My comments on 'ProtectThePope.com' re funding for Oz Atheist Convention

[gord]

Hi, I wanted to post my comment here in case its not 'approved' :]

Article here : http://protectthepope.com/?p=3107

My comment :

Im not formally associated with the Atheist Convention, but Im an enthusiastic supporter of Atheism in its wide variety of forms, and I warmly invite you to visit Melbourne and attend the event next year.

I do agree that tax-payer funding of events such as this should be in proportion to the number of supporters in the general community, and be apportioned according to popularity, economic benefits and so on – by this rule the funding for Atheist events would be far below par when compared to the funding for Christian or Catholic events. The 222 million per year for Christian Chaplains to provide religious instruction in Australian schools certainly drowns out any small amount the government has ever put behind Atheist events.

All Atheists are asking for is a fair footing, taking into account the current mix of religious beliefs in the community.

As for morals – there are good morals to be had from a rational non-religious philosophy. Causing harm to another human being is immoral, for example – and harm can be measured biologically. Taking a life is immoral for the same reasons. Hunting a species to extinction is immoral. As custodians of the planet, humans have a moral obligation to do what can be done to protect species and the environment, to protect historical artefacts, to not use up all the oil thus depriving future generations etc. Freedom of speech follows from the traditional search for truth that science has at its core – ie. how can I be sure that the truth is found if everyone is not able to raise questions?

The arguments for a rational morality are many and draw deeply from the physical and biological sciences, including evolution – and for this reason they offer a stronger imperative than religious morals. For example using condoms is clearly a good approach to preventing the spread of aids in africa, and I do wish the church would revisit this as I believe it is not fundamentally inconsistent with Jesus’ philosophy.

The idea that Atheists can have no morals is simply untrue, a divisive misconception. Once more ‘normal’ people come out as Atheists this myth will be busted once and for all.

Most ‘moderate’ educated Christians would have similar morals to Atheists on many issues – forgiveness, empathy, acceptance, kindness, sharing are no less at the core of Atheist morals than they are the core of morals you would attribute to Jesus’ teachings.

Stem cell research, weapons of mass destruction, over-population, longer lifespan, the internet – all these did not exist at the time the bible was written, so even christians must apply thought and discussion to extrapolate moral ideas to be relevant in this the 21st century.

Atheism is not impoverished at all – just as we can enjoy the great works and have contributed to them, we can look at the natural world and feel immense feeling of transcendant wonderment at the universe and know mans place within it. As we understand the universe more deeply through science, our desire to act morally is deepened as we see how precious this planet and how blessed we are to be its custodians – we the dominant species, promoted by eons upon eons of trial-and-error evolution.

[c2105026]

HERE HERE!!

[wolty]

That is certainly one fucked up website. The comments are just as bad.

[davo]

I commented when there was no comments, and it was never approved.

Here is what I posted :

Benedict XVI had his accommodation and (massive) security paid for by his hosts and the taxpayers had to come up with 100 million dollars more than the original $129 million according to the Auditor General “the estimated final cost for World Youth Day is six times the original budget estimate.” and that with all the added costs “the true budget will probably never be known”. With the expected 225,000 visitors, a target it didn’t meet, it was supposed to bring in $150 million. So straight away we lost money there. Not only that, but the tourism department’s figures indicate that the event actually ended up costing Sydney some 63,000 visitors who preferred not to spend their holiday in a city full of fervent teenagers. Now add the fact that free travel and overnight accommodation was provided for by the state free of charge in state schools (which is a large slab of income from tourists), $41 million in public funds was paid to the race track where the event was held, $20 million was spent on security. Not included here is the cost of providing emergency services and other provisions.

Of course, this had been pointed out in the start. It is one thing to get funding, it is another to have the income supposedly generated by it to be wiped out by the taxpayers footing accommodation costs, security and travel and other expenses that are supposed to bring money in to the state.

You do also realise atheism is a reaction against the insanity of religion that exists today, not a world view dogma don’t you? I mean, you want to look like you know what you are talking about? The whole reaction is due to the influences of religion, it is not about ‘the meaning of life’, it is a reaction to the religious nutjobs claims and the rights they demand for those claims.

I save all my comments in text files, for just this reason.

[Sieveboy]

Replied to the following dribble from this drop kick:

Karla May 19, 2011 at 4:15 pm (http://protectthepope.com/?p=3107#comment-25778) · Reply (http://protectthepope.com/?p=3107&replytocom=25778#respond)
A whole convention dedicated to athiests trying to comfort themselves in there belief of no God.
How many times do they have to try to prove to themselves theres no God until they move on.
We want to disprove gods existence about as often as we get bashed around the ears, and occasionally over the head, with comments such as: we are immoral, heathen, satanic (that is so funny being called satanic, you have to accept the existence of god to worship the devil), baby roasting, we bath in the blood of virigns, that we hate god (weird, we hate something that doesn't exist) and so on ad nauseum. There is some comfort in spending time with people, avoiding this and being able to laugh at the (usually Young Earth Creationsist) that show up and harass us.

What we do at such a convention is discuss a variety of things from the experiences of a woman growing up in a devout muslim world (and that is awful stuff to hear), to advances in science and moral philosphy, lots of humour and maybe a bit of theatre illusion and show and then we get to met and see some very accomplished and well spoken people. We also get to meet fellow atheists (and the occasionaly agnostic) and socialise and have a bit of fun. Just like, say a comic convention or an accounting convention (yawn at that).

Oh and FYI, it is impossible to conclusively prove a negative (i.e. there is no god). So why would we try to disprove god?

[Atheos]

Hi, I wanted to post my comment here in case its not 'approved' :]

Article here : http://protectthepope.com/?p=3107

My comment :

Im not formally associated with the Atheist Convention, but Im an enthusiastic supporter of Atheism in its wide variety of forms, and I warmly invite you to visit Melbourne and attend the event next year.

I do agree that tax-payer funding of events such as this should be in proportion to the number of supporters in the general community, and be apportioned according to popularity, economic benefits and so on – by this rule the funding for Atheist events would be far below par when compared to the funding for Christian or Catholic events. The 222 million per year for Christian Chaplains to provide religious instruction in Australian schools certainly drowns out any small amount the government has ever put behind Atheist events.

All Atheists are asking for is a fair footing, taking into account the current mix of religious beliefs in the community.

As for morals – there are good morals to be had from a rational non-religious philosophy. Causing harm to another human being is immoral, for example – and harm can be measured biologically. Taking a life is immoral for the same reasons. Hunting a species to extinction is immoral. As custodians of the planet, humans have a moral obligation to do what can be done to protect species and the environment, to protect historical artefacts, to not use up all the oil thus depriving future generations etc. Freedom of speech follows from the traditional search for truth that science has at its core – ie. how can I be sure that the truth is found if everyone is not able to raise questions?

The arguments for a rational morality are many and draw deeply from the physical and biological sciences, including evolution – and for this reason they offer a stronger imperative than religious morals. For example using condoms is clearly a good approach to preventing the spread of aids in africa, and I do wish the church would revisit this as I believe it is not fundamentally inconsistent with Jesus’ philosophy.

The idea that Atheists can have no morals is simply untrue, a divisive misconception. Once more ‘normal’ people come out as Atheists this myth will be busted once and for all.

Most ‘moderate’ educated Christians would have similar morals to Atheists on many issues – forgiveness, empathy, acceptance, kindness, sharing are no less at the core of Atheist morals than they are the core of morals you would attribute to Jesus’ teachings.

Stem cell research, weapons of mass destruction, over-population, longer lifespan, the internet – all these did not exist at the time the bible was written, so even christians must apply thought and discussion to extrapolate moral ideas to be relevant in this the 21st century.

Atheism is not impoverished at all – just as we can enjoy the great works and have contributed to them, we can look at the natural world and feel immense feeling of transcendant wonderment at the universe and know mans place within it. As we understand the universe more deeply through science, our desire to act morally is deepened as we see how precious this planet and how blessed we are to be its custodians – we the dominant species, promoted by eons upon eons of trial-and-error evolution.

hi gord;

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your post as to whether GAC2012 should receive government funding or not, in and of itself there are potential inconsistencies of using percentiles of populatiion based on religious belief as a base for funding, the recent push by the AFA for public awareness of the importance of selecting the 'no religion' (if you in fact have no religion and not just to tick your religion inherited by birth), answer in the census is a case in point, there is contention about the accuracy of the census results, of course this only applies if the census is used either partly or wholly as a guide or base to allocate funding.

Causing harm to another human being is immoral

there are many possible scenarios as to why one person may harm another, so to make a blanket statement like this is to be on very shaky ground, eg;if a person is attacking and causing harm to another and harming the attacker is the only possible way to stop them, is that "immoral"?


Taking a life is immoral for the same reasons.Same as above

For example using condoms is clearly a good approach to preventing the spread of aids in africa, and I do wish the church would revisit this as I believe it is not fundamentally inconsistent with Jesus’ philosophy.
Of course it is a good approach, but i didn't know that aids in Africa was an issue in the middle east 2000 years ago, also, when it can be verified that the jesus of the babble' actually existed then possibly some import can be given to his supposed "philosophy".


Most ‘moderate’ educated Christians would have similar morals to Atheists on many issues – forgiveness, empathy, acceptance, kindness, sharing are no less at the core of Atheist morals than they are the core of morals you would attribute to Jesus’ teachings.There are no "atheist morals" atheists are individuals so group moral stance can not be applied, as to "jesus' teachings" my answer to the previous statement addresses that.

Stem cell research, weapons of mass destruction, over-population, longer lifespan, the internet – all these did not exist at the time the bible was written, so even christians must apply thought and discussion to extrapolate moral ideas to be relevant in this the 21st century.


Indeed, and religon is not necessary to arrive at moral conclusions, either now or in the past.

Atheism is not impoverished at all – just as we can enjoy the great works and have contributed to them, we can look at the natural world and feel immense feeling of transcendant wonderment at the universe and know mans place within it. As we understand the universe more deeply through science, our desire to act morally is deepened as we see how precious this planet and how blessed we are to be its custodians – we the dominant species, promoted by eons upon eons of trial-and-error evolution.
I don't feel a "transcendent" wonderment of the universe at all, i feel a natural wonderment of the universe, i am also not "blessed", i feel i have a duty of care, simply by the fact of being a sentient social human.

[gord]

I meant 'blessed' in the sense of being blessed by good luck or good health, without any religious connotation - my attempt at wry humour :]

Sure, there are edge cases that can be rationally argued where harm or even taking a human life is more 'moral' than taking no action. We both agree that the decision can be made based on rational argument, rather than assuming there is a god, that he is right and you have a perfect line of communication to him.

Your point about proportional funding of Atheists is assumed - as you say, you do need accurate numbers on what fraction of people that is in order to allocate tax funds in an even manner.


In retrospect, probably silly of me to spend the time writing up a polite argument - its clearly not going to be read or make any impression on the people who support the site. If you believe the Pope needs protecting given the immense wealth and popularity of the organisation, you're unlikely to be swayed by any sane argument.

[gord]

And the topic now turns to abortion [ yes, I simply should have not replied - probably taking my life into my own hands as my photo appears on the site ! ]



'Deacon Nick's reply to my comment :


Hi Gordon, I agree with you that atheists in Australia, and elsewhere should receieve grants from governments on a fair footing with faith groups. I’m all for the state supporting the free and fair exchange of ideas. Though I don’t share your atheist position, I support people meeting together to advance human thinking and community. Even if I think some of your ideas are wrong, the discussion between theism and atheism, or non religion, can help the development of thought.

I hope my post did not give the impression that I think that atheists have no morals, because that is not my understanding. I’m interested to learn what principals atheists use as a basis for moral decisions. Thank you for your reflections on this. You write that ‘causing harm to another human being is immoral’. I’d be interested to understand how you define who a human being is? As a Catholic I define human life as beginning at conception, and therefore a conceptus, embryo and fetus is a developing human being. Reason and faith inform this definition.

I think atheism is wrong is some fundamental ways but I don’t think it is impoverished, there have been some profound atheist thinkers. However, I do think the New Atheism is impoverished by the polemic verging on bigotry of certain celebrity atheists.

Thank you for your invitation to the convention in 2012. I lived in Australia as a young child and have a great fondness for your wonderful country.


My reply to Deacons reply :

gordon anderson
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 22, 2011 at 11:38 pm

You’ve raised the question ‘When does an embryo with human DNA become a human being?” [ and thus is it moral or immoral to prevent that embryo from continuing, eg via abortion ]

I think science can inform that question. Like everyone, I have seen pictures of how an embryo develops in gradual stages in a continuum from two distinct cells which have potential for life, to a fertilised egg, to an embryo with a nervous system which might likely feel pain and warmth in the normal sense, to a fully developed baby at term.

From this we might draw reasonable conclusions, taking into account the state of the mother and embryo, such as :
- contraception is preferable to abortion in general
[ one must face the reality humans are built for reproduction, so abstinence is largely unachievable ]
- if abortion is to be performed, it should be performed earlier rather than later and by a trained physician
- viable alternatives should be provided to the mother, so she can make the best informed decision, with help from her doctor and community support

Those who believe that an embryo at age N weeks has developed enough to constitute a feeling human being [ and therefore should have the right to life ], have a moral imperative to support the mother so that she has the option of having the baby if she chooses. As a society, we do have an obligation to come to a legal consensus as to what N should be, and this should be informed by science.

I personally believe it is immoral for the catholic church to not promote contraception as a better alternative to abortion, given your belief that a fertilised human embryo ‘has the right to life’.

[CoachPedro]

Somebody log onto the site and ask, what's the deal then...if life begins at conception and from that point is always something (heaven, hell, other).

I can see their point about not handing out condoms to Africans. It is so much more humane to let them live a short life with AIDS.

[gruber]

I wonder if Protectthepope.com has heard of the saying "Your just as bad as those you defend"

[Atheos]

I meant 'blessed' in the sense of being blessed by good luck or good health, without any religious connotation - my attempt at wry humour :]

Sure, there are edge cases that can be rationally argued where harm or even taking a human life is more 'moral' than taking no action. We both agree that the decision can be made based on rational argument, rather than assuming there is a god, that he is right and you have a perfect line of communication to him.

Your point about proportional funding of Atheists is assumed - as you say, you do need accurate numbers on what fraction of people that is in order to allocate tax funds in an even manner.


In retrospect, probably silly of me to spend the time writing up a polite argument - its clearly not going to be read or make any impression on the people who support the site. If you believe the Pope needs protecting given the immense wealth and popularity of the organisation, you're unlikely to be swayed by any sane argument.

hi gord,

I meant 'blessed' in the sense of being blessed by good luck or good health, without any religious connotation - my attempt at wry humour :]

bless (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bless?rskey=kYqM1B&result=1#m_en_gb0084140)…pronounce words in a religious rite in order to confer or invoke divine favour upon; ask God to look favourably on…


blessed (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/blessed?rskey=kYqM1B&result=2#m_en_gb0084150)


…made holy; consecrated…


blessed (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/blessed?rskey=kYqM1B&result=3#m_en_gb0084150.004)


…those who live with God in heaven…

(http://oxforddictionaries.com/search?searchType=dictionary&isWritersAndEditors=true&searchUri=All&q=blessed&_searchBtn=Search&contentVersion=WORLD)
http://oxforddictionaries.com/search?searchType=dictionary&isWritersAndEditors=true&searchUri=All&q=blessed&_searchBtn=Search&contentVersion=WORLD


That is the oxford dictionary definition of blessed', and maybe i'm just a humourless bastard but i did not perceive any attempt at humour in the original statement by your good self in which it was used, wry or otherwise.


Sure, there are edge cases that can be rationally argued where harm or even taking a human life is more 'moral' than taking no action.


Which is in direct conflict with your original statement, "Causing harm to another human being is immoral", as to "edge cases" i'm not sure what you mean, something is either relevant to a discussion or it isn't.


We both agree that the decision can be made based on rational argument

Yes, we can both agree on that, I think where we differ is on what constitutes "rational".


Your point about proportional funding of Atheists is assumed - as you say, you do need accurate numbers on what fraction of people that is in order to allocate tax funds in an even manner.

I was merely pointing out potential incosistencies of using data, such as from the census as a guide or base to public funding, I did not even address your conflation of "The 222 million per year for Christian Chaplains to provide religious instruction in Australian schools" with the public funding of atheist events, which are entirely seperate issues.


In retrospect, probably silly of me to spend the time writing up a polite argument

I don't believe it's silly at all, but being polite has nothing to do with being accurate when addressing issues.












(http://oxforddictionaries.com/search?searchType=dictionary&isWritersAndEditors=true&searchUri=All&q=blessed&_searchBtn=Search&contentVersion=WORLD)



(http://oxforddictionaries.com/search?searchType=dictionary&isWritersAndEditors=true&searchUri=All&q=blessed&_searchBtn=Search&contentVersion=WORLD)

[DanDare]

What a silly web site.

Funding for public events should be based on the public benefit of those events. In this case the measure cited by the government was tourism dollars.

World Youth Day - a few hundred million taxpayers dollars and the suspension of some civil rights in NSW to prevent visitors from being upset by the locals. Did not reach its projected quarter million visitors and it seems there was a net loss for the economy of about fifty million or so.

Parliament of World religions - held a short while before the Global Atheist Convention absorbed over fifty million in tax payers dollars and did not come close to its target attendance size. Only a few thousand attended.

The Global Atheist Convention, which was only requesting a few tens of thousands of dollars, not millions, still managed to attract two and a half thousand people who brought a fair whack of spending loot and paid all their own transport and accommodation expenses. The convention could have filled with twice that number of people easily with appropriate support. The government paid nothing, not a dollar, and the local economy got a huge boost.

That is discriminatory and badly handled government spending.

[kais_4]

That was a very well written post. However I wish I could say the same to some of the comments on that website. I think there's a line. Let me demonstrate:

Atheist - Rational
Agnostic - Rational
Faith - Rational (For the most part)
Catholic - Sorry your a what?

And for good measure

Creationist - Their thoughts = "La La La La La La!!"

[gord]

yapbg - yet another reply by gord, lest it hit gods bit bucket in the sky :


I think your question is wider – why do so many people who might have quietly gone about their business before, and only called themselves agnostic when pressed.. why have these people suddenly got together into a vocal political movement, and why must they feel the need to cry out at every chance ‘Im an Atheist and make I no apology’ ?

Because we see the Catholic Church not taking responsibility for eradicating sexual abuse by priests, because we see religion being disproportionately funded in state schools which are supposed to be secular as outlined in the constitution, and we see our education system being eroded with the thin end of the wedge of mad creationist ideas.

There is already enough religious inspired discord in the world – We dont want to have religions inciting division within our state schools. It would be immoral to stand by and say nothing when Christian ministries are funded to the tune of 222 million per year and abuse this trust by trying to convert young students to Christianity, having no regard for the diverse makeup of the community – parents from other religions, atheists and agnostics alike.

I want my child to know the facts about biology and evolution and physics, to get along with people from a range of ethnic backgrounds, and most importantly to question and reason logically. We dont want to have science classes muddied by religious dogma.

Atheism is a positive movement – It is positive to affirm that I want quality science education, that I want our laws to reflect ethics that are based on science and rationality, medicine that is humane and well considered, an immigration policy that is both moral and sustainable, energy policies that allow for growth while protecting the environment, human rights that are fairly applied to people of all religions [and no religion].

Yes there is room for creativity and inspiration, but it is science and rational argument that lead to the best choices for our childrens future.

Thats why we bother to reply to religious disinformation when we see it – there is a chance you’ll listen to reason.