Julia Gillard is an atheist!

[QuantumJG]

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.

These two statements are great.

After hearing this I am now ready to say that a person's religious (or non-religious) beliefs does have a bearing on their policies.

The second statement that we should have a balance between the two moral extremes. We would all want the morals that are just common sense to us to stay, but then we need to allow for changes.

The best example is gay marriages. Fixed morals say that this can't happen, yet I really think that this moral should be abolished since we have a lot of heterosexual marriages that fail, whilst there are probably a lot of homosexual marriages that actually work, so it seems hypocritical to keep the fixed moral in play.

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".

It seems that I found a counter example to Yitzi_K's theory 'that athiests have no fixed morals'. 

[QuantumJG]

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

I lol'd at this.

[Yitzi_K]

It seems that I found a counter example to Yitzi_K's theory 'that athiests have no fixed morals'. 

Meaning?

[slothpomba]

Religious morals aren't truly fixed, look at the bible. It said it was OK to stone your on disobedient children. If it was truly fixed good Christians would be getting their kids stoned (and not in the fun way).

I find it absurd that Yitzi_K declares a blanket statement that *all* atheists have no morals. The atheists i know have taken time and looked at the various religions and reached the conclusion atheism is for them. I find them often more tolerant and moral then some of the religious people i know.

It'd be just absurd to say all Christians or Jews are upright moral people, you cant just make statements like that.

There are contradictions in the bible but that's for another thread/flame war.

Anyway it doesn't matter what the leader personally believes, they don't make the decisions about what to implement or not its pretty much all party policy. (as far as im aware.. prove me wrong)

Ok, so you say you look down less on her because she isn't religious.

Satanists are religious and have fixed morals, would you vote for them.

They're very moral:
   1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence

   2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams

   3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit

   4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates

   5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek

   6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires

   7. Satan represents man as just another animal (sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours), who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.

   8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification

   9. Satan has been the best friend the Christian Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years[16]

I'd totally vote for one of those guys.

(i haven't read all the thread so i might of missed out what happened in between)

[Cthulhu]

I think you're ignoring an important player in all of this, kingpomba....
Like the super devil.

As you can see is this comparison the super devil has larger horns than the regular devil, rides a motorcycle and carries a jar of marmalade.

[slothpomba]

That heretic.. that marmalade ain't kosher! 

[QuantumJG]

It seems that I found a counter example to Yitzi_K's theory 'that athiests have no fixed morals'. 

Meaning?

Well Julia Gillard is an athiest right? She still holds onto the fixed moral that marriage is only between a man and woman.

[ninwa]

Ahh, good point. I didn't even think of that.

[Yitzi_K]

Religious morals aren't truly fixed, look at the bible. It said it was OK to stone your on disobedient children. If it was truly fixed good Christians would be getting their kids stoned (and not in the fun way).

Define 'disobedient'. In this context disobedient has an incredibly stringent definition, including many criteria, and I'd be astounded if you got it right.

I find it absurd that Yitzi_K declares a blanket statement that *all* atheists have no morals. The atheists i know have taken time and looked at the various religions and reached the conclusion atheism is for them. I find them often more tolerant and moral then some of the religious people i know.

It'd be just absurd to say all Christians or Jews are upright moral people, you cant just make statements like that.

There are contradictions in the bible but that's for another thread/flame war.

Anyway it doesn't matter what the leader personally believes, they don't make the decisions about what to implement or not its pretty much all party policy. (as far as im aware.. prove me wrong)

Ok, so you say you look down less on her because she isn't religious.

Satanists are religious and have fixed morals, would you vote for them.

I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.

I also never said all religious people are 'upright moral people'. Again, if you read the thread you'd have seen that.

Also you satanist argument is completely irrelevant and proves nothing. Just because I said I'd prefer not to have an atheist PM doesn't mean I would prefer a satanist one.

(i haven't read all the thread so i might of missed out what happened in between)

So don't comment at all.

[Yitzi_K]

It seems that I found a counter example to Yitzi_K's theory 'that athiests have no fixed morals'.  

Meaning?

Well Julia Gillard is an athiest right? She still holds onto the fixed moral that marriage is only between a man and woman.

That is a moral, but on what basis is it 'fixed'?

I have no idea why Gillard believes that (although I'd be interested to hear her reason). Now I would assume that she has decided this based on her own intellectual understanding of the issues. Therefore it stands to reason that if someone would explain it to her in a different light, or presented new information, her intellectual understanding, and therefore her position on the whole issue, could change.

Now I'm sure you'd say that that would be a good thing, which is a discussion for a different topic. But what that means is, it's not a fixed moral.

Blanket statement: Any moral based on intellectual understanding is not fixed, as intellectual understanding can change.

[Eriny]

Why are fixed morals so important?

[ninwa]

That is a moral, but on what basis is it 'fixed'?

I thought it was stated in the bible that marriage is between a man and a woman. Hence, 'fixed' by religion.

Are you for or against gay marriage? And if you are for, are you suggesting that the bible also approves of it? Since you state that you live your life by what is contained within it.

EDIT: from Googling I see there is a conflict of opinion (as there seems to be around many things involving religious texts...), and that while it is not explicitly stated in the bible, the book is full of references to male/female marriage being the only way and therefore those who rely on the bible see it as confirmation of the fact that homosexual marriage is condemned.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_bible_say_marriage_is_for_a_man_and_a_woman
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_Bible_say_about_marriage
http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html
http://biblestudies.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_does_the_bible_say_about_marriage
http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/same-sex-marriages.htm

However, a counter-argument: http://www.newsweek.com/2008/12/05/our-mutual-joy.html

[ninwa]

I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.

Yes you did, you merely edited that post following the outrage it inspired.

I also never said all religious people are 'upright moral people'. Again, if you read the thread you'd have seen that.

No, but my interpretation of your arguments is that you are suggesting that the only valid morals are fixed morals, and the only fixed morals come from religion.
Therefore, the only true morals (as you appear to dismiss the validity of non-religious morals) come from religion.
Therefore, only those who are religious have true morals.
If this is wrong, then I fail to understand the point of your argument.

Also you satanist argument is completely irrelevant and proves nothing. Just because I said I'd prefer not to have an atheist PM doesn't mean I would prefer a satanist one.

I think it is very much relevant. You stated that you would prefer a religious PM. Satanism is a religion. Therefore, you would prefer a satanist (a religion) to an atheist (no religion).

[QuantumJG]

I never said all atheists have no morals. In fact if you'd actually read the thread, you'll find I said the exact opposite.

Yes you did, you merely edited that post following the outrage it inspired.

I also never said all religious people are 'upright moral people'. Again, if you read the thread you'd have seen that.

No, but my interpretation of your arguments is that you are suggesting that the only valid morals are fixed morals, and the only fixed morals come from religion.
Therefore, the only true morals (as you appear to dismiss the validity of non-religious morals) come from religion.
Therefore, only those who are religious have true morals.
If this is wrong, then I fail to understand the point of your argument.

Also you satanist argument is completely irrelevant and proves nothing. Just because I said I'd prefer not to have an atheist PM doesn't mean I would prefer a satanist one.

I think it is very much relevant. You stated that you would prefer a religious PM. Satanism is a religion. Therefore, you would prefer a satanist (a religion) to an atheist (no religion).

That I'm pretty sure is the general consensus of us on where Yitzi_K stands.

[enwiabe]

Why are fixed morals so important?

Because any deviation from their fixed morals is a rejection of god, so they have to absolutely cling like hellfire to "fixed morals" or else it invalidates the great big man in the sky. Yet one more example of how religion massively inhibits the progress of society. Sigh.