Julia Gillard is an atheist!

[Cthulhu]

Richard Dawkins on Morality.

[Yitzi_K]

eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.

[Twenty10]

Richard Dawkins on Morality.

case closed.

[enwiabe]

eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.

No it won't. Pretty sure the Australian gov't won't let you. Tell me how the Australian government would let you stone somebody to death.

P.S. Nice complete avoidance of the actual arguments I was making.

[Kennybhoy]

In Soviet Russia, God created humans.

[Yitzi_K]

Ahahahaha I love the arrogance of "LOLZ ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS"

It's the last straw religion is clinging to. You've been fed that, Yitzi, by your teachers at Yeshivah. I'm sure you're going to say "NO NO I CAME UP WITH IT ON YOUR OWN", but it's the propaganda of all the religious sects that atheists are evil people with no morals.

You can con yourself into believing it, but anyone with any modicum of critical thought realises that it's the last bastion of religion flailing their ridiculous arms in an attempt to wrangle the mass exodus of people away from their stranglehold of power over them. You're just one of the people brainwashed into believing this by the puppeteers pulling the strings.

Firstly, it is something I have thought of on my own.

Secondly, yes I have been taught it too. You seem to have the notion that every religious leader is a hypocrite who is simply desparate for followers so as to have power over them. This may well be the case with some, but it is not the case with many. Many religious leaders truly believe in what the religion they are proponents of, and are not just seeking power over the masses.

The idea that there are no morals without religion was taught to me based on a speech by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Now he was a person who I am 100% positive was a true believer in everything he said, and not only that, he was a man of phenomenal intelligence, way beyond that of me or you.

Also, to say morals are fixed because they are 'fixed within the boundaries of society' is quite frankly ridiculous. If society moves in an undesireable direction, then so will the morals within that society.

Here is a question for you: If a moral changes, such that what was once unaccpetable is now acceptable, does that mean it was always really acceptable, just that the society of the time didn't recognise it?

If the answer is no, then why not?

And if the answer is yes, then how do we know that what we consider unacceptable now will not in the future become acceptable, and hence always was?

eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.

No it won't. Pretty sure the Australian gov't won't let you. Tell me how the Australian government would let you stone somebody to death.

The Australian government will let, because when the time comes, they will realise the divinity of the Bible and everything in it. I'm pretty sure I addressed this issue in the burqa topic.

Finally, I resent your portrayal of my arguments in such a childish and ridiculous manner. I believe I have been arguing in a rational and coherent way, and while you may not agree with me, there is no need to make out what I've said to be the rantings of a lunatic.

[brightsky]

If society moves in an undesirable direction, then so will the morals within that society.

I concur. But consider the reverse, if a society moves in a desirable direction, then so will the morals within that society. Having fixed morals, as you purport religion can impose on a human being, inhibits this positive move towards better conscience.

[Kennybhoy]

Shut up guys, God exists. Religion is real. The Bible is a real. Why else would it be in the non-fiction section of the library?

Sheesh, the bible has taught me many morals and rules to live by, such as killing my first-born child, stoning my kids. I live by the bible, hence I'm goign to leave sex until after marriage because I like resisting my natural biological process of wanting to reproduce. Furthermore, since when has science and logical thinking advanced society?

I saw we go back into the Dark Ages of scientific repression and stone to death anyone who claims to not live by God's word.

[chem-nerd]

Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.

Perhaps you should apply this to your thoughts on atheism.
You've offended me by saying I have no morals simply because I'm an atheist.

[Yitzi_K]

Again I say, don't bash it till you understand it. I'm sure you'd be offended if I criticised your opinion on something without even having a basic understanding of it first.

Perhaps you should apply this to your thoughts on atheism.
You've offended me by saying I have no morals simply because I'm an atheist.

I never said that, I said you have no fixed morals.

[enwiabe]

Ahahahaha I love the arrogance of "LOLZ ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS"

It's the last straw religion is clinging to. You've been fed that, Yitzi, by your teachers at Yeshivah. I'm sure you're going to say "NO NO I CAME UP WITH IT ON YOUR OWN", but it's the propaganda of all the religious sects that atheists are evil people with no morals.

You can con yourself into believing it, but anyone with any modicum of critical thought realises that it's the last bastion of religion flailing their ridiculous arms in an attempt to wrangle the mass exodus of people away from their stranglehold of power over them. You're just one of the people brainwashed into believing this by the puppeteers pulling the strings.

Firstly, it is something I have thought of on my own.

Secondly, yes I have been taught it too. You seem to have the notion that every religious leader is a hypocrite who is simply desparate for followers so as to have power over them. This may well be the case with some, but it is not the case with many. Many religious leaders truly believe in what the religion they are proponents of, and are not just seeking power over the masses.

The idea that there are no morals without religion was taught to me based on a speech by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Now he was a person who I am 100% positive was a true believer in everything he said, and not only that, he was a man of phenomenal intelligence, way beyond that of me or you.

Also, to say morals are fixed because they are 'fixed within the boundaries of society' is quite frankly ridiculous. If society moves in an undesireable direction, then so will the morals within that society.

Here is a question for you: If a moral changes, such that what was once unaccpetable is now acceptable, does that mean it was always really acceptable, just that the society of the time didn't recognise it?

If the answer is no, then why not?

And if the answer is yes, then how do we know that what we consider unacceptable now will not in the future become acceptable, and hence always was?

eniwabe, I'm sure the stoning issue has come up before, where I told you that it is not because society or religion has changed that there are no longer any stonings, it is purely because there is no longer a court with the power to impose such a punishment. If and when such a court is established, the practice will continue as before.

No it won't. Pretty sure the Australian gov't won't let you. Tell me how the Australian government would let you stone somebody to death.

The Australian government will let, because when the time comes, they will realise the divinity of the Bible and everything in it. I'm pretty sure I addressed this issue in the burqa topic.

Finally, I resent your portrayal of my arguments in such a childish and ridiculous manner. I believe I have been arguing in a rational and coherent way, and while you may not agree with me, there is no need to make out what I've said to be the rantings of a lunatic.

As we have seen, the progression of society has been in the positive direction. Women have unprecedented freedoms and rights the likes of which they never saw under the rule of religion. So as brightsky said, you seem to think that society is moving in a "bad direction", I challenge this notion by saying that the maturity of society would not allow significant backtracking of progress. If you map the freedoms of oppressed groups over time, as the song goes thiiiiiiiiings can only get betteeeeeer etc.

Ending of slavery. Ending of child labour. Ending of child prostitution/sex slavery etc. These are all things that have only come with the progression of society. The former two were permissible under religion, and the other was turned a blind eye (and still is). My, how the times have changed.

I never said society could not move in a 'bad' direction, but as brightsky has said, religion fixating us in the one spot inhibits us from moving in a positive direction. You can claim that religion is the one stop shop for all morals, but we've clearly seen that this isn't the case, given how many times the vatican has apologised for its indiscretions on humanity.

It is this ultimate copout of deferring our own moral responsibility to a higher being that makes religion truly vulgar. We are capable of being responsible for our own morals within the greater fabric of society. The idea that we should give up this capability in deference to something utterly intangible, of which no proof exists, and who sounds like a child's fairytale is downright frightening. Enough with the abdication of morality based on religion. It's time to start taking some real responsibility for our own society.

[ReVeL]

Shut up guys, God exists. Religion is real. The Bible is a real. Why else would it be in the non-fiction section of the library?

Ahh well if the bible's found in the non-fiction section at the local library then case closed, god exists, absolutely no doubt about it.... Come on mate.

In reference to the OP, I think this improves my opinion of Gillard. I don't at all question her morals just because she isn't religious. In my opinion, not having fixed morals can be a good thing.

[enwiabe]

Shut up guys, God exists. Religion is real. The Bible is a real. Why else would it be in the non-fiction section of the library?

Ahh well if the bible's found in the non-fiction section at the local library then case closed, god exists, absolutely no doubt about it.... Come on mate.

In reference to the OP, I think this improves my opinion of Gillard. I don't at all question her morals just because she isn't religious. In my opinion, not having fixed morals can be a good thing.

Yes Revel! Exactly, why is "no fixed morals" such a 'bad' thing?

Surely the compassionate human with real critical reasoning and thinking should be open to the idea that their value set can be wrong. Intellectual challenge and debate, that's what it's all about, isn't it? If we weren't constantly challenging whehter what we believe is correct/fair/just, then it would still be illegal for homosexual people to be open about their sexuality. It is precisely this lack of fixed morals that allowed us to move to a fairer society.

Fixing our morals in one place is exactly the recipe required for the abuse and oppression of minorities. So, you know what, no fixed morals? Sign me up.

I used to be anti-gay-marriage and generally squeamish about the idea of homosexuality (up until about 5 years ago), and I am ever-so-glad that I was shown the error of my ways.

And I guess that's it for religion, isn't it? They need to be absolutely correct. God is absolutely correct. He's perfect in the words of the bible. There's no other one like him. So for religion to entertain the idea that some of the morals written down are incorrect is utterly horrifying. God isn't fallible. That's impossible! To entertain the idea that morals can be fluid and not fixed is to deny the absolute power of god. And that is why atheists are stamped with the "evil" tag, because they are a threat to the very foundations of religion.

And that's it, isn't it? I guess religious people are just frightened of change, even if it's a very positive change, because it ultimately flaws their beliefs irreparably.

[Yitzi_K]

OK, so maybe not having fixed morals can be a good thing. (I don't agree, but let's just stick with this premise).

It can also be a very, very bad thing. Eugenics and Nazism are just two of hundereds of examples I could bring for that.

btw, I never called anyone evil.

[enwiabe]

OK, so maybe not having fixed morals can be a good thing. (I don't agree, but let's just stick with this premise).

It can also be a very, very bad thing. Eugenics and Nazism are just two of hundereds of examples I could bring for that.

btw, I never called anyone evil.

Yeah, like religion has never perpetrated atrocities, ever... Come back with a real argument plz