Atheists only in Santa's grotto? - UPDATED

sorry that should have read Yet the christians killed co…

Yup and so did all the pagan religions of the norse and so on.

the thing with the south/central american religions is that they had some amazing science going on.. and they were the more likely to embrace a new idea than to shun it. Of course assuming the idea was benficial to them. But yes they were extremely violent towards each other.

The christian kill copernicus for hypothesising that the stars and the sun did not cicrle around the earth. Even though a deeper understanding of the mechanics of our world would have been beneficial.

South american religions got pretty bloody AD.

nutbag no. Passionate yes.

I am sure they do… but historically the most notorious collective of intolerance comes from those those who have judaic based belief. Not all. But as I have stated before.. even if you are an open minded, progressive person with faith, by attending church (or mosque or whatever) you are supporting the current crop of close minded conservative crazies as well as supporting history.

if the church could become a progressive entity, and allow itself to question its own beliefs, which every rational person and collective should be able to do. Then I would personally be a little more tolerant. And while yes the church is a lot more tolerant than say 500 years ago… it is still not enough.

So it’s cool for you to make up for religious intolerance by being intolerant in return?

Fantastic logic….. Should work a treat.

I love how the only fundamentalist nutbag (just whenever religion comes up) in the conversation is the atheist.

Atheists do bad things too AD.

In general all the bad things in religion’s history were done by people intolerant of others which is where you’re at right now.

Bassman – that is because I am right. And to be honest my little dose of intolerance is nothing compared to what the major religions have done over the centuries and still do. If you can prove I am wrong do it… but that is highly unlikely.

AD have you noticed that the only person pushing their beliefs on anyone here is your good self?

And yes, I’m pretty sure that she was asking for people with enthusiasm rather than a lack of religious belief…..

In my case I’m afraid “budding” has been confused for “wilting”

I’d recommend all the budding philospher’s take a look at Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law”

Basically meaning it’s wrong to do things you’d get upset about other people doing.

On the back of this it’s totally possible to build sustainable ethical and moral frameworks in the absence of the existence of a god.

Having said that I personally choose to self-idenify as an Anglican because the 4,000 years of accumulated cultural tradition is a handy tool with which to try and understand the world.

AD might call it a crutch, but it beats having to re-invent an entire moral universe on my own.

In any event I personally prefer a christmas with a spirtual element to the howling wasteland of Westfields consumerist orgy.

Frankly, it would be easier to ask “Sarah” (who seems to have penned the Westfield blurb) just what she meant and why…assuming she knows, of course.

Maybe they meant “aesthetic” – that is, they don’t want ugly elves.

Elves are part of Beelzebub’s minions anyway, they are his sleeper cell in the camp of the righteous and shall be activated come the final battle between the light and dark, all Santa’s toys will then display their hidden malevolent purpose.

ironically ‘xmas’ is a bullshit celebration as noone really knows when the little baby jesus was born.

the day we use was plucked by the early church from the sun god ‘mithras’ feast/celebration day.

still this is in line with all th eother things christianity borrowed from other religions such as the great flood etc, worship of mary etc.

Has the same definition in the Macquarie Dict. “Tour book” appears to be at odds with the rest of the worlds dictiionaries. Innate is exactly the opposite of “learned through experience”

The reason that you non-religiouse friends have the same beliefs about stealing etc as you is that they have thought about it rationally. We now seem to be arguing the same point???

BTW, sorry to lower the tone of this erudite discourse…

I’m more interested in the ‘white witches’, vg.
What’s the gig – indoor, outdoor? And the gear – do they wear any?

Sorry Binker, completely lost me. Innate means learned through experience in my book. We are not ‘hard wired’ to know stealing is bad. Its what you learn

Does a dichotomouse like cheese?

I think that killing in most circumstances is wrong. I think stealing is wrong. I was raised a Catholic. I have friends who have the same beliefs re stealing/killing who have no religious affiliation. Riddle me that. I did ‘think about it’, as 99.9% of the population does rather than blindly follow some religious mindset. The mind gets constituted through experience that is learned.

You’ll have to do better than dictionary.com.

Innate means present from birth, originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience.

Killing self defence is OK then (so it’s not just a matter of right and wrong but of circumstances etc), maybe some other forms of killing are OK, maybe killing someone at their request is OK if they’re suffering a painful terminal illness (and are of sound mind). My point being that the world is not dichotomouse you can’t say all killing is wrong, just like you cannot say all thieving is wrong, or all alternativly something is necessarily right in all circumstances. You have to think about it, not blindly follow the manual (ie bible/koran).

A bit of Greek Orthodox?

Had a quiet sunday lads? I am quite sure that Santa would only emply the non-religious so he can take them up the pooper…

Working on the presumption that a belief system (religious or political) exists primarily to make some sense of existence and help provide an ethical framework, it would be impossible to separate right and wrong from religious right and wrong.

As for the mandatory abortions plan – am I wrong in assuming that you’d have a fair say in determining the personality criteria AD? Am I also wrong in thinking that there are probably completely non-religious/ideological types who might disagree with this plan? (But nice trolling)

You all need to be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Binker. Firstly you said in Saudi you’d have to wear a veil, next you say its a scarf. Have you been there?? I have and you’re wrong.

Innate means an inner feeling that something is right or wrong. Killing in self-defence (under the threat of serious bodily injury or death) does not innately feel wrong.

I am at a loss with the tangents you are heading off in though. Maybe I’m not pseudo-intellectual enough.

I’d like to see the size of the brush that some of you are tarring all religious believers with. Quite extraordinarily large I’d surmise

All contact sport is homoerotic… AFL… blokes jumping onto the backs of other guys arses… hmmm

My belief is that right and wrong should be completely separate from religious right and wrong. Abortion and stem cell research for example is wrong in the eyes of a lot of religious peoples eyes.. so well maybe they should just not participate in abortion nor receive the benefits of stem cell research. However those who fight against contraception in africa should be quatered. That is imho a prime example of the evilness of religion..

I also believe in mandatory abortion for under 25’s unless certain very strict personality criteria is met. This serves several purposes in that it keeps population down, ensures the wrong sort of people don’t have babies at stupidly young ages, that people are hopefully more mature when they have children, provides specimens for stem cell research. It is probable that most people with religous beliefs will disagree with this despite the fact that it is dripping with sanity and logic. So if we can succesfully disengage religion from morals.. we will be in a lot better place.

Oh and by the way, it probably is a mistake to try to convince someone that a sport in which stocky neckless men who spend most of the game running into each other in a disturbingly homo-erotic way is superior to a homegrown free flowing demonstration of athleticism and skill preferred in the majority of Australian states. 🙂

I think we essentially all agree that bigots who talk shit and/or prosyletize deserve to be smacked down. (Of course, if someone is excited about their beliefs, I think they have a right to tell others about them, they just need to recognise that there is a line between telling and earbashing.)

My point is mainly that it’s important to differentiate between the extremist nutters in any belief system (and perhaps also between those who actually believe what they are nutters about and those who just use it for political gain – aka bush and howard) and those who hold a belief in moderation.

Tarring all Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc as evil/ignorant/etc because of the noisy minority shows a lack of understanding of the spectrum.

As far as doing the right thing goes, I guess I was probably bringing my own values to it but generally I meant things that benefit society and don’t bring judgement along for the ride, as well as things that don’t harm others.

As far as non-religious charities etc go – of course there are, my point was probably more that the work they do isn’t generated specifically as a result of the belief system in the same way that the religious/political ones seem to be. That’s to say that I don’t see an organisation of Atheists driven by their particular beliefs (ie – that there is nothing to believe in – ok, maybe that’s more nihilist but something along those lines) to go out and “do the right thing”.

Maybe you could say that they are driven more by a humanist agenda – which could still be considered a belief system in its own right.

by the way, maybe Kerces has a point – two things made me wonder essentially – the absence of the word enthusiastic (or a synonym) in a HR/PR focussed piece about workers at a mall (a.k.a – young, energetic, naive, easily exploited 🙂 and two, atheistic just seems so unlikely. Bit of Occams razor I guess.

my bad, covet- but why is it moot, has it been de-listed as a commandment.

In Saudi if you want to go out and you’re female you do have to wear a scarf, otherwise your in breach of laws regarding morality applies whether you are a Muslim, a Christian or whatever.

If knowing things were right or wrong is innate why would anybody argue about it, the very debate we’re having shows that it is not innate but arrived at through cognition (whether it is recognised or not).

Killing is wrong but- in self defence? to prevent deaths of innocents (eg killing Ivan Millat before he committed crime? What is killing, is abortion killing?

What you think you innately know is if not arrived at by merely believing what others say then you will have arrived at it by rational thought (that’s not to say it is right but it is rational/logical).

Seeing the world in dichotomous terms is simple, it allows judgements to be made quickly and easily,, but it is also intellectually lazy and does not represent reality, the world isn’t just black and white.

But AD, Rugby is

I just don’t understand what you are arguing.

Don’t make me go into the whys and wherefores of excuses for stealing. A rational human being knows that taking other people’s stuff is wrong. People steal but still know it was wrong. If they didn’t they wouldn’t get convicted in a court, little thing called mens rea.

If you were born in Saudi Arabia and were an athiest you wouldn’t have to wear the hijab because you wouldn’t be a Muslim.

Before you argue the religious point you should research a little.

Bit hard to ‘covert’ your neighbours wife (unless you are very sneaky). You ‘covet’. That is a moot example as well. One of the 10 Commandments is ‘thou shalt not kill’. Do you think its only some religious dogma that prevents me from doing that as well? No, a rational human being innately knows that is wrong as well.

In some countries the Bible or Koran IS their logic. I’m not saying that is right or wrong, but that’s what THEY believe.

I would be happy to be tolerant, if these religious bigots opened their minds on Things like condoms in africa, stem cell research, abortion , cloning, equal rights for all people all races. Once we can get those wanker religious types such as howard and dubya out of power and put in progressive science oriented leaders and the world starts progressing for the better.. then I will accept that people have the right to believe what they want…

I would say its more like trying to convince afl supporters that rugby union is the truest and best football code.

I am a Catholic and the not stealing part is an essential human innate belief. Its not ‘right’ to take other people’s stuff. Nothing to do with whatever beliefs I have or don’t. Its just wrong.

Begs the question-But why is it not “right”? If it is an “essential human innate belief” why do some people steal (and thus not appear to have it) are they not human? Things aren’t just right or wrong (or in most cases somewhere in the middle) there has to be a reason (and a context) for it.

Maybe “thou shalt not covert thy neighbours wife” is a slightly more ambiguous example why shouldn’t I she’s a babe and my neighbour doesn’t care they have an open relationship.

As I said it’s not problematic when it is something that in most cases is fairly black and white like stealing it’s not a problem but if I was born in Saudi and was an atheist having to wear a veil would shit me to tears just because the Koran says that’s the way it is.

I’m fine with people believing what they want and leaving them to it right up until they legislate based on what the Bible/Koran etc says rather than based on logic, then it directly affects me and I am entitled to argue.

I don’t think it’s a mistyped “enthusiastic” because it then goes on to say “…who still believe in Christmas”.

As an example, last night in my travels I came across a few ‘white witches’ having some sort of full moon ceremony. I personally think what they were doing was a load of shit, but I kept my opinion to myself as they hurt no-one. If thats their religion who am I to tell them whats right or wrong about their beliefs?

Bit like trying to explain to a Manly supporter why Parra is a better team. You won’t win

“However that “thou shalt not steal is a commandment” relies purely on a belief in god”

What utter bollocks. I am a Catholic and the not stealing part is an essential human innate belief. Its not ‘right’ to take other people’s stuff. Nothing to do with whatever beliefs I have or don’t. Its just wrong.

Hard line athiests are as bad as hard line religious people. Have a bit of tolerance that people may have a belief, other than what your own is, and get on with life rather than argueing about shit like this.

When beliefs on either side of the spectrum are extreme thats when problems start (as the world so patently demonstrates on a daily basis). But an athiest prattling on about how they are so right bores me as much as the Hillsong displays.

I don’t think it’s the “doing the right thing” that atheists have a problem with It’s the what is “right” that is more problematic and that religious people are informed about what is “right” through the word of god etc not necessarily by logic. For example thieving is not “right” the real reason for this is probably that society will suffer if it occurs willy nilly, by suffering one probably means that net happiness or net economic worth some other measure decreases, this can be empirically tested. However that “thou shalt not steal is a commandment” relies purely on a belief in god the bible etc. It’s fine when it is a simple example like thieving but when it is homosexual marriage, or abortion, or the need for women to wear a veil in public or something more opaque falling back on a belief system based in faith not empiricism is problematic and often discriminatory.

PS there are stacks of non-religious charities or not-for profit organisations

Sorry AD but isn’t it just a little bit too easy to poke holes in Christian fundamentalism. What about Christians who take the bible as something more metaphorical, who believe in evolution and so forth?

As I said before, fundamentalism is the main problem here.

And just out of curiosity, how exactly does sitting back smugly saying that everyone else’s spiritual beliefs are wrong make the world a better place?

Where exactly are the Atheist soup kitchens? homeless shelters? rehab programs?

No belief system (religious or otherwise) has ever gotten it entirely right in known history and it’s entirely fair to say that some have gotten it spectacularly wrong on many levels – but lets not forgot the shades of grey in there that try to do the right thing and succeed.

By preaching religious intolerance I’m sorry, but you’re just as biased as the people you think are so wrong. By preaching that ‘athiests are the most right’ is the theoligical version of ‘my dad’s tougher than your dad’. It will go nowhere.

Just let people have their beliefs in peace. If they try and force it down your throat then say something, but just let them have their beliefs if it keeps them happy.

And on 3rd read Pierce is right

thanks pierce.
i thought they must’ve meant altruistic, only that didn’t make a lot of sense either.

the aetheists are the most right. sorry its fact. anyone who believes the bible is actual history is seriously deluded. I will always preach religious intolerance… like I said most aetheists won’t because they are reasonably apathetic. but i actually care about the state of this planet. The only way religion can exist for the planets benefit is in peoples personal lives.. it should be systematically removed from science, politics and and not taken as serious history.

But all things said and done i suspect peirce is right about enthusiastic.

You haven’t figured out yet that they obviously meant “enthusiastic” but got tripped up by spellcheck or autofill or just a simple brain freeze?

Who says “atheistic” and what logical reason would they have for doing so?

Wake up Australia.

(And for the record, religion is virtually never the problem, fundamentalism is (eg we’re always right and you always suck) – even in atheism)

It is still a belief that people are being discriminated for/against. Just as bad a being pro religion is being anti religion.

Last I checked Christians celebrated the birth of the big boy at Xmas, rather than a fat guy in a red suit. The correlation between elves and atheism is moot.

Although its a minor subject, its still discriminating someone on the basis of their beliefs. I’m sure if they got the job and continually broke into Kumbaya then there would be an issue, but wtf has your beliefs got to do with being an elf?

I work with Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, Proddys, Athiests etc. Religion doesnt get discussed at work. I’m sure its not a hotbed of conversation for Xmas elves either

that would be there perogative.. and quite often they do.. look at the christian music scene for example they can play in the all comers scene, but not everyone can play in their scene – i know it’s a pretty lame correlation but is similar.

Aetheists are the least offensive to all religions in my humble opinion.. because we won’t argue that our god is the right god.. because our god doesn’t exist 🙂 and generally aetheists (except for your hardcories) are far more accepting of everyone and just want everyone to get along.

OK for christians to exclude atheists from jobs then is it AD?

thats fucking fantastic.

By cancelling out religions you have less problems and zero political/religious agendas. Think about it.

Anyway Kudos Westfield… you have my respect ( at least as much respect as a mall could get).

Does it even fall under HREOC guidelines?

Perhaps they’ll argue that it is not a religious connotation – Santa – and therefore they can ask for people who aren’t religious.

Isn’t the politically correct name ‘little people’?

Ah come-ooon, they’re only the elves!

Somebody just opened themselves up an anti-discimination suit