Jump to content

Are there any Creationists out there?


Bruce

Recommended Posts

A lot of people refuse to Tell ABS everything thats in that cencus paper.

How many births a woman has had !, Before the number After her marriage.

How many Motor vehicles you have, ' only count whats registered ' .

The list of discrepancies is as long as the list, the 'Bureaucrats ' dream up !.

spacesailor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The value of the conclusions from a survey are greatly dependent on the choice of those surveyed.

 

Twenty years ago, such a survey in my local government area, around Camden airport, would have given the same result as that reported by the ABC.  It was a predominantly European origin population. Take the same survey today and the number believing in  the Christian versions would be much less, simply because there has been massive residential development which has introduced Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and the rest to the population.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Spacey says, many people are cautious about their answers, for fear of Big Brother finding out some detail of their true situation. Personally I don't share that fear. Other times, people might give an automatic answer to a given question, without thinking deeply.

Am I the only person who has always answered the religion question the same way I always did as a school kid? Until the last Census, I answered 'Christian, C of E', because that was the church at which I attended Sunday school, etc. I haven't been to church since I stopped believing in god/gods, about 30 years ago. But my automatic response to the question only recently reflected my beliefs.

Also, in years gone by, discrimination (in the workplace and socially) against atheists was worse than catholic/protestant discrimination which was rampant.

Therefore, I suspect the true numbers of non-believers is higher than the ABS numbers suggest.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I joined the RAAF at the age of 17 and had to fill in my personal details and it never occurred to me that put "none".  I also put down C of E even though I was not a believer or a church goer.  After a year or so I became more confident and changed it to  "None".    I think nomadpete you are right about people answering that question with a standard C of E or Catholic or Jew.    

A couple of years ago I accompanied my late father whilst he was being admitted to hospital.   When they were filling in the paperwork they asked him if he had a religion, after a pause he said "C of E" despite the fact that other than funerals of weddings, he had not attended church ever in his 90 years.    I think for all practical purposes he was an atheist or at the very least an agnostic but felt some social pressure not to reveal this.    I would think that many people answering surveys , especially older folk, would be quite likely to give the answer that feels more socially acceptable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dated a woman for a couple of years who was Catholic - or claimed to be. She only went to church for family occasions - when with me, it was christenings of nieces/nephews. She never observe any of the rules privately or publicly - e.g. lent, etc. Her mother was a practicsing Catholic and her sister observed the main events, but by all otward appearances, my girlfriend was almost as ahtiest as I am.

 

When the M word was floated, we both agreed a simple cermony would be best. But that's where the agreement ended. I was thinking registry - she was thinking church. Well, it's all academic as it didn't happen anyway, but she was adamant that although she didn't observe the faith - I doubt she would have even known the pope's name at the time - she was a Catholic as if she were a member of some tribe.

 

So my guess is a lot of people who aren't really believers and aren't really of a religion still consider themselves secular members of that religion - so a part of a tribe rather than any spiritual association.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be good if people could simply say that their main moral background was based on Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, or whatever. Saying that you followed one particular sub-group is not really important. If you are of European ethnicity, and would label yourself Atheist, I would still consider that your morals to be based on Christianity, simply due to the strong influence of that belief system on European culture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all religions would like to claim that they invented the morals and ethics that we use today.   I think that the basic rules are more shaped by evolution rather than by religion.     "Thou shalt not kill"  is not unique to the Judeo-Christian faith.    It is simply not sustainable for a society of humans to thrive without prohibitions on wholesale killing.  Rather than invent the notion of killing being bad I think that the bible describes the rules that generally help a society to thrive.      Every successful society must have taboos or sanctions around killing in order for that society to survive.  Of course  most societies do allow killing in prescribed circumstances.

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Yep Old Man Emu is wrong again! 

From my point of view we are here to discuss things and put our ideas out there to be agreed with or contested.    From my perspective if I thought your posts were totally wrong I would not bother engaging with you.   Your post whether I agree or disagree are usually thought provoking

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

Yep Old Man Emu is wrong again! 

Not at all. My post should have read like Nomad's, but on the mobile instead of pc so short is easier.  Just saying that people who have never been exposed to major religions have similar ethical framework so it's not a causative factor.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My motherwas brought up religious.

BUT

After a confrontation with the church, she denounced religion, including not christening two children !.

BUT

 On her death bed she asked for a religious service, and forgiveness.

Her wish was granted, 

But

I didn,t like it. And told the priest that. I inherited all that was her,s.

My sister- in - law bequeathed All her things to the kennel Club, & RSPCA. ( her husband was a Roman Catholic )

They should be happy with her $ two millions .

I want a Viking funeral, down the beach, a roman candle in the buthole, then off to the shark school !. LoL

spacesailor

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/04/2021 at 9:09 AM, old man emu said:

...Take the same survey today and the number believing in  the Christian versions would be much less, simply because there has been massive residential development which has introduced Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and the rest to the population.

Don’t assume other religious faiths don’t breed atheists; it’s just not as safe.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/when-muslims-renounce-their-faith/a-17574172

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Christian can become a Muslim. 

BUT

A Muslim will be killed if they want out of that religion.

 

My neighbor,s daughter has married a Muslim, and the grooms sister has been 'deported' overseas to get her away from the Christian ( Australiaian ) boyfriend.

( nosey bugger aren,t l )

spacesailor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not been my experience to find atheists devoid of morals. Some self righteous professing Christians are only looking after themselves in the alleged afterlife and behave abominably with their prejudices and greed.. ALL religions have non believers in their ranks. To declare it might mean their life . You are not really free to be a non believer in the Land of the free.. (but not really,)   the USA. . Compulsory "belief" is  a  conflict of concepts. an oxymoron..   Nev

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For proof that religion does not lead to better morals, just look at recent history. 2 thousand years of christianity and we still had slavery and all sorts of torture and cruelty. Two  hundred years of capitalism and we have much better morals. Why? cos if you want to sell somebody your wares, you need to be nice to them.

Personally, I think there is something particularly nasty in the idea that only  fear of hell is what makes people treat each other well.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the " thou shalt not kill " commandment is so vague as to be useless. Why could not a decent god make the wording more specific? The obvious answer is that there was no god dictating the stuff, only ignorant bronze-age tribesmen. And how about slavery? Why no commandment against that?  and torture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report said ". Not surprisingly, it went to great lengths to demonstrate that belief in JC, god, resurrection, etc is held by a large majority of Australians. And a small minority are non believers.

 

I was making the distinction that in my local area, the number of people following the Christian religion has fallen proportionally due to the influx of non-Christians.

 

As for morality, that comes from the culture of the society. Atheists, agnostics and believers all live in the same society. The culture has arisen from at least a thousand years of Christian influence and that is how we codified our laws. The A's live in that culture and their functioning in the society is shaped by those laws. Does an A have a different opinion on how to interact with the believers, than the believers have of interacting amongst themselves? I think not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Why could not a decent god make the wording more specific?

The Ten Commandments are more like a chapter index to a law book than the whole law book. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is the chapter for all the laws that society has made for dealing with the multitude of ways one person can injure another. If you examine what is in that chapter, you can include things from cold-blooded murder to the right to hold a driver's licence. 

 

"Thou shalt not steal" is the chapter heading for everything from taking candy from a baby to international financial fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the ten commandments OME, Bertrand Russel has a beaut alternative set.  I particularly like the one " Value intelligent disagreement".  Not only is it more fun, but it means you are closer to the other person than you think.

There are lots of alternative sets of commandments, and most of them are far better than the ones we have been fed with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There are lots of alternative sets of commandments,

Maybe, but for centuries the Man's behaviour in society was a strong response to the Commandments. If they were your guiding light, then they made it into society's laws. Bertrand Russell was a British polymath, philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic, political activist, and Nobel laureate. No man-in-the-street. How well known is he now? Not so well, since you misspelled his surname. (Just identifying a point, not insult intended).

 

The rules of our society may have been initially codified in the Commandments, but they have served us well to ensure peaceful co-existence in local areas. It is when those rules are ignored, or replaced that peace goes out the door. Take the Nazi anti-Semitism. That's a breaking of the no killing Commandment, even in its simplest stage of racial segregation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...