abu_rashid wrote on Oct 15^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

'well actually'? Sure, his diction was perfect, he was polite... but relative Islamic morality? Would you subscribe to that? I bet Aly doesn't either... He was clearly over-awed by the task... Sad actually.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 15^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

Well, yes Hitchens spiel is repetitive as are theistic ones. In the end you either believe or you don't... There'll never be a knockout in this ring, not even a TKO. But it's fun to watch theists bouncing off the ropes.

Muso?
Your continued defence of theists is frankly disturbing, because it smacks of the same moral cowardice that was seen displayed by the theists in the debate, as it willfully ignores the massive evils perpetrated upon the human psyche by "good" theists, who deem it appropriate to threaten all who will listen, with eternal tortures, of the worst kind they can imagine, as the penalty for not believing exactly the same things they do.

Religion is not, as innocuous as you like to portray it, there is a deep malevolence rooted in the basis of all creeds, that is unhealthy for any normal persons psyche, if they actually believe, and accept as unquestionably true, "All" the dictates of their relative dogmas.

I might add that I take a position that alienates me from possibly every other poster on this forum.

If that represents moral cowardice, then it's in a very strange format.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 16^th, 2009 at 9:59am:


Actually I do. Certainly in the case of Roman Catholicism. They even have a tacid acceptance of intermarriage from other faiths and even contraception in Australia. There is a growing discontinuity between the position of Rome and the position of most Roman Catholics in Australia. They had a Galileo exhibition at the Vatican recently. Moderate religions evolve and they genuinely regret mistakes made in the past.  However, they don't answer to Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, and they tend to sort out these things for themselves. That's what I think, but maybe you should ask a Christian or a Muslim if their religions change to reflect the times.

Quote:


So titles like "The God Delusion", comparing Theism to a mental illness do not denigrate people's beliefs? Of course they denigrate. They take great delight in doing so.

Quote:


Hmm the dismantling of a moral framework has probably done more harm to society than moderate religions ever did. I'm talking about Vicar of Dibley type Christianity rather than  Jerry Falwell style evangelism. The former is charming and rustic, the latter is insidious in an exclusivist and 'xenophobic' (or intolerant) way.

Quote:

It's all in the interpretation - and the interpretation has changed and evolved through the years to fit the changes in society.  A theist might call that divine inspiration. The scripture can certainly be misinterpreted by those of other faiths, or those atheists who think they know more than those who actually practice the faith. Yeah - anti-theistic atheists are arrogant. No argument there.

Quote:


You need to step back and see the whole elephant. As an anti-theist, you are like the blind monk holding the elephants trunk and proclaiming - It's a thick rope!  You see what you want to see.

Hey - where are all the theists?

Speaking frankly, and I'm not trying to score any debating points here, I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and others (including yourself) maintain a myth that the religion of today is totally immutable and that they somehow have an expectation of deference by society.

That's far from the truth. A couple of days ago I heard a program on ABC Radio that showed what it was like growing up as a Catholic in Australia in the 50's and 60's. Catholics wore brown shoes to school, protestants wore black, and Catholics were called "Catholic dogs', were spat on regularly, and intermarriage was regarded as 'living in sin'.  

Maybe that was the case back then, but we listen to stories like that with horror nowadays - Catholics, Protestants and the rest of us alike. We don't want to go back to those days. In that respect, society has changed for the better.

We live in a society where most people (by a slim majority) never actually marry, even if they want to have kids. Attitudes have changed in most churches because they had to change. The term 'bastard' is not really used nowadays, although it used to attract a great deal of stigma for those born outside wedlock.  

OK, I'll grant you that the Muslims seem to be a bit slower than others to adapt, but even there things will change eventually. Some of the younger people at least, seem to be less fundamental.

Some things have changed for the better, some things have got worse, but you certainbly can't blame religion for the dysfunction that exists in Australian society, because we're living in a Post-Christian society in Australia now - and churches at least are fully cogniscant of that fact, and  they have adapted to it. When were you last in church? Try going one day. You might see the light   about immutable religions.

I've said this many times before, but the human brain is not 100% logical. Some of the ways we think are very 'idiomatic'. The vast majority of the human population loves 'irrational thought'. If you want the biggest religion in the world, it's Astrology. Some people make decisions on compatibility of a life partner on the basis of their star sign.  They don't get vaccinated, even though the risk assessment shows that the dangers of not getting vaccinated exceed those of vaccination complications by a factor of 1000 or more.  People are quite comfortable in their irrationality. Don't try to scare them with facts - it makes them uncomfortable.  That's how it is - tear your hair out all you like but it isn't going to change. Most people seem to muddle through life wthout thinking too deeply, and if something irrational gives them comfort, it's not a big deal. They still seem to have fun in life. They laugh, they love and they reproduce. Nothing is going to change that.

The latest stats show that only 9% of the population regularly attend religious worship. The remaining 91% are either religious and apathetic, agnostic or generic "non religious'. Having said that, there are a few worrying trends in the Federal government as evidenced by the protests of the so-called 'sex party' in Canberra recently.

I think public opinion will sort out things like that pretty quickly.

Do you think that the mainstream religions in Australia  (Anglican and Catholic) have an expectation of deferance or respect from the rest of society?

In that respect they have changed.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 7:30am:


I guess the first major revision of Christianity took place at the First Council of Nicea in 325.  That gave rise to the Nicean Creed, one of many non scriptural sources that defines and changes the nature of religion.  Within all the mainstream churches, there is a process of review. Within the Catholic Church such changes are finally declared by the Pope himself, and the Anglican Church has a similar process.  

The interpretation of Scripture has changed enormously through the ages.

Take the case of the interpretation of adultery for example. The original intent of the adultery related commandment was that one man should not steal another man's wife. If a married man and a single woman had a sexual relationship, then there would be no question of adultery, even if the man was married already.

Obviously through the ages, the interpretation of that scripture has changed. You might see it as hypocritical, but a theologian sees it as a necessary adaptation to keep in line with society. Such change is seen as divine inspiration.

So to say that religion is totally immutable is a gross simplification.

I was hoping that some of the faithful would come to my aid here, because I'm probably getting beyond my depth.  If you really want better clarification of this subject, I can email a friend of mine who is a theology professor in Austria.