Julia Gillard is an atheist!

[Mao]

I would like to point out a few things here.

A politician's religion does have bearing on their policies, but this should not be the sole factor that influences a voter's decision. Their policies are what really count, a Christian politician is very capable of making good decisions (John Howard, for example, made many good decisions), and so can an Atheist. Whilst it is disheartening to see that many have turned away from Julia Gillard because of her [non-]religious beliefs, it has been a much larger disappointment to me personally to see some residents here jumping on the bandwagon because she is Atheist.

And on the note of atheism, I personally know many atheists who do not understand what atheism really is, and many are educated that way from birth, much like religious up-bringing, without being given rational arguments why God may not exist. Blaming theism on education and up-bringing does not implicate atheism is 'right'.


On the note of absolute morality, I absolutely disagree with some of the statements made by religious residents here. Here's a few questions I would like you to answer:

If you had the choice, would you have the world completely following every word and moral commandments of your holy book? It is a well known fact that there are many contradictions in these books, let's for a moment assume these don't exist. What about the rule of you shall not work on sabbath? Should doctor's let patients die every Sunday?

If religion brings about advancements in society, how can it accommodate the changes given that it is fixed? Without involving a discussion on how religious morals should be applied to technology [another can of worms for another day], can you explain how "I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me. You shall have no other gods before me." is useful in any way to present day society, and more importantly, moral treatment of others? Do you implicate that because I am of another belief, I should therefore be killed?

There are places where absolute morality is important, such as some degree of equality, freedom and respect for other's autonomy and well-being. There are also places where relative morality is important, such as dealing with change, and evolving out of archaic and traditional values such as superstitious beliefs. Neither extremes are perfect, and we should aim to strike a balance between the two.

It is very wrong to claim that religion is the only source of absolute morality. For example, Aristotle defined some virtues that are still uses in modern law making. So to Yitzi_K in particular, if the lack of religion is so bad, let's take China for example where the bulk of the population [and the government] is not religious, what immoral things are they doing? And what new immoral things are they going to be condoning if they carried on being atheists?
Well, the answer to that is probably going to be some human rights issue [hey, your religion condones killing people whom you disagree with], freedom of speech issues [hey, your religion tend to kill people who believe in other religions, let alone speak out about it], and that's pretty much most of it. And the only way that more 'immoral' things are going to be 'allowed'/'mainstreamed'/'enforced' is if some immoral leader comes in and redefines the absolute moral commandments [e.g. cultural revolution in China, killing millions], this, even religious morality cannot prevent, not without some kind of a miracle.

[Voltaire]

Mao, you halfwit, a polititions religion has huge bearings on their policies.
Just look at tony abbott on the abortion debate, or Rudd on gay marrage.

Blank minded religious apologists like yourself are, in my opinion, intellectually below the fundementialist crowd.
Why? Because you should know better. Athiests - i.e. those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion, are correct. We are 100% right, our position is 100% falisiable, it is 100% consistent with scientific evidence, it is 100% supported by modern nueoroscience

The nauseatingly retarded world-view of 'people with faith' is, on the otherhand, 100% unfalsifiable white noise. The debate on religion is over, closed, fini, done. Lack of belief = win, 'Faith' = debunked, junk logic.

Gillards got my vote.

[Yitzi_K]

Mao - I'm not going to argue on the morality of the Bible. Obviously, as far as I'm concerned, the Bible is the word of G-d, and therefore everything in it is absoloute morality. Anyone who disagrees with the first part of my previous sentence will obviously disagree with the second, so it is a pointless argument.

As for your specific point about doctors working on Sabbath (which is actually Saturday according to Judaism). Firstly, I imagine you have no idea what 'work' is in this context. Secondly, the commandent to save a life supercedes (almost) every other commandment, so in a potential life-or-death situation, anyone may do anything to save that life even on the Sabbath. Also, there are no contradictions in the Bible, a point I'd be happy to discuss in another thread.

I don't want to get into a discussion about the morality of China, but here's an immoral thing commonly practiced there: The gendercide of female babies. My religion does not condone that under any circumstances.

Here is a point I want to make absoloutely clear: I have never said that atheists are bad people, or evil people, or will definitely do bad things. I'm sure all the atheists on this board are perfectly good people, with morals, who feel strongly about moral issues and only want to do good to other people.

The point I was trying to make is, without a clearly defined unchangeable set of morals, the possibility exists that people will end up doing bad things, especially when such people are in positions of power, a la Julia Gillard.

Now I'm sure people will say that religious people in power also can, and indeed do, do bad things, which is perfectly true, but it doesn't detract from my statement.

[ninwa]

I'm sure all the atheists on this board are perfectly good people, with morals, who feel strongly about moral issues and only want to do good to other people.

In that case, please explain this statement:

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 point I was trying to make is, without a clearly defined unchangeable set of morals, the possibility exists that people will end up doing bad things, especially when such people are in positions of power, a la Julia Gillard.

Now I'm sure people will say that religious people in power also can, and indeed do, do bad things, which is perfectly true, but it doesn't detract from my statement.

In that case, what makes a religious leader any better than an atheist leader, if a religious one is just as likely to do "bad things"?

[Yitzi_K]

In the second quote you've got there it should say fixed morals, it was a mistake I shall now edit.

I'd say a religious leader would be better because at least they have fixed morals which they should be sticking to, and if they're serious about their religion they will. While this is no garauntee that they will stick to them, at least it's a possibility/probability.

Whereas atheist leaders don't have such fixed morals to begin with, so it would be far easier, and possibly more likely, for them to go against the morals they do have.

[Russ]

Voltaire's post is hilarious.

Anyway, the entire fixed/relative morals issue isn't a big deal for me when you consider that the four years that a PM has in office won't allow for a significant cultural shift. The "relative" morals and ideals of an atheist in 2010 are going to be very similar to those of the same person in 2014.

[Twenty10]

Voltaire's post is hilarious.

Anyway, the entire fixed/relative morals issue isn't a big deal for me when you consider that the four years that a PM has in office won't allow for a significant cultural shift. The "relative" morals and ideals of an atheist in 2010 are going to be very similar to those of the same person in 2014.

four years? It can be longer no?

[Russ]

Yeah of course, but there'd need to be another election. Howard was PM for 3 terms but he had to contest multiple elections.

[ninwa]

Mao, you halfwit, a polititions religion has huge bearings on their policies.
Just look at tony abbott on the abortion debate, or Rudd on gay marrage.

Blank minded religious apologists like yourself are, in my opinion, intellectually below the fundementialist crowd.
Why? Because you should know better. Athiests - i.e. those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion, are correct. We are 100% right, our position is 100% falisiable, it is 100% consistent with scientific evidence, it is 100% supported by modern nueoroscience

The nauseatingly retarded world-view of 'people with faith' is, on the otherhand, 100% unfalsifiable white noise. The debate on religion is over, closed, fini, done. Lack of belief = win, 'Faith' = debunked, junk logic.

Gillards got my vote.

Interesting. You speak disparagingly of Rudd's stance on gay marriage, and then you say you support Gillard. You realise she has the same view of gay marriage as Rudd does, right?

Also, I would suggest that agnostics, rather than atheists, are "those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion".

[EvangelionZeta]

Mao - I'm not going to argue on the morality of the Bible. Obviously, as far as I'm concerned, the Bible is the word of G-d, and therefore everything in it is absoloute morality. Anyone who disagrees with the first part of my previous sentence will obviously disagree with the second, so it is a pointless argument.

As for your specific point about doctors working on Sabbath (which is actually Saturday according to Judaism). Firstly, I imagine you have no idea what 'work' is in this context. Secondly, the commandent to save a life supercedes (almost) every other commandment, so in a potential life-or-death situation, anyone may do anything to save that life even on the Sabbath. Also, there are no contradictions in the Bible, a point I'd be happy to discuss in another thread.

I don't want to get into a discussion about the morality of China, but here's an immoral thing commonly practiced there: The gendercide of female babies. My religion does not condone that under any circumstances.

Here is a point I want to make absoloutely clear: I have never said that atheists are bad people, or evil people, or will definitely do bad things. I'm sure all the atheists on this board are perfectly good people, with morals, who feel strongly about moral issues and only want to do good to other people.

The point I was trying to make is, without a clearly defined unchangeable set of morals, the possibility exists that people will end up doing bad things, especially when such people are in positions of power, a la Julia Gillard.

Now I'm sure people will say that religious people in power also can, and indeed do, do bad things, which is perfectly true, but it doesn't detract from my statement.

"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"

Do you think it's immoral to wear clothes of a linen/wool mix, or to eat lobster and crab?

I can accept that the Bible's core morality makes sense, and I'm not going to contest the claim that the Bible is the word of God (which is probably unprovable either way).  However, if you were to claim that everything in the Bible is absolute morality, then you're going to have to deal with some very angry seafood restaurants.

In any case, can I just take another step back from this whole issue and argue that it's possible to have "defined" morals, even without religion.  Utilitarianism?  Deontology?  You can believe in an absolute set of ethical guidelines without having to believe in the Bible, or even the existence of [a] God...

Why? Because you should know better. Athiests - i.e. those who are not persauded by the claims of any religion, are correct. We are 100% right, our position is 100% falisiable, it is 100% consistent with scientific evidence, it is 100% supported by modern nueoroscience

Atheism is just as hard a position to defend as saying that there IS a God.  Pray tell, why is God's nonexistence 100% supported by everything scientific?

[brightsky]

In any case, can I just take another step back from this whole issue and argue that it's possible to have "defined" morals, even without religion.  Utilitarianism?  Deontology?  You can believe in an absolute set of ethical guidelines without having to believe in the Bible, or even the existence of [a] God...

Totally agree.

[Yitzi_K]

"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"

Do you think it's immoral to wear clothes of a linen/wool mix, or to eat lobster and crab?

I can accept that the Bible's core morality makes sense, and I'm not going to contest the claim that the Bible is the word of God (which is probably unprovable either way).  However, if you were to claim that everything in the Bible is absolute morality, then you're going to have to deal with some very angry seafood restaurants.

I wouldn't say these things are 'immoral' as such, just that they are prohibited, for reasons known to G-d alone. (That is, prohibited to Jews only. According to Judaism, if one is not a born or converted Jew, one may eat as much seafood as one likes, or wear clothes mixed with wool and linen.)

But I have never, ever eaten seafood other than fish which have both fins and scales, and I never, ever wear clothes which have a mixture of wool and linen. In fact, if I ever buy something which I suspect may contain the two (typically suits) I get them checked to make sure that they don't.

[Eriny]

I wouldn't decide whether or not to vote for someone based on whether or not they are religious, but I am concerned about their ability to separate the church and the state. So, I suppose an atheist would be better in that sense because I don't have to worry about that aspect of their policies.

I don't think atheists are immoral. I think atheists, if anything, are more moral because the impetus of their ethical choices aren't based on whether or not they are going to hell, but rather on the need to do genuine good, based on contextual understandings rather than just a black-and-white, non-flexible view of things. Additionally, it is not true at all that religion has remained unchanged for centuries - there are many people who practice the same religion in a range of different ways and take parts of their religion more seriously than other parts. The books might not have changed, but the way they are applied certainly has. Additionally, even if it were all the same, someone who resists change does not make a particularly good leader.

In essence, I'm willing to let leaders' private lives be private, and I think beliefs are private. But when they are imposed on others, even in subtle ways, there is a big problem. Leaders need to be more flexible to reality and to our times than what the bible necessarily prescribes.

Also, look at this: http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/comics/rehab477.jpg

[ninwa]

An atheist who changes his/her morals is no worse than a religious person blatantly flaunting his/her own "fixed" ones.

[enwiabe]

A bit of west wing awesomeness for you guys on the upstanding morals of religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI&feature=related