Julia Gillard is an atheist!

[brightsky]

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.

Heh, just a random sentiment, but eugenics may in fact be a good thing. Anyone read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

Also, I would just like to add that I am dubious that any person who believes in religion would 100% espouse the morals and "ways to live" dictated by their Bible. Hence, I don't think that religion could fully impose so-called "fixed morals" onto any believer.

[m@tty]

In conclusion, Gillard will be the best Prime Minister we've ever had. Why? Because her critical thinking skills were not eroded in her formative years by bible-bashers telling her ridiculous, fanciful stories and forcing her to believe them without any proof whatsoever. Seems to me like the best choice

This is extremely offensive.

And, in case you didn't know, from Gillard:

“... I grew up in a Christian Church, a Christian background, a Baptist Church, I won prizes for catechism for being able to remember Bible verses. I am steeped in that tradition ... "

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.

You are blatantly ignorant if you truly believe these horrid practices abolished. They still exist today.

Here are just two organisations which are bent on extinguishing slavery and child labour and the sex trade etc. Clearly, these problems persist today.

http://freetobekids.org/

http://www.notforsalecampaign.org/

And would you believe that many of these organisations championing human rights are religious.

(btw these organisations are great and, as always, are in need of support)

[Kennybhoy]

I'm starting to lose faith in humanity.

[brightsky]

What I think enwiabe meant was that society is progressing in a positive direction. These things may not be utterly abolished at present, but we are certainly moving towards that target (as evidenced by the organisations you mentioned.)

[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.

Heh, just a random sentiment, but eugenics may in fact be a good thing. Anyone read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

Also, I would just like to add that I am dubious that any person who believes in religion would 100% espouse the morals and "ways to live" dictated by their Bible. Hence, I don't think that religion could fully impose so-called "fixed morals" onto any believer.

I espouse the morals and 'ways to live' dictated by the Bible. Do you believe I exist?

[brightsky]

Heh, just a random sentiment, but eugenics may in fact be a good thing. Anyone read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

Also, I would just like to add that I am dubious that any person who believes in religion would 100% espouse the morals and "ways to live" dictated by their Bible. Hence, I don't think that religion could fully impose so-called "fixed morals" onto any believer.

I doubt that forces external of the Bible haven't in the slightest influenced your mentality.

[Yitzi_K]

Well even if they had, which i don't believe to be the case, I know of many people for whom the 100% clause still applies

[Yitzi_K]

Well the title of the topic combines the two...

[Russ]

^^

In literally every thread ever about religion there will be a bunch of posters congratulating themselves about their views whilst trotting out variations of the same old arguments, even if they are completely irrelevant to the topic/posts they're responding to.

[brightsky]

Lol I don't think it's a matter of who wins, just an exchange of different points of view on an issue.

[QuantumJG]

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?

So you are essentially using this to back up your opinion that we (athiests, 'non-believers') are immoral? Your saying that we are making temporary changes to morality which should change because our opinion of morality is flawed? Let me ask you why you believe that 'religious morality' is the right 'morality'

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.
[/quote]

I'm sorry but the Australian government will NEVER allow stoning as capital punishment! We don't have any form of capital punishment anyway.

Whoever will try and bring this barbaric act onto Australian soil as part of our country's policies will never be allowed.

[Cthulhu]

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.

Hitler was raised a catholic and used a lot of what he interpreted the bible to say for his cause


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_views

In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

[Twenty10]

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.

Hitler was raised a catholic and used a lot of what he interpreted the bible to say for his cause



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_views

In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

He also killed heaps of Jews. Which I'm not 100% sure, but i presume is morally incorrect. But then again my morals aren't fixed so i got no idea really.

[teebagger*]

my opinion of her just went up.

[lynt.br]

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.

To be fair, I thought you did heavily imply it when you said:

Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.

I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.

The implication being that Julia Gillard has no morals because she is not religious. Or construed more broadly, non-religious people do not have morals.

Would it be safe to assume you meant either:
a) She has no fixed morals (or more accurately, none of the fixed morals advanced by your religious beliefs) and, broadly, non-religious people lack the same fixed morals?
b) She has no morals in general due to reasons other than her religious affiliation?