religion. Well as nice as it would be to get rid of it once and for all, I for one will not be going round forcing people to change their minds.....they need to change them because they want to change. Articles like this at least show that there is a change happening across the world, and hopefully as more come to understand what atheism is REALLY about, then they will come join the party :)

Other Comments by F_A_F

2. Comment #189800 by AmericanGodless on June 7, 2008 at 9:55 am

So, is this guy serious, or is he writing tongue-in-cheek? I'm really not sure, but I suspect that he is proud of his boys.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

3. Comment #189803 by Barry Pearson on June 7, 2008 at 9:58 am

I have long believed that most of the benefit from "The God Delusion" (etc) will be on the next generation rather than older people. For example:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2294,Over-half-of-Britons-claim-no-religion,Times-Online,page1#131382

This article suggests that is happening. Every day, I have a look at YouTube to see what has just been published there about Richard Dawkins and atheism.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=atheism&search_sort=video_date_uploaded
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins&search_sort=video_date_uploaded

While most of the material comprises extracts from longer broadcasts, and some is from religious people attacking atheism, many of the "original to YouTube" videos are by young people, confidently talking about their atheism and their criticism of religions. These people will probably grow up to be thorns in the flesh of religious people for the rest of their lives. They understand the topics, they are have their views of the sorts of soceities they want, and they see no reason for respect for religion or inhibition about discussing it frankly.

Religious people can't make the public debate go away. Massive changes will take generations, but they WILL happen. If they worry about today's "new atheists" - they ain't seen nothing yet!

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

4. Comment #189809 by thewhitepearl on June 7, 2008 at 10:15 am

"it weaseled its way into the boys' hearts and became their dog-eared bible"

My copy is full of highlighted notes of interest. Not just one color either. Pink, yellow, green, blue, purple...

"Mainstream churches, it seemed to me, saved their firepower not to challenge poverty and inequality but to oppress homosexuals and women."

Reminds me of Katie Couric's report on Kenneth Copeland...An 18,000 square foot house and a personal jet (just to begin with.) His son justifies it by claiming they need that personal lavish lifestyle to spread the gospel.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

5. Comment #189816 by riki on June 7, 2008 at 10:26 am

I think a large proportion of Australians would tick the Christian box on a census. But I think for the average Aussie that means about as much as a Christmas card and a few Easter Eggs.

Other Comments by riki

6. Comment #189819 by moderndaythomas on June 7, 2008 at 10:28 am

God did not seem interested in stopping wars or hunger; only people could do that. Mainstream churches, it seemed to me, saved their firepower not to challenge poverty and inequality but to oppress homosexuals and women.

Bin there, still there, couldn't have said it better.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

7. Comment #189821 by passutoba on June 7, 2008 at 10:28 am

'uncertain science'? Which part of TGD is he referring to here?

Other Comments by passutoba

8. Comment #189823 by Steve Zara on June 7, 2008 at 10:32 am

Religion will come under the kind of scrutiny over the next month I wish it could be spared.

What an strange statement. Religions have attempted to put our lives under scrutiny for millenia. Surely this is only fair?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

9. Comment #189828 by FightingFalcon on June 7, 2008 at 10:39 am

It's a commonly held misbelief that us atheists want to eradicate religion.

Careful - a significant population of RD.net wants to do just that.

I personally do not, because I believe religion goes much deeper than many people will admit and it does a necessary role in keeping society together.

But there most certainly are Atheists (some on this very site) who want nothing more than the complete eradication of religion.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

10. Comment #189829 by moderndaythomas on June 7, 2008 at 10:40 am

Steve Zara

Surely this is only fair?

And necessary. Casting doubt on evolution while all together side stepping the same medicine is cowardly and a clear indicator of zero rules of engagement.
It should not be equal time in science classrooms but time proportional to evidence.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

11. Comment #189831 by huzonfurst on June 7, 2008 at 10:44 am

Who says atheists don't want to eradicate religion? Of course we do, just not by mass murder or other coercive means. Removing tax advantages for churches is one, non-coercive step that is long overdue (and after that, perhaps the imposition of an "ignorance tax" to compensate society for the effects of religious "education" and indoctrination).

Other Comments by huzonfurst

12. Comment #189833 by FightingFalcon on June 7, 2008 at 10:47 am

Who says atheists don't want to eradicate religion? Of course we do, just not by mass murder or other coercive means. Removing tax advantages for churches is one, non-coercive step that is long overdue (and after that, perhaps the imposition of an "ignorance tax" to compensate society for the effects of religious "education" and indoctrination).

I don't. I would be perfectly content with a society that has religion completely removed from it publicly but continues to have members that believe privately, go to church, etc.

My only problem with religion is when it sticks its head into the public sector. Other than that, what do I care what people believe in their own homes? Worship Mithras for all I care...

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

13. Comment #189834 by moderndaythomas on June 7, 2008 at 10:49 am

thewhitepearl

Reminds me of Katie Couric's report on Kenneth Copeland...An 18,000 square foot house and a personal jet (just to begin with.) His son justifies it by claiming they need that personal lavish lifestyle to spread the gospel.

If evolutionists could only organise like this. I'm willing to claim that I need a nice 45 foot Halberg-Rassy to circumnavigate the globe spreading the word of Darwin.
Any backers?
No?

Damn!

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

14. Comment #189836 by dantemm on June 7, 2008 at 10:51 am

Ah, I thought it was gonna be about the Mike Patton band, FAITH NO MORE... :-)

~Dan
http://jazzsick.wordpress.com/

Other Comments by dantemm

15. Comment #189839 by Border Collie on June 7, 2008 at 10:54 am

"dubious grasp of theology"?! What?! I have a fantastic grasp of theology. I was raised as a screamer Southern Baptist fundamentalist and have read widely in Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism
and fairly widely in basic Western and Eastern mythologies. Sorry, but I think RD has a very good grasp of theology in that he's sees it with clearer eyes than any theologian can. I probably have a pretty poor grasp of fairyology, but so what? I did see the movie "Photographing Faries", however and thought it was pretty cute.

"It is important not to cause offence, when so many people believe ..." Pardon me? It seems that is when it's exactly the time to "cause offence". For myself, if I'm skewing off in some idiotic direction (which I probably do on a fairly regular basis), I want someone to "offend" me by pointing it out to me. If I was afraid to "offend" my karate students by putting a bruise on their ribs once in a while, they wouldn't really know how to defend themselves in a life/death situation. So, hey, if truth offends, so be it.

Other Comments by Border Collie

16. Comment #189841 by riki on June 7, 2008 at 10:56 am

Technology is also forcing kids to think more critically and methodically.

Other Comments by riki

17. Comment #189843 by mordacious1 on June 7, 2008 at 11:01 am

We need to keep the religious around, what would comedy be without them? If I need a laugh, I turn on the 700 Club, it's a side-splitter. Sobering though when you realize how many people believe this nonsense and what harm they do.

Other Comments by mordacious1

18. Comment #189845 by Logicel on June 7, 2008 at 11:04 am

This author is conflating intolerance with criticism, and tolerance with respect. I support wholeheartedly the right of people to believe privately whatever they want (keeping non-evidence beliefs out of the public sector), but many of those beliefs I will not respect and will subject to scathing criticism if they are brought out into the public sphere.

If Religion becomes a private matter for consenting adults, I would guess that many posters here who think they want to eradicate it, probably would change their minds. However, such driving forces in keeping Religion alive as indoctrination of children, the pushing of their so-called moral monopoly, special tax treatment, etc., are the reasons why many atheists see the vision of Religion being confined to consenting adults in their private lives as an impossibility. And if Religion ever morphs into that hoped-for state, it will barely be recognizable from its present pushy, meddling, and obnoxious self.

Other Comments by Logicel

19. Comment #189848 by huzonfurst on June 7, 2008 at 11:07 am

Fighting Falcon, I used to agree with tolerating the private practice of religion, but I got over it. A person's beliefs don't leave him when he walks out of church: they influence everything s/he does in all walks of life.

We have such a long way to go in the US to counteract religious foolishness that we still legally allow believers to commit crimes in the name of their religion - the ones who withhold medical treatment from their own children being the worst example.

This kind of valueless tolerance is wrong and immoral, or do you disagree, and why?

I'm firmly in Dawkins' corner, the part where he states that religion must be challenged at every turn, with the eventual goal of still allowing it to exist (sigh) but reducing its status to just another bit of brainless nonsense like astrology and other newage excreta.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

20. Comment #189849 by SharonMcT on June 7, 2008 at 11:08 am

Logicel:

However, such driving forces in keeping Religion alive as indoctrination of children, the pushing of their so-called moral monopoly, special tax treatment, etc. are the reasons why many atheists see the vision of Religion being confined to consenting adults in their private lives as an impossibility.

Excellent points, as usual. ;)

Other Comments by SharonMcT

21. Comment #189851 by mordacious1 on June 7, 2008 at 11:13 am

People are free to believe what they want, it becomes a problem when they become President or get on the Supreme Court and talk to god before making decisions.

Other Comments by mordacious1

22. Comment #189855 by SeekingTruth9 on June 7, 2008 at 11:26 am

I have been involved with an interfaith youth group that specifically includes atheists and agnostics. There is no attempt to reach common agreement on beliefs, that's impossible, and not the point. The youth work together where their values overlap, i.e. environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, human service, etc... The youth get to know each other "as people" not as labels. These activities show that these values are "human" values. The participants learn respect for each other and eliminate some of their prejudices. There often is a significant bias in our culture against atheists/agnostics, and young people learn that they are also good, moral people and form friendships across faith (and no faith) lines.
When I read this article which indicated contempt was growing, it reminded me of the importance of this work. We don't have to agree on belief/no belief and we can still find respect and friendship.

Other Comments by SeekingTruth9

23. Comment #189857 by AoClay on June 7, 2008 at 11:28 am

I sometimes wonder if tax exemption is the price you pay for the church/state separation. I hope we tax them one day, surely. I'm just afraid it will let them say they are now tax payers and should be able to get their crap elsewhere.

Other Comments by AoClay

24. Comment #189863 by moderndaythomas on June 7, 2008 at 11:49 am

SeekingTruth9

The youth work together where their values overlap, i.e. environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, human service, etc...

How do you discuss environmental sustainability without approaching the topic of selection. Or the preservation of other resources such as fisheries.
In this case nature has selected a larger size fish only to have humans favour them over quicker maturing and smaller fish.
This applies also to the hunting of, say, the big horned Sheep.
In the forestry sector, you see the spacing of non-conifer only to have a particular species (pine) threatened by the pine beetle.
Whaling has reduced the numbers of these amazing mammals and through the increase of military and commercial traffic, they can no longer communicate between pods. Where once they could keep in touch over many thousands of kilometers, now a few hundred is all they can muster.

We are introducing species of animal into an environment that did not favour them prior to our existence. And to understand this; to acknowledge it, is paramount to the pursuit of a solution.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

25. Comment #189868 by eh-theist on June 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

SeekingTruth9 - I do appreciate the idea that you are working together to achieve common goals. I do, however, think that, in the interest of reason, there are times when a person must say "You are a demented fuckwit!"(Thanks PZ)

Those same people will vote with their church and work to oppress future generations.

Religion is not interested in staying a "private" matter in peoples' homes - the goal should always be to confront such foolishness at every opportunity.

Other Comments by eh-theist

26. Comment #189869 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

Comment #189834 by moderndaythomas

f evolutionists could only organise like this. I'm willing to claim that I need a nice 45 foot Halberg-Rassy to circumnavigate the globe spreading the word of Darwin.

I might give you a ride on my Swan-Nautor when my acolytes grace me with one.

In the mean while, here is a picture with me on a smaller Halberg-Rassy in the Baltic. Plus some others with me having to work hard to compensate for the crews I had - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/sets/72157605487930517/ ;-)

Other Comments by epeeist

27. Comment #189872 by moderndaythomas on June 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm

epeeist

I'm an able hand, though somewhat lacking in the skipper department. One day though.
I've seen many pictures of Baltic sailing, is the weather good out there for it?

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

28. Comment #189873 by SharonMcT on June 7, 2008 at 12:07 pm

epeeist:

You have to be good to be lucky. Judging from the photos, you are a lucky man. :)

Other Comments by SharonMcT

29. Comment #189874 by Cartomancer on June 7, 2008 at 12:10 pm

This is one of the most strident "belief in belief" rants from the "I'm an atheist but" crowd that I have read in a long while. As has been said previously, it conflates disdain with intolerance and lack of respect for a belief with lack of respect for a person. I should also add my voice to those decrying his description of Richard's tone, grasp of theology and, amazingly, grasp of science. As one who studies medieval theology as a part of my doctoral research, I have found no instance in which Richard either misrepresents a theological point, or would benefit in making his points from greater knowledge of one. Theology as narrowly defined is medieval fan fiction plain and simple.

I think that the more disdain for religion exhibited by the young, the better our societies will be. The battle we are fighting is to knock religion off its pedestal and strip it of the automatic deference it assumes it is entitled to from believer and nonbeliever alike. Disdain is the perfect, perhaps the only, weapon we have to do this.

I do think there is a wider generational thing going on here though. In fact I recognise it from my own experiences. The older, parental, generations of atheists from the 60's, 70's and 80's seem much more imbued with the idea that tolerance trumps everything and raising one's voice in strong opinion only leads to trouble. Perhaps this is the inevitable conservatisation of the elderly, or perhaps it reflects a certain disillusioned former idealism - they are, after all, the people who saw the final nails in the coffin of marxism, the flowering of capitalistic exploitation and, in Britain at least, the political ravages of she-who-shall-not-be-named. I am sure an historian of late twentieth century culture would be able to speculate more effectively than I.

The younger generations of atheists who grew up in the eighties, nineties and the new millennium however have their idealism intact, or their minds unskewed by the experiences of their parents. Their first experiences of major global fear are 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, not the cold war and the cuban missile crisis. Their experiences of "authentic" religion are not jolly bumbling old anglican vicars but vicious frothing imams and loathesome televangelists. I think they probably see the truer picture.

As I say, I have experienced this myself. My own father treats me in much the same way as the author of this article treats his children whenever my fervent disdain of the religious comes into the conversation (and at 24 years of age that does feel rather patronising!). Perhaps an awful lot more of these people remember what they were told as children by their atheistic parents, in a time when society was much more overtly religious. Perhaps many more of them had religious parents.

Is there some kind of atheist generation gap? Do strongly-held opinions in one's children always seem suspect to their parents? It would be an interesting sociological study to carry out...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

30. Comment #189875 by FightingFalcon on June 7, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Huzon -

I used to agree with tolerating the private practice of religion, but I got over it. A person's beliefs don't leave him when he walks out of church: they influence everything s/he does in all walks of life.

Yes, which is why I try (although not very hard) to convince people to abandon religion. I am most concerned about religion influencing the public sector. I have friends, however, who are religious but you wouldn't know it unless you were very close to them. They keep to themselves and practice as they see fit. I have no problem with this. I think we antagonize more people than we convert when we attempt to literally regulate their thoughts.

We have such a long way to go in the US to counteract religious foolishness that we still legally allow believers to commit crimes in the name of their religion - the ones who withhold medical treatment from their own children being the worst example.

This is really the only example I see. I will never, not in a million years, agree to altering in any way the 1st Amendment. As much as I disdain religion, it is the right of everyone to worship as he or she sees fit. Yes, denying child care because of religion should be a crime. Denying child care for any other reason is a crime so why not religion? On this point I agree with you because it affects the health and safety of another person. Normally, private religious beliefs do not and therefore we have no right to challenge them. Keep in mind, I'm talking about private beliefs. When Theists stick their heads into the public sector (e.g. ID in schools, banning stem cell research, abstinence-only sex ed, etc.) then we should go after them with great fury.

I'm firmly in Dawkins' corner, the part where he states that religion must be challenged at every turn, with the eventual goal of still allowing it to exist (sigh) but reducing its status to just another bit of brainless nonsense like astrology and other newage excreta.

My goal is to remove it from society and (I doubt I'll live to see this one) get rid of its preferential treatment in society. It annoys me that Atheists are the most distrusted group in the country when Theists commit all types of crimes. This is more of a societal problem, however, and it may never change.

I sometimes wonder if tax exemption is the price you pay for the church/state separation. I hope we tax them one day, surely. I'm just afraid it will let them say they are now tax payers and should be able to get their crap elsewhere.

This is precisely why I don't get too upset over tax exempt status, although it does annoy me that it seems to be given out to any religion, regardless of merit.

If we deny religious organizations tax-exempt status, they technically could challenge our separation of church and state on the grounds that they are giving the government money. Now, we all know that religious organizations indirectly (and directly sometimes) influence government but if that tax-exempt status is removed, they may be able to legally challenge the wall between church and state.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

31. Comment #189882 by moderndaythomas on June 7, 2008 at 12:50 pm

epeeist, just had a peek at your Swan-Nautor. A 69 footer flying a big blue spinnaker and pushing up a big bow wave.

Hope that you get it one day. If it's going to be that size, you'll have to motivate your crew a bit more though, I see.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

32. Comment #189883 by thewhitepearl on June 7, 2008 at 1:05 pm

moderndaythomas, I'm with you 110% on that one. Maybe we should become tvevolutionists. The 600 club.

Speaking of which, mordacious1, I tivo the 700 Club. I've been wanting to write a letter..You think it would be read on the air? Prob not. Bet I'd get a mention though. Something like:

"The devil is really just starting to attack us from all sides. I tell you what ladies and gentlemen we are really at battle in the spiritual realm lately. It's the end of days- Satan and his army aren't going out without a fight...Send us your money to help us combat this problem!"

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

33. Comment #189889 by FightingFalcon on June 7, 2008 at 1:16 pm

It's the end of days- Satan and his army aren't going out without a fight...Send us your money to help us combat this problem!"

"[God] loves you and he needs MONEY! He always needs money! He's all powerful, all perfect, all knowing and all wise - somehow, just can't handle money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

1:20

I love that sketch =)

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

34. Comment #189903 by robotaholic on June 7, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I want religion to be ERASED devastatingly and completely

Other Comments by robotaholic

35. Comment #189905 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #189872 by moderndaythomas

I'm an able hand, though somewhat lacking in the skipper department. One day though.
I've seen many pictures of Baltic sailing, is the weather good out there for it?

Its a very short season, but can be incredibly hot an dry. That trip we kept sailing north to find somewhere cooler. Ended up just above 62 degrees north. The best bit was using a public sauna on one of the islands, coming out and jumping straight into the sea.

Comment #189873 by SharonMcT

You have to be good to be lucky. Judging from the photos, you are a lucky man. :)

The benefits of having a wife who teaches at an all girls school ;-)

Other Comments by epeeist

36. Comment #189915 by thewhitepearl on June 7, 2008 at 3:04 pm

fightingfalcon this guy has some of the best one-liners ever!

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

37. Comment #189916 by eggplantbren on June 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm

7. Comment #189821 by passutoba on June 7, 2008 at 10:28 am
'uncertain science'? Which part of TGD is he referring to here?

Probably the cosmology.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

38. Comment #189921 by huzonfurst on June 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm

FF, I have never heard anyone say that removing churches' tax exemptions would make them *more* of a problem! That strikes me as unconvincing, to say the least. Tax exemptions allow these undeserving schmucks a free ride at everyone else's expense and gives them more influence than they would have otherwise. With no tax exemptions half the churches would go out of business in short order, and good riddance to the lot of them.

Cartomancer, I'm an exception to your proposed atheist generation gap, that is if this gap is real which I doubt. I turned 60 this year and am more of a flaming anti-theist than ever. I've become notorious among my business clients, believe it or not, for being the most outspoken atheist they've ever met. However, they already know what I can do for them and their computers so they will actually listen to me as long as I don't overdo it. I've turned them on to several videos from this site, and it's been gratifying to see a light go on when they hear an argument that's never occured to them before. Doing my part to encourage the death of religion once and for all.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

39. Comment #189923 by notsobad on June 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm

So just because someone doesn't like religion they are militant.
What a load of crap.
Would this person also label people who speak against communism and fascism a militant democrat? Or is religion regarded as something special again?

Other Comments by notsobad

40. Comment #189927 by phil rimmer on June 7, 2008 at 5:43 pm

I'm with the Falcon on this.

We must never be, or seek to construct, the Thought Police.

We must demand the highest behaviour of all our citizens in the public space. Truth, corroborated evidence, is the only stable substrate of a pluralistic society.

We have to frame these two points together so that religites see the burden is with them. It is for them to discover the extent of their personal beliefs' transgression into society. When they discover that these entreaties in no way deny them their strength of moral feeling they may learn to keep the non-evidence of God rather more to themselves.

It seems to me that Reticent Atheists are drawn mainly from the social professions, doctors, social workers, teachers. It must be tough dealing with needy and deserving individuals who believe and express bollocks. I think mentally you might have to explain away such nonsense, by putting it into a low significance category. I think they are wrong to do this, but...

For Logicel.

My Roman Catholic friend believes all the stuff you and I believe, regarding a secular state regarding the absolute need that his children are educated as rational free-thinkers given all the evidence. He also professes to believe in God but regularly tells me to eff off if I try to discuss the topic. The fact of himself and his behaviour is the only endorsement he offers for his religion. Rare as he is, he exists.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

41. Comment #189928 by mmurray on June 7, 2008 at 6:02 pm

This article is by Adele Horin who is a woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_Horin

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/adelehorin/

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

42. Comment #189932 by KiwiInOz on June 7, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Just a minor pedantic point for those calling the author a he. He is actually a she.

EDIT - damn, mmurray beat me to it. But I'm still going to post. So there.

Other Comments by KiwiInOz

43. Comment #189934 by mmurray on June 7, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Go for it KiwiInOz.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

44. Comment #189935 by Ascaphus on June 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Well, I'll cast a vote with those folks insisting that 'respect' is earned, not taken for granted. The problem for religious folks is that '...I know it to be true...' will never deserve respect.

Why not live and let live, some folks ask? Because NOMA is absurd. We base our ethics on what we think is true. We base major decisions affecting society and the environment based upon scientifically based knowledge or the 'gut instincts' of religion. They are not NOMA, they are inherently mutually opposed. If you believe AIDS is an act of God, you're certainly not going to fight it with any enthusiasm. The examples are endless.

If the religious want respect, let them put their ideas up in the rough and tumble of public dissection. They haven't got a prayer.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

45. Comment #189936 by mmurray on June 7, 2008 at 6:41 pm

For all the concerns a lot of us have about our new god-bothering Prime Minister who likes to be photographed leaving church on Sundays I read recently that the next three most senior members of the Government: the deputy PM, the treasurer and the finance minister all affirmed an oath rather that swore on the bible when the took office. The Climate Change and Water minister is an atheist lesbian. I am hoping they can keep the PM under control.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

46. Comment #189944 by dragonfirematrix on June 7, 2008 at 8:55 pm

From the article, two quotes:

"The fundamentalists have been poor advertisements for the spiritual life."

The above quoted line is an understatement. The fundamentalists have been a poor advertisement for any kind of life. Fundamentalists wage war against education, science, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, and freedom. The religious have no interest in reason and freedom. The religious only want to force their fantasies on others.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that reason and science has done incredibly more (in its short history) for humanity than all the religions together have ever done for humanity in all the combined existence.

"Religion will come under the kind of scrutiny over the next month I wish it could be spared."

Spare the religious no pain. Religion should come under scrutiny worldwide, with no exceptions. The religious generally treat non-believers and differences with disdain. I know it is the wrong thing to do, but we non-religious should treat the religious as they treat those they do not like.

Let we non-believers take reason, education, science, medicine, and all other endeavors to higher levels for all humankind.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

47. Comment #189956 by mmurray on June 7, 2008 at 11:07 pm

I didn't quite believe this bit when I read it

When the dead body of Pier Giorgio Frassati, a sacred Catholic who died 83 years ago, arrives from Italy to lie in St Mary's Cathedral, I will be hard-pressed to explain the ghoulishness.

but sure enough they are moving the poor guys body over here

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/catholic-pinup-boys-body-heading-for-sydney/2008/04/18/1208025479559.html

That is seriously weird even by catholic standards.

I like this comment from the article

PIER GIORGIO FRASSATI is coming to Sydney for World Youth Day. He has been dead since 1925 but that will not stop him playing an important role in the Catholic festival.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

48. Comment #189957 by Skeptic Pete on June 7, 2008 at 11:38 pm

I wonder if any of our media will have the courage to run any negative stories about blind faith during this circus.

When I saw the wooden cross being proudly manhandled through our parliament house a few months ago it reminded me of The Emperors New Clothes.

Here they all were, young and old alike, the rich the poor, the Labour, the Liberal, the men, the women, kissing and fawning over what is basically a grotesque execution device.

They say it's about life. Eternal life.

But it's not. It's all about death.

Sick and sad.

Other Comments by Skeptic Pete

49. Comment #189958 by irate_atheist on June 7, 2008 at 11:59 pm

When religion is in the heart or in the church, it can be happily ignored by non-believers or defended, if necessary, on the grounds of live and let live.

Bollocks. People make their actions, and judgement based mostly on what they feel. Does the author really think that religious politicians don't bring their feelings to the table when debating an issue - e.g. abortion, stem cell research, gay rights?

Dawkins began to harden their atheism into disdain towards all those who sought comfort in "mumbo jumbo".

Good. Some more homo sapiens who see right through the bullshit.

There is much to admire in the words of Jesus, in the thrust of Buddhism, in Judaism's rich culture and rituals, in the commitment to social justice of some faiths. So I take my job seriously of trying to instil religious tolerance in my sons.

What's to admire in a pack of lies and wilful ignorance?

And more importantly:

35. Comment #189905 by epeeist -

Did I notice, in the far distance in the first photo, a Bishop kicking a hole in a stained-glass window?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

50. Comment #189959 by Apeseed on June 8, 2008 at 12:03 am

Comment #189935 by Ascaphus
We base our ethics on what we think is true.

Surely our ethics are based as much in feeling as in thinking. Empathy for others guides my actions. It is because of the value I place on my life and autonomy that I respect others. I have no objection to others actions (or beliefs for that matter) insofar as they don't infringe upon me. I don't see how reason can be divorced from feeling.

Other Comments by Apeseed