…and this is a 
In March, there's going to be a massive atheist conference in Melbourne, Australia. It's going to be excellent, with speakers being brought in from around the world, and with mobs of delighted godless Aussies gathering to celebrate and discuss secularism (I know some of my readers here will be there!) Reasonably enough, the Atheist Organization of Australia has asked the government to chip in and help them do it right with a request for about a quarter million dollars. The government has been dragging its feet, though, punting the request about and making no promises.
Now you might say that times are tough, the economy is down, the government might just be strapped and is cutting corners. In that case, I'd say, OK, we atheists have to do some penny-pinching too, it's only fair.
But then how to explain the fact that the Australian government just blithely handed over $2.5 million for a religious conference? And has flatly rejected the bid for funding from the atheists?
Government spokesman Luke Enright said: "The decision not to fund this event has nothing to do with religious ideology - the convention just doesn't meet the criteria required to receive government funding".
What's the Australian word for "bullshit", people?
Pile it higher, Australians!
Reverend Tim Costello, a patron of the world's religions event, said it was important to support the forum, as "90 per cent of the world is deeply religious".
"In a global context, most of the world is profoundly religious, and there literally can't be peace without religious peace," Mr Costello said.
Have you ever noticed that Christians like to count Communists as atheists when recounting the evils done in the name of that ideology, but whenever they make the argument from popularity, as Costello is doing here, they suddenly forget the Chinese? It's very strange.
I also think he's lying. A majority of the world is casually religious, not deeply or profoundly. I'd go further: most of the people in this world are stupidly religious, with ingrained beliefs that they did not acquire through thought or study, but through regular indoctrination from childhood on.
We also will not have peace through religion. Religion is arbitrary, false, and unverifiable; it is a body of ideas with no empirical restraint, that can be freely invented, and in the worst cases, inspire dangerous fanaticism. We will not have peace while religion is uncaged.
It does not matter, though. The fact that atheists are a minority does not argue that they deserve no consideration at all. I thought this was a well understood principle; the danger in a democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and safeguards have to be put in place to protect the rights of minorities. Since Costello is a "reverend", unfortunately, that probably means he's an ignorant ass who has never learned anything that matters.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 27, 2009 12:10 PM
Well then, if the god-botherers were given $2.5M because "90% of the world is deeply religious", then give the atheist conference one ninth of this (for the remaining 10%)... around $280k.
Posted by: Sandra S | November 27, 2009 12:16 PM
Wow, I had higher expectations of Australia.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 27, 2009 12:16 PM
If he defines "religious peace" as "allowing critical inquiry into religious belief in an environment free of violence," then I agree with the Reverend. However, I'm afraid that treating the faithful as superior to the godless is not the way to foster that environment.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem | November 27, 2009 12:19 PM
As we're constantly trying to tell the religilous that "atheism is a religion like bald is not collecting stamps is a hobby", maybe they can use that as their excuse for not funding such a gathering.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 27, 2009 12:20 PM
There could if there wasn't such a thing as religion. And this is an argument for religion?
Dear Australian Government: Think of the tourist dollars that the atheist conference will bring in. Pharyngulites alone will be a huge boost to the pubs.
Posted by: Simon | November 27, 2009 12:23 PM
Could it have anything to do with the fact that Tim Costello's brother Peter was the Australian treasurer from 1996-2007??????
Posted by: kiki | November 27, 2009 12:30 PM
there literally can't be peace without religious peace
It's true, in a way; he's basically saying, 'There'll never be world peace until we religious types stop killing each other - and everybody else in the crossfire.'
It's like a protection racket. 'Nice civilization ya got here - shame if anything happened to it...'
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 27, 2009 12:32 PM
What do you expect? Everything's upside-down in Australia!
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 27, 2009 12:40 PM
People want a show. They want to feel good. That's what religion offers most people.
No one wants a bunch of academics and scholars, except for that crazy 10% of us.
We are also a very superstitious species.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 27, 2009 12:47 PM
<sarcasm mode="appeasement">
Still, we should all be meek and mild. We don't want to rock the boat, do we?
</sarcasm>
Posted by: John D | November 27, 2009 12:50 PM
Well, if 90% are religious, and the religious conference is getting $2.5 million, then it seems acceptable for the atheist group to seek 10% of that amount of funding.
We can defeat them with their own logic!
Posted by: Joffan | November 27, 2009 12:54 PM
I think "thoughtlessly" religious would hit closer to the mark, although I suppose you could argue that "thoughtless" is a class with "stupid".Taking Costello's randomly cited 90% statistic at face value, if there are ten times as many religious people as non-religious, shouldn't he support the idea of the atheist conference getting one-tenth of the funding?
Posted by: Frank Lovell | November 27, 2009 12:55 PM
I'm with Moggie -- if Reverend Tim Costello recognizes that 10% of the world is non-religious, then the Reverend makes the case that the request (for a non-religionist conference) of 19% of the amount of government funding that religionists got for a religionist conference in Australia is appropriate and perfectly proper! So, what's the beef???
Posted by: Michelle R | November 27, 2009 12:57 PM
"What's the Australian word for "bullshit", people?"
I think it's the same word, PZ, but you gotta add "Mate" at the end.
Posted by: Holbach | November 27, 2009 12:58 PM
Whenever I hear or read the remark "deeply religious", I immediately translate that into "utterly insane" and afford it my utmost derision. We are also accosted with the term "great religion", as if besides the hordes of insane adherents, we have to acknowledge its stultifying effects on that mass of imbecilic morons who think they are "great" in numbing numbers alone. The horror.
Posted by: Blondin | November 27, 2009 1:01 PM
...thus illustrating the need for more awareness of the bigotry and unfair treatment towards non-believers.
Posted by: Joffan | November 27, 2009 1:16 PM
... and I can't help wondering whether Costello is an abbot.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 27, 2009 1:25 PM
Who's on first?
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 27, 2009 1:26 PM
Actually, Tim Costello is generally a very sensible man that actually shares many of PZ's polical beliefs - not that I agree with his assessment of world-wide levels of religious beliefs. So, I do not think that calling him an ignorant ass is fair.
Posted by: Connor | November 27, 2009 1:28 PM
"most of the people in this world are stupidly religious"
Funny and sad.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
November 27, 2009 1:28 PM
Ingrained beliefs that they are taught to think about and study—but only for the purpose of bolstering the belief. It’s got nothing to do with truth-seeking, and it's been carefully set up that way.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 27, 2009 1:30 PM
The only Abbott in Australia is Tony - a right royal loony who, as we speak, is trying to undermine Australia's efforts to limit carbon emissions.
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | November 27, 2009 1:33 PM
I'm probably being naive here, but maybe the atheist conference actually doesn't meet the criteria, as Enright said. What is the criteria? Maybe before assuming that it's for religious reasons we should check to see if they actually do meet the criteria?
Posted by: Joffan | November 27, 2009 1:47 PM
So the atheist negotiators need to be tougher, perhaps. Arguably there could be another 1000 attendees still to be attracted with the right application of funds.
I guess the religious lobby has been doing the grubbing-for-funds thing longer...
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 27, 2009 1:52 PM
$2.5 million is one hell of a party!! What are they going to be serving?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 27, 2009 1:54 PM
It's ironic. The Catholics will be there, and while atheists have the reputation, it's the Catholic priesthood that really does serve babies.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 27, 2009 1:57 PM
It was nice of Costello to admit that all that religiosity doesn't do a damned thing to stop people fighting, but why does that argue in favor of his conference over the atheists' conference? Even taking his figures at face value, we're still talking 600 million atheists.
Posted by: Sclerophanax | November 27, 2009 2:19 PM
Okay, since the population of Earth is about 6.6 billion and of those 1.1 are irreligious, how on Earth does that translate to 90% of the world population being deeply religious? He can't even use the old "atheism is a religion" ploy without destroying his already nonsensical argument.
Posted by: Sclerophanax | November 27, 2009 2:25 PM
Obviously I meant to write 1.1 billion. The swine flu is turning my brain ito mush.Posted by: Moggie
|
November 27, 2009 2:31 PM
Mr Costello, the big three monotheistic religions have had 1400 years - and an awful lot of everyone's money - to sort out this "peace" you claim to want. Since they're still squabbling, and such peace as we have has largely been achieved by curbing the power of religion, you've got a damn nerve holding your hand out, and I think Australians would be justified in telling you to either fuck right off with your circus, or fund it from the mountain of gold you've accumulated so far.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 27, 2009 2:41 PM
Bummer about that whole "democracy" thingy they have in .au PZ Myers.
I would go to the convention if there was going to be any debates but alas........
Just the usual suspects nodding in heated agreement. Theres more debate at an anglican synod than a room full of Cannolds and Adams'
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 2:41 PM
Are you sitting down, PZ? Apparently it wasn't just $2.5million, it was $4.5 million if you include Federal funding as well as State and Municipal.
Here's the Media Release from the Atheist Foundation which shows how they've been given the 'run around':
http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/2009/11/27/atheists-too-hot-to-handle-for-victorian-government/
And here are some atheists' letters to the Age newspaper regarding the funding refusal:
http://ow.ly/G2xe
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 27, 2009 2:43 PM
Seriously, though: when Costello says, "most of the world is profoundly religious, and there literally can't be peace without religious peace," what exactly DOES he mean by "religious peace"? This is an honest question: how does he define his own terms?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 27, 2009 2:44 PM
Lyin' Lion, still irrelevant, still Lyin'. Where is your conclusive physical evidence to prove your deity exists? You have nothing by a delusion between your ears.
Posted by: Name Withheld out of Fear | November 27, 2009 2:46 PM
I think "religious peace" is when the apostates are all dead. It's a trap!!
Posted by: wheelbrain
|
November 27, 2009 2:51 PM
As ill-informed and disingenuous as Mr. Costello's remarks are, I have to agree with Konrad (#19). He's probably as close to a "good Christian" as you can get. A superbly rational quote from the archives:
While I despair of his comments, I can't applaud personal attacks against a man who has spent his life working for the poor and disadvantaged and against extreme and hard-line Christian politics. Let's not hasten to assume a couple stupid remarks define his entire character.
Posted by: tsg | November 27, 2009 2:51 PM
I would think, if that were the case, that the Australian government could answer that question in shorter than the five months it took to reject it.
Posted by: ESPNess | November 27, 2009 3:01 PM
Don't forget the mobs of godless Kiwis crossing the ditch for the event PZ.
And with St Pats only a few days after the event why not stay on, I will be.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2009 3:02 PM
'Scuse me? Who got to vote on which conference should be funded?
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 3:02 PM
Organizers were told that once tickets sales reached 1,000 they should be 'good to go'.
Once ticket sales reached 1,000 they were told the application was rejected because the event had already been 'secured' for Melbourne.
As President of the AFA David Nicholls says, how do you sell 1,000 tickets (which was part of the criteria) if you haven't secured a venue (which apparently wasn't added to the criteria until they'd sold 1,000 tickets).
Something's really wrong here. It's either incompetence or bigotry.
Posted by: idle.pip.verisignlabs.com
|
November 27, 2009 3:03 PM
I would like to see which criteria it doesn't meet. Perhaps they have a case, such as a certain number RSVP'd people by a certain date.
Or, perhaps it truly is BS.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 27, 2009 3:07 PM
Oh, it's that kind of debate you respect? No problem, we can play along.
Hey, Reverend Big Dumb Chimp, you're going to hell for believing that fairies beat their wings twice as fast as sprites when it's clear to anyone who's spent the time I have marvelling at this miraculous wad of navel lint that fairies only beat their wings 1.3 times as fast.
Does that make your little heart swoon with the majesty of big, theological questions, Lion IRC, or do I need to burn an unbeliever alive?
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 27, 2009 3:15 PM
Please dont turn this into an anti-Australia thread. We wouldnt want atheists ruining their reputation as "clear thinking beacons of enlightenment and reason" by coming out of the closet with THAT kind of biased thinking.
And you call yourself "humanists"!
Lion (IRC)
PS - If visiting pharyngulites want to feel at home in Melbourne pubs complaining about wasted government expenditure is a good ice breaker.
Just be careful saying that you think taxpayers should spend any money on a group of people who are going to sit around agreeing that something doesnt exist.
Posted by: fiddler | November 27, 2009 3:15 PM
If 90% of the world is deeply religious, why are these religious leaders constantly bemoaning the "loss of faith" in most of the world? Nearly every nation has seen a steady increase in the number of non-believers and this fact is often alluded to, or referenced by, these very "authorities" when societies ills are discussed. Add in a previous persons point about nations such as China and the entire concept is quite silly.
A very funny little note: not even Christianity or Islam -using the most favourable poll or study- can claim that 90% of it's own adherents are "profoundly" religious.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 3:18 PM
An Atheist conference for lefties, gay acivists, animal perverts and unborn human murderers? Sounds like a hoot, but please, use your own nickel and leave the Aussie taxpayer$ alone.
Posted by: Lola | November 27, 2009 3:20 PM
90% of the world must be religious; they are constantly at war.
Posted by: fiddler | November 27, 2009 3:20 PM
Sorry, that last line should be "deeply" religious. I'd hate to go to hell for misquoting god's main man.
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 3:21 PM
This little gem also in The Age today:
OF COURSE the Government gave money to the Parliament of World Religions and not the atheists' conference. They have a lot more invisible friends to accommodate.
Andrew Dixon, Glen Waverley
Posted by: tsg | November 27, 2009 3:27 PM
Who're you calling a lefty?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 27, 2009 3:31 PM
Well, you could always mind your own business and go away. Trolling like yours is only done by idjits or teenagers, who don't know any better. Adults don't engage in such inane behavior.Posted by: Lion IRC | November 27, 2009 3:31 PM
Hi Kristy,
If Mr Nicholls wanted to send delegates to the parliament of world religions I'm sure he would be allowed. Ta Da! Government funding.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Pete | November 27, 2009 3:33 PM
The article says that funding was denied because there were not enough delegates and because the convention had already been booked in Melbourne. Are these assertions true, and, if so, does either circumstance represent a legally sufficient reason to deny funds?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 27, 2009 3:34 PM
Still no conclusive evidence for you imaginary deity Lyin'. Its almost like you know you are irrelevant and ignorant. But not cogent enough to realize you have nothing to say to us.
Posted by: Loren Petrich
|
November 27, 2009 3:35 PM
fiddler is right. These "how many we are" people then turn around and use the "No True Scotsman" argument when any of their coreligionists does anything they dislike. Taking such arguments to their logical conclusion reveals that there are hardly any True Xians or whatever in the world.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 27, 2009 3:36 PM
Tim Costello is the brother of recently retired long time politician Peter Costello. How could the government say "no" to him (even though his brother was in the opposition party)?
Mr. Costello's claim that most of Australia is religious is a lie; there simply aren't enough churches around for that to be true. I suspect a lot of people are born into a religion, really don't care, but haven't put much thought into it and given religion the boot.
The government sure doesn't act as if there is a recession; the public servants have *huge* pay rises while much of the private sector hasn't had a raise in years. A government report that recently came out puts the "average public servant" (whatever that means) on a ranking of APS6 (Australian Public Service, level 6). If that government report is true, that means the average of public servants' wages is AUD78,150 per year plus roughly 17% in additional benefits on top. I know there are also quite a few public servants who don't earn anywhere near that money, so you can bet the public service is top heavy with overpaid buffoons - just the sort of buffoons who would hand millions of taxpayers' money over to godnaggers and not give a few hundred thousand to the godless. Now if the churches paid taxes I wouldn't complain too much.
Posted by: Tulse | November 27, 2009 3:38 PM
Looking at Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and India/Pakistan, it's clear Costello is correct -- unless religions stop fighting, there can be no peace.
That's what he meant, right?
Posted by: MadScientist | November 27, 2009 3:39 PM
@Lion IRC: It isn't Australia bashing; get over it. The USA is always criticized for what the morons in power do; the people aren't necessarily pleased with their own government either.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 3:41 PM
PZ and the other presenters. See the link up the page, on the left: The Rise of Atheism. Trying hard to sound ominous, methinx, like a history text sub-heading: The Rise of Fascism in pre-WW2 Europe.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 27, 2009 3:44 PM
What do you have against us southpaws?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 27, 2009 3:46 PM
That's right. We're coming for you!
I hope you've got your prayin' kneepads on. You're gonna need 'em.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Boo!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2009 3:52 PM
Posted by: wheelbrain
|
November 27, 2009 3:54 PM
It's quite obvious that without religious peace, there can be no broad, general peace, because of the many violent environments in the world created or exacerbated by religious strife. I'm sure Mr. Costello, a pragmatic liberal who is known for his opposition to extremism and the "religious right", is well aware of that. I hesitate to claim that as his intention, but I strongly suspect as much. (And I'm honestly sorry if I ruined what was intended as a snarky, not serious, comment.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2009 3:55 PM
Complete and utter blockquote fail. Let me try again:
You didn't even get the joke. <facepalm>
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 27, 2009 4:02 PM
Hey Lion: how come you didn't weigh in on the fairies vs. sprites issue I outlined in #42? Don't you care about such sublime matters?
Bah, you aspritists and afairyists are a fucking humourless lot.
Fundamentalist.
Posted by: Tulse | November 27, 2009 4:10 PM
wheelbrain, you did indeed miss my snark -- I presume that what Costello actually meant was that peace only comes from religion (the old "No God, no peace...know God, know peace" cliche).
Posted by: tsig0
|
November 27, 2009 4:11 PM
"Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 3:18 PM
An Atheist conference for lefties, gay acivists, animal perverts and unborn human murderers? Sounds like a hoot, but please, use your own nickel and leave the Aussie taxpayer$ alone."
Those animals consented!!!
Posted by: wheelbrain
|
November 27, 2009 4:21 PM
I didn't miss it, Tulse, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think Mr. Costello meant "only peace from religion" - I think he actually did mean that religions need to stop fighting. That, after all, could be the point of an interfaith conference. Besides, Mr. Costello has not shied from criticism of fundamentalist Christianity in the past.
Posted by: Thommo | November 27, 2009 4:23 PM
According to Norman Dixon in his 1976 classic "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence", the Australian word for "bullshit" is "bullshit" because "bullshit" is an Australian word.
According to Dixon, the Diggers introduced the word to the rest of the world in around 1915(something about being told to salute British officers).
I don't know what other cultural contributions Australia has made to civilisation, but this makes me the proudest.
Posted by: ad | November 27, 2009 4:24 PM
Of course, having a fundagelical retard for a prime minister may have something to do with it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 27, 2009 4:32 PM
Doesn't Lyin' Irk realize there's a difference between Australians and the Australian government?
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 27, 2009 4:33 PM
That really does suck. Oh well, still should be a lot of fun.
Posted by: NitricAcid | November 27, 2009 4:37 PM
So, Wiley, you're perfectly happy footing the bill for the religious conference, with its chickenhawks, pedophiles, warmongers, terrorists, "witch"-burners, Luddites, and AIDS-promoters?
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 4:47 PM
An Atheist Double Standard:
Atheists cry fowl if you call their disbelief system a religion, yet here they are wanting to be treated the same as other religions.
What's the Ausralian word for hypocrites?
Atheists like to claim the Moral High Ground yet here they are holding their grubby hands out to the Aussie taxpayer, saying 'we'll have some of your hard-earned $'.
What's the Ausralian word for freeloaders?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 27, 2009 4:52 PM
That's because it isn't.No, we want to be treated like any group of people holding a big conference, which includes religious groups. Only idjits like you can't see the obvious for your biases.The religious groups. Also, you sound like a liberturd. Which is a group of morally bankrupt arrogant fools who think they know better than everybody else, in spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary.Posted by: Pete | November 27, 2009 4:52 PM
Does the atheist group have any administrative appeal rights? Any judicial remedy?
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 4:53 PM
It's probably worth noting that the attitude of the Victorian government highlights the need for atheists to support the Global Atheist Convention.
Speakers will include: PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, Phillip Adams, AC Grayling Robyn Williams, Lyn Allison, Taslima Nasrin, and many more. Also, it's just been announced that entertainment for the event will be headlined by Julian Morrow and Craig Reucassel from The Chaser's War on Everything.
The event is going to be huge. Ticket sales are about to top 1,500, easily on target to reach over 2,000 by March.
The more people we can get to attend this Convention, the louder the signal it will send to Australian politicians and the religious right that we've had enough of religious dogma guiding political policy in this country. Please, if you haven't registered yet, go to the Convention website and book your place.
As Nicholls says, this is going to be the largest gathering of freethinkers in Australia's history - and it's our chance to make a stand.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 4:53 PM
@HNO3#72
No.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 27, 2009 5:03 PM
I haven't seen any mention of chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, pheasants, cornish gamehens, partridges, or any other Galliformes and Anseriformes.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
November 27, 2009 5:05 PM
Simon, it's correct that he's related to the former treasurer, but Tim Costello is actually the GOOD one of the Costello brothers. Mostly his Christianity is of the "care for the poor, feed the homeless" variety. Not always, but mostly.
And yes, we did indeed have Abbott and Costello in government for a while. Would have LOLed, except for the fact that they are evil bastards. They are of the previous conservative government, but the current one is still too religious.
Posted by: Ramases | November 27, 2009 5:05 PM
Just a point of clarification...
The government in question (the Brumby government) is not actually the Australian government (the Federal government), but the Victorian State government - we have states here too.
But it is still awful, and not at all suppising from Brumby. He is a poll driven popularist who would not do anything to piss off the religious establishment.
Damn pity, as Victoria is actually a fairly secular state. We can expect a lot of people at the atheist bash, and I'm looking forward to it!
Posted by: Athiator | November 27, 2009 5:07 PM
Just to be clear, it was the Victorian State Government, not the Federal Government (usual meaning of Australian Government) that denied the conference funds, hence the line about it already being secured for Melbourne.
Australian Sceptics may have reason to be a tad distrustful of our Federal Government, but this dodgy decision isn't theirs.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 27, 2009 5:08 PM
Yet he still passed that abortion law last year, methinks the religious would be fuming far more from that than helping fund a convention for atheists...Posted by: Knockgoa | November 27, 2009 5:09 PM
#77 confirms it. That pussbucket wiley is both a creobot and a liberturd. Doubtless a racist, misogynist and homophobe as well.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 27, 2009 5:13 PM
Doesn't make up for Savage Garden.
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 5:17 PM
Just to be clear, an application has been made by Convention organizers for Federal funds and that, too, has been 'on hold' for several months. The Federal Government hasn't said 'no', but they haven't said 'yes' either.
Further a request, submitted in early September, asking the Prime Minister to address the Convention has gone unanswered.
At this stage, the Australian Federal Government hasn't rejected the Atheist Convention's requests - they're just studiously ignoring them.
Posted by: Ramases | November 27, 2009 5:17 PM
"Yet he still passed that abortion law last year, methinks the religious would be fuming far more from that than helping fund a convention for atheists... "
That law was not actually passed or initiated by the Brumby Government.
It was a non-government initiative moved by Colleen Hartland, a member of the Australian Greens. Both major parties opted out by allowing a conscience voet of their members, and it ended up passing with a considerable majority. MPs voted for it as it had the overwhelming support of the pubic. This confims what I said about Victoria being a largely secular state.
But Brumby cannnot claim credit for that one.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 27, 2009 5:19 PM
Look who's talking, Mr. My-Handle-Is-A-Thinly-Disguised-Invitation-To-Put-Down-Former-Portuguese-Colonies.
Posted by: Ramases | November 27, 2009 5:20 PM
Opps... I meant "public", not pubic.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 27, 2009 5:25 PM
.. I would of been proudest if the term "Thunderbox" as a euphemism for the toilet had gained international acceptance but for some strange reason it never took off.
.. and hands off Savage Garden, Brownian. They there, are probably the only two individuals ever to come out of Logan without a rap sheet.
But back on topic- this type of discrimination makes me toally and utterly sick. I'me currently having this crap in the workplace where, because I refuse to read bible quotes before staff meetings ( yeah- all 3 of us), I was accused of not being a "team player". All sorts of fun now going on in head office because it's never a good idea to discriminate against a lawyer. Idiots.
Posted by: kamaka | November 27, 2009 5:26 PM
Hmmm...no answer, huh? I wonder why?
Try Obama, he might show.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 5:27 PM
While we're all clarifying points, I don't see why the Australian taxpayer should fund any self-interest group, whether they be religious or irreligious, and especially not groups which don't have a majority of Australian taxpayers' interests at heart. If atheism is truly a simple disbelief in the creator of the universe, why the political agenda?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 27, 2009 5:28 PM
Yeah, hands off Goa, I like Goa. Stop discrimination against Goa.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 27, 2009 5:35 PM
And if logic is beyond you, why keep showing your ignorance? We agree, that the government should either fund all such activities, or none of them. If they fund some, we should be able to get money too. It is about fairness and equal treatment, not anything else. But you are letting your morally bankrupt politics/religion get in your way of the analysis.Posted by: Ramases | November 27, 2009 5:38 PM
Wiley, I think the point is consistency and fair treatment for all.
The Victorian state government is stumping up $2.5 million of Victorian taxpayer money (my money!) for that awful Parliament of World Religions. Yet it has refused a mere $250,000 for the atheist bash.
What's good for the goose should be goose for the gander.
I would be quite happy for the atheist bash to forgoe the $250,000 thousand if the Brumby government withdraws the offer of the $2.5 million to the religious nuts and spent it on public education instead.
Posted by: Jason Febery | November 27, 2009 5:40 PM
What a terrible double-standard. I would have hoped for better from our colleagues Down Under.
--
http://www.jasonfebery.wordpress.com
Posted by: kamaka | November 27, 2009 5:40 PM
You miss the point entirely. Governments support conventions because of the economic benefits derived therefrom.
So throwing a pile of money at one convention (religious) and denying benefit to another (irreligious) reeks of favoritism.
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 5:44 PM
Funding (ostensibly) is not provided on the basis that the Government agrees with the philosophy of the Convention delegates.
Funding is usually provided because major events promote Victoria as a tourist destination and bring revenue into the State - accommodation, food, shopping, car hire, etc.
The Global Atheist Convention organizers haven't asked the government to support atheism - they've asked for the same kind of funding that any major convention - secular or religious - has a right to apply for.
There is no problem with a religious event claiming government funding on the basis that it will bring revenue and publicity to the State. The problem arises when an atheist convention, promising similar benefits, is denied funding.
That's when the decision appears to have been made on an ideological rather than an economic basis.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 27, 2009 5:46 PM
Look who's talking, Mr. My-Handle-Is-A-Thinly-Disguised-Invitation-To-Put-Down-Former-Portuguese-Colonies. - Brownian, OM
Shorry, Goa! Shlightly pished! Nice evening out with wife and son, pizza/canelloni and (for me) two large glasses of merlot.
Posted by: John | November 27, 2009 5:48 PM
The Atheist Foundation or Australia has released a statement.
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/media-releases/atheists-too-hot-handle-victorian-government
Apparently it was not AUD$2.5 million given to the Parliament of World Religions but rather AUD$4.5 million.
"Conversely, The Parliament of the World's Religions which is hosting 5,000 people at the same venue (the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre) has attracted $4.5 million in government support - 16 times the amount requested by the AFA."
Posted by: Ramases | November 27, 2009 5:50 PM
There is another point that Kristy mentoned in her post.(Post 97)
The Atheist convention has asked the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to speak at the conference. So far he has not answered.
He has spoken at numberous religious events in the past, so it would be an indication of inclusivness and fairness to speak at the atheist bash. He does not have to personally support atheism of course (he is a devout Christian), but could come and talk about the legitimate place we have in the Australian community.
But you he doesn't though. He is also very much a poll driven polularist who would not cross the religious establishment.
Posted by: efrique | November 27, 2009 5:52 PM
While Tim Costello is *way* off base here, I have to say in his defense that he is one of those religious people that - at least in public - mostly spend their time and effort helping who are people suffering - or rather helping to raise money and organize relief for people who are suffering... and not so much time piously rabbiting on about god and prayer.
So while I'd tell him to his face (were I to have the chance) that he was deeply wrong on this, I'd do it with as much respect I could muster, because if all religious people were half as decent as Tim appears to be, we'd have many fewer problems in the world, and a heck of a lot less suffering.
Posted by: John | November 27, 2009 5:52 PM
Arr - just noticed all of Kristy's posts. Should of searched. She has covered everything.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 5:59 PM
@NoR
Where's the logic behind an agenda that promotes liberalism, gay activism, animal perversion and murder of unborn humans in the name of 'atheism'? There are many disbelievers who don't approve of any of that crock, yet liars-for-atheism presume to distort a simple disbelief, and misrepresent the apolitical or right-wing political views of millions.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 27, 2009 5:59 PM
Well, Wiley, most of us also feel engaged with the society around us and see religious forces as forces of destruction, so we like to get together to discuss what we can do about that.
But since you seem to think you're a clever fellow, perhaps you'd like to share some of the wisdom your god sends you through your local priest who then jams it into at least one of your holes:
If Christianity is simply a relationship between a person and his one or three gods, why the political agenda?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 27, 2009 6:03 PM
Hmm. You trumped me here, mostly by your non-standard use of the word 'logic'.
Please stick to English on this blog, fuckhead.
Posted by: efrique | November 27, 2009 6:06 PM
I imagine there'd be a substantially better chance of getting the Deputy PM to speak... she's not in the last religious, is she?
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 6:08 PM
Deputy PM is not returning calls.
Posted by: efrique | November 27, 2009 6:08 PM
... not in the least religious, dammit
Posted by: Kristian Käll | November 27, 2009 6:12 PM
Hardly surprising. Australia is semi fascist with one of the most out of whack perceptions of freedom of speech and expression. (For instance, they are topping the chart of the country with the most banned computer/video games of the world)
Posted by: efrique | November 27, 2009 6:17 PM
Wow, quick response, Kristy.
Okay, it pretty much all speaks for itself, then doesn't it?
Posted by: Pete | November 27, 2009 6:22 PM
Kristy:
You seem to be the go-to person for information here. If you have a chance and know the answers, could you please tell me the following: Is there any merit in the position of the state government (as per the article) that the atheist group failed to meet criteria (re size of convention and commitment to a locale) that the religious group met? Is the decision of the state government now final or is there a right to an administrative appeal of any kind? Just wondering what the actual facts are. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 27, 2009 6:33 PM
We certainly don't take as libertarian an attitude to free speech issues as the US does. I'm one who thinks we should, and have argued it to government committees, etc., etc., much as this often seems like a waste of my time
But the claim that we are "semi fascist" is pretty silly.
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 6:35 PM
Hey Pete
The problem at the moment seems to be that the organizers aren't sure what criteria the application is being judged on. They applied to one department, got shunted to another, and then to a third. They applied on the criteria set out by the third department and, as far as I know, were assured that they substantially met that criteria - at least they would once ticket sales reached 1,000.
Then they got a rejection letter from the first department. On questioning that rejection, they were told it was a 'mistake' as the application was now being judged on the criteria of the third department.
Now a rejection has come from the second department naming criteria that hasn't ever been mentioned at all!
Organizers are hoping it's a bureaucratic bungle and that the Premier, realizing how bad this is looking for his government, Victoria (and Australia) will step in and fix it up.
Of course, if this doesn't happen quickly, I'm sure the organizing committee will be taking legal advice. (And I say this without any inside knowledge of what strategies are being discussed by the committee). I'm the media and communications consultant for the Convention - I'm not a member of the organizing committee.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 27, 2009 6:36 PM
Too late, the Indians were "hands on" to Goa a while ago.
Posted by: Geoffrey | November 27, 2009 6:36 PM
Yeah, from Costello's track record I would guess that by 'religious peace' he meant 'ending religious wars', and not 'religion automatically makes people peaceful'.
I never had time for his political brother Peter, but Tim Costello is the sort of religious who spends far more of his time trying to help people who need it than pestering people who don't.
(And at one stage, it looked like the Coalition might be led by Peter Costello and Tony Abbott, which would have caused no end of mirth.)
Posted by: kamaka | November 27, 2009 6:36 PM
Where's the logic behind an agenda that promotes liberalism, gay activism, animal perversion and murder of unborn humans in the name of 'atheism'?
Let's see if I can parse this.
"Where's the logic behind an agenda..."
The agenda, as far as I can tell, is to push back against the irrational agenda of the religionists.
"that promotes liberalism"
The "old" conservatism (think Barry Goldwater) would abhorr the religious right version of conservatism.
"Gay activism"
Yeah, that one. I agree that a large segment of the populace should be fucked over because they make jebus cry. I call bigot.
"animal perversion"
Where did you get that one? Projection?
"murder of unborn humans"
All that is wrong with religion is contained in this statement. Keep your beliefs in "ensoulment" at church and out of the public square. Your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to such a personal decision.
Posted by: Rixaeton | November 27, 2009 6:47 PM
@Kristy #107
I would not expect any of the major parties to open the conference, as the pandering to the reglious is fundamental to get elected in Australia. *sigh*
You could go all out and ask Bob Brown (leader of the Greens party to the non-Aussies) to open it :) Then again, that would confirm @wiley #103 suspicions that the Athiests convention is really a front for the radical left.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 27, 2009 6:47 PM
> can't be peace without religious peace
http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20091127/cartoon20091127.jpg
Posted by: BiggusRobbicus | November 27, 2009 6:49 PM
Given his usual even-handedness and non-adherence to positions you'd usually expect from a conservative, I think Tim Costello may have been quoted out of context here. It sounds to me as if he was asked about the need for funding (or holding) of the religious conference and was not asked at all about his opinion on the atheist convention. I'd be happy to be corrected on that, though somewhat disappointed with Tim. Not that his 90% figure has much credibility.
I'm thinking a journalist slapped that quote on the end of the article thinking it had some direct relevance. It happens often enough, Aussie journalists aren't all exactly top-of-of-the-range. See : http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ for some examples of Australia's lazier journalists.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2009 7:01 PM
"Would"?
Here's a quote by Barry "Nuke Vietnam" Goldwater himself:
And here's another:
That's a reference to Jerry Foulwill, who was a rich TV preacher and had a lot of influence on the
TheocraticRepublican Party.Posted by: Nils Ross | November 27, 2009 7:15 PM
I love the casual way Costello tosses the quote about religious peace about without even having to think about it. I'd love to nail him down on it, if you'll excuse the crucifixion pun.
Posted by: Mike | November 27, 2009 7:18 PM
Tim Costello is wrong on this one, but as others have mentioned, he is actually a very decent fellow, who has repeatedly stuck up for minorities, the poor, homeless people, the mentally ill and disabled. He is a regular critic of governments of all political persuasions. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at his Christmas dinner with his brother Peter! (former federal treasurer).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Costello
Posted by: Blair | November 27, 2009 7:40 PM
Let's not beat about the bush, as much as governments in Australia, both federal and state, want to pretend church and state are separate, nothing could be further from the truth. Don't forget the millions of dollars coughed up by governments when the Pope conducted his latest recruitment drive in Australia last year. Surprisingly, despite all the money spent, there were no reports of miracles.
Our politicians have provided large sums of money for all sorts of inane projects of dubious value yet a worthwhile exercise such as the atheist conference can't get a look in. If it's good enough for atheists to have some of their taxes spent on religious functions, it should be fair enough for the Jesus freaks to put something towards the atheist convention.
Posted by: Jim | November 27, 2009 7:45 PM
A propos of not much - why can't there be a major atheist conference in the UK? and if there is one, tell me when and where, people!
Posted by: Cowcakes
|
November 27, 2009 7:45 PM
Agree with Mike #122. Out of interst I checked the latest ABS statistics on Religion, http://tinyurl.com/yjq67v2, and found, not surprisingly that 18.7% of us have no religion, 11.9% Not stated/inadequately described. Of the rest its widley acknowledge that the majority are casually religions in a births, deaths and marriages way.
Despite this our Prime Minister is pandering to the right wing christian lobby (yet he is leader of our major left party) by giving extra millions to fund school chaplains instead of social workers have proper training tohelp everyone. Then in NSW our Premier whom is along with his whole Government, totally out of his depth onhow to run the state has actually produced ONE good thing. Funding to have an ethics class while those kids whose parents believe in sky faeries get there indoctrination class.
Posted by: John Morales | November 27, 2009 7:46 PM
Re the current thread about Australia: right now there's some political drama related to AGW denialism.
There is a chance that Tony Abbott will become leader of the Opposition.
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 7:53 PM
It may interest readers to know that, in Australia, the non-religious outnumber Pentecostals 17:1 and the 'no religion sector' is growing at twice the rate of Pentecostalism - one of the few religions that is not in rapid decline in this country. A study in 2005 found that only 7.5% of Australians attend a place of worship weekly.
It makes you wonder why politicians are courting the religious right, doesn't it?
Posted by: Ted | November 27, 2009 7:58 PM
Politics 101 - Small minorities can be disregarded.
Sorry Charlie. Only about 25% of Austrailians don't acknowledge the reality of God. It's good politics to pander to voters.
Posted by: John | November 27, 2009 7:58 PM
@126 - John Marales
It has nothing to do with AGW denialism, some of the opposition want to wait for the Copenhagen meeting. This should align our ETS with other nations.
Posted by: John Morales | November 27, 2009 8:12 PM
[OT]
John @129, look at the tags on that ABC story.
Click on "climate-change", see stories such as this one: Climate sceptics 'out of step' with voters.
--
PS I mistakenly posted on this thread, meant to post in the endless thread. I'll stop derailing now.
Posted by: Simon Linabury | November 27, 2009 8:14 PM
That is really unfair and im disapointed in the Australian government for this decision. I would really like to go to the confrence but being a student, money is tight.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 27, 2009 8:16 PM
#128:
I do hope you are being stupidly ironic.
Let's play yet another word game:
Sorry, Charlie: Only about 10% of Americans are African-American. It's good politics to pander to the majority of voters who aren't.
Politics 532: Exclusionary politics can work, but only for the short term and under rather narrow conditions; eventually, ideological purity drives out majorities of people, and results in the destruction of the political group that employs it.
The Republicans are a prime example. For decades, they've supported policies that de facto excluded ever more people until it's come back to bite them on the ass. The problem with exclusionary ideological groups is that they can't seem to stop bickering over who's one of 'em and who isn't.
Posted by: Kristy | November 27, 2009 8:27 PM
Actually Ted, that's not quite accurate. Here are some interesting statistics contained in in the Australian members of Atheist Nexus' 2009 submission to the Freedom of Relgion and Belief inquiry.
Based solely on the ABS data, Australia’s ‘non-religious’ form the largest 'belief' grouping in Australia, apart from Christianity.
From 2001-2006 the 'no religion' category increased by more than 27%, making it the fastest growing of all 'religion' categories, including Pentecostalism.
While the Census reveals that 70% of Australians identify nominally with a faith group, other studies show that these respondents do not necessarily attend services, practice religious devotions at home, share the views of their church, or even believe in God.
Germany’s ‘Religion Monitor’ (2008) found that of those Australians who identify with a faith group, almost half (48%) do not partake in personal prayer, while the majority (52%) rarely attend a place of worship for religious reasons.
More significantly, the Religion Monitor’s survey found that when asked, specifically, ‘how deeply do you believe in God or a divine power and/or life after death’, 31% of Australians responded ‘not at all’ , while a further 26% were uncertain to varying degrees.
Rodney Tiffin and Ross Gittins (2004) ... note that while about 80% of Australians claim to believe in God, only 64% believe in life after death, and only 49% find comfort in religion.
[An] AuSSa survey (2005; in Gladigau and West, 2007) found that when asked if ‘[p]oliticians should make decisions that follow Christian values’, only a very small minority of religiously affiliated Australians strongly agreed' ...
[T]he Religion Monitor (2008) which found that 49% percent of Australians consider religion less important than all other parts of their daily lives – family, partners, work/career, leisure time, politics and education. Similarly, 77% of Australians said that religion has very little or no impact on their political views.
The government has been 'sold a pup' if it thinks the majority of Australians give two hoots about religion. They are pandering to a noisy minority. If any political party had the guts to stand up to their religious masters, they would find the vast majority of Australians right behind them.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 27, 2009 8:31 PM
# 124, there's a big atheist bash coming up in Denmark. That's pretty close to the UK. Indeed, much of what is now the UK once belonged to those pesky Danes, back in Canute's time.
See, e.g. http://www.meetup.com/London-Atheists/boards/thread/8089573/
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 27, 2009 8:53 PM
Like the religious peace amongst Protestants and Catholics, or Sunni and Shia? There is no such thing as religious peace. Sectarian violence is such a common phenomenon, they even have a word for it!Mankind must put an end to religion, or religion will put an end to mankind.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 9:04 PM
Climate Change skeptics causing political drama in Australia? Or might the cause be Liars For "Global Warming" (IPCC)?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 27, 2009 9:10 PM
No, the AGW deniers can never cite the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up their points. That makes them the real liars and bullshitters. Welcome to real science.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 27, 2009 9:20 PM
Another looneytarian afraid that having to deal with global warming will disrupt his lifestyle.
Posted by: Akiko | November 27, 2009 9:32 PM
Oooh, I could see the sparks flying from your fingertips when you typed those last couple paragraphs.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 9:35 PM
Stirring up some anti-Aussie bigotry before you head off to Melbourne, PZ?
From the thread, the perception of Australia is a land of semi-fascist lefty Christians who vote for semi-fascist lefty Christian governments who are reluctant to fork over semi-fascist lefty Christian taxpayers' $ for a semi-fascist lefty Anti-Christian hate-fest.
And PZ's problem is...?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 27, 2009 9:38 PM
Okay, Wiley is just a shit-stirrer.
PZ, we need a better class of troll.
Posted by: raven
|
November 27, 2009 10:30 PM
The number of Australians who are white, male, fundie death cult xians with brains the size of a walnut is much lower than that.
Sorry Ted. You are beyond insignificant and not worth anything but a good laugh.
Posted by: raven
|
November 27, 2009 10:44 PM
This isn't correct. I read somewhere that the No Religions in the world are around a billion. And very few of those 90% are deeply religious. Most are just box checkers who really don't care that much.
I think what he is saying here is that until the religions stop fighting within and between themselves, that we will not have peace. Not exactly a point in the favor of religions. And he is right. Moslems, Xians, and Jews are currently fighting all over the world.
Evidently that god given morality doesn't work when it comes to sectarian and religious wars.
Posted by: Orion | November 27, 2009 10:57 PM
Feel free to bash Australian politics and government all you want pharyngulites. We're always saying much harsher things about how crazy your country is so its only fair.
I mean the fact that you guys don't even have public healthcare honestly shocks most Australians (who often assume the USA is very similar to Aus). You only elect your presidents for up to 8 years! Death penalty and so on. All kinds of America bashing so feel free to take shots at us smug Aussies, some topics:
Gay marriage: not talked about as much as it should be, always pushed aside for more "pressing issues"
Climate Change: Our right wing party has cut itself to ribbons over whether they believe it or not with the few sane conservatives who lead the party are desperately trying to rally them behind small carbon cuts. Meanwhile ultra-rights deny climate change outright (two of the 3rd parties) and the left (largest 3rd party) demands cuts that the centre and conservative parties will never agree too.
Abortion: Still illegal in some states, though most people living in those states don't actually know that.
A Monarchy: We still have one. It is kind of silly.
A Bill of Rights: We lack one, all rights (aside from a limited few like freedom of religion) are legislative as opposed to constitutional. :(
Aborigines: Still make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population and are otherwise disadvantaged. Main problem is the conundrum of if the Government help them they don't want our pity and if we don't then we're dicks anyway.
We aren't some great ideal country like the Scandinavian nations. We don't have that separation of church and state, we do have some pretty backwards problems. But we are still more progressive and liberal (our conservative party is called "The Liberal Party") than the states.
Just don't expect it to all be super sunshine happyness over here mates.
Posted by: mark chapman | November 27, 2009 11:04 PM
in Australia, the wonderful country i live in only about 15% regularly attend church, the rest don't care really. the older generation still go but churches are really dying in Australia. Its pressure from the old power base which the government does not realise they don't need to be nice to them because every time the church recently has tried to sway opinion for elections and other things they have had a marginal effect.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 11:15 PM
I can see how the ones in prison are disadvantaged, but how are the free Aborigines disadvantaged, other than their reluctance to accept 'Government help', and what happened to lefty 'equality' if this group are treated differently? I can see who the real 'dicks' are here.Posted by: Crocodile Ghandi | November 28, 2009 12:01 AM
On the upside of Australian politics, it looks like the federal government will be allowing the great people of Canberra to actually legislate their own laws by not blocking the legislation to allow legal ceremonies for civil unions.
It amazes me that for every other issue under the sun they do absolutely nothing but if the ACT wants to give homosexuals better rights they stick their ugly noses in.
As to the previous comments I saw regarding the public service, I am a public servant and I severly doubt that the average salary is $78,000. I may be wrong, that may be true. I am earning far less, that is for sure.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 28, 2009 12:09 AM
While we're all clarifying points, I don't see why the Australian taxpayer should fund any self-interest group
you have a lot to learn about revenue generation.
ignorant ass.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 28, 2009 12:12 AM
And PZ's problem is...?
...not anything you've identified in your semi-intelligible rants.
Posted by: wiley | November 28, 2009 12:48 AM
OK lets see, I'm called 'looneytarian' for not believing Liars For Climate Change when they say carbon emissions (like the gases coming out the back of PZ's plane when he flies down to Melbourne) are BAD for causing "Global Warming", then I'm called 'ignorant ass' for not realizing how GOOD that revenue generation will be which will flow from all the Atheists emitting BAD carbon emissions to get to the hate-fest.
Does that cover everything I need to know?
Posted by: JennieL
|
November 28, 2009 12:49 AM
The only plausible reading of this statement is that, since the majority of people in the world are religious, achieving peace is only possible if religious people are persuaded to be peaceful.
Or, somewhat less charitably, we will only have peace if we can persuade the believers to stop killing one another in the name of their religion.
But it doesn't sound so great when you say it like that.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 28, 2009 1:01 AM
Wiley: Fuck off.
How much does it cost to get good trolls these days? Is there a grant we can apply for?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 28, 2009 1:13 AM
Wiley
..I dunno, hows about the disadvantages associated with 200 years of getting fed with shit on shovel from knobfucks with attitudes such as yours.
Fuck off Wiley, you're a little person playing in a big pond and it's pretty fucking obvious from your ignorance that you know bugger all about that which your mouth is running off about.
*reverting back to usual position of not feeding wankiferous douchbagging trolls*
Posted by: Muzz | November 28, 2009 1:29 AM
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are a few little lines from 1930 or something, or whenever the Melbourne Council events charter was drafted (or whatever legislation is the seat of this descision).
The kind of lines that say "charities" and religious organisations (which would have been the same thing at the time) get a certain amount of extra consideration. But no lines to say anything about dealing with un-religious organisations.
Mostly the world carries on oblivious, but some concerned soul in or around whatever decision making body points this out and it's enough to cause hemming and hawing for five months, and general erring on the side of inactivity (which is Australian government tradition).
I don't know if this is the case but it wouldn't surprise me.
Posted by: Moshe Reuveni
|
November 28, 2009 1:43 AM
I have to say I'm rather surprised with Tim Costello here. While he is very religious, the guy is behind a lot of charity work in Africa and other poorer regions of this world (through World Vision). Sure, he's religious and I can't agree with him on that, but he definitely did more good than I ever will (and by a wide margin).
So when he comes up with statements that, effectively, says that atheist minorities should be ignored - thus, in effect, marginalizing all minorities - I'm left to wonder whether one can take anyone that does good under religious pretences at face value.
As for the Australian government: one cannot expect much from this bunch of charlatans.
Posted by: wiley | November 28, 2009 1:49 AM
John Scanlon: 'Is there a grant we can apply for?'
Typical Lefty Freeloader.
@kamaka#116:
Also 'irrelevant' (thanx to people with attitudes like yours) are the opinions of innocent unborn humans awaiting execution.
Posted by: Satan | November 28, 2009 1:57 AM
No, you still need to know more hatred. Lots and lots of hatred. Let hatred fill you. Hate everything. Hate everyone. Hate your own family -- you know Jesus wants you to. Hate your own life -- like Jesus told you to.
Only then will you know everything you need to know.
Exactly. Keep on hating! More hatred. More and more hatred!
Yes, hate the innocent unborn too and deny them entrance to Heaven.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
November 28, 2009 2:01 AM
Corcodile Ghandi, I'm about to start a new APS6 position, and the pay is well under $78k. Though it can increment up to there in time (I do hope it will). I don't think the "average" public servant is getting that, unless the top is much top-heavier than I expected. Which, given the rage for managerialism, is not impossible.
Of course Americans don't understand Australia, but one important thing is our laid-back attitude. We don't care about religion - until it starts causing us trouble, and by then it might be too late. There are a lot of disturbing religious influences on our government. Not least that parliament's religious affiliations are way out of proportion with the electorate. The exclusive brethren and Hillsong have had a lot more influence than they should. KRudd is better than Little Johnny, but that's not saying much.
Posted by: wiley | November 28, 2009 2:11 AM
@BoS#153
Aborigines have been fed with shit on shovel for 200 years? That's outrageous!
...wait a minute, are you some kind of anti-Aussie bigot?
Posted by: Satan | November 28, 2009 2:25 AM
Yes, and hate the haters of hatred, too.
Good job!
Posted by: Aqua Fyre | November 28, 2009 2:40 AM
Wow $2.5 million for a religious conference.
That's nothing guys.
Obama wants to hand over 200 Billion dollars a year to that great Bullsh*t Green religious cult that believes in Gaia & Man made Global warming.
But I won't hold my breath expecting many of you atheists to complain about that... lol
Aqua Fyre
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 28, 2009 2:45 AM
"Okay, Wiley is just a shit-stirrer."
That was obvious from his very first comment on the black hole thread. Please, just leave him to wank to Glen Beck alone.
Posted by: Crocodile Ghandi | November 28, 2009 2:53 AM
Cath the Canberra Cook, my father is a much higher (than me) executive in the public service and I think he gets around $120,000. However, the amount of people at his level in the public service are far less than those below him. I agree that there is little chance that the average salary is so high.
Posted by: Satan | November 28, 2009 2:58 AM
Please, hate more. This is just weak.
Posted by: John Morales | November 28, 2009 3:03 AM
Crocodile Ghandi,
Easy enough to find out.
PS Great 'nym!
--
Damp Squib @161, nice to see even denialist trolls get that calling something religious is an insult. :)
Posted by: PaulM of Brisbane, Australia | November 28, 2009 3:30 AM
You are being way too soft on the Rev. He also believes that the UN is wrong in the proposal for developed nations paying 0.7% of GDP for their Climate Debt under the proposed COP15 Treaty. Dear, wise all knowing Timmy thinks it should be 3%, and these are some of his less extreme views.
Imagine what family dinners are like in the Costello House, on one side you have Rev. Tim & on the other his brother Peter, Treasurer during the Government of John Howard & labled by our current Prime Minnister K.Rudd as the Arch Neo-Con partly responsible for the Global Financial Crisis.
Posted by: wiley | November 28, 2009 3:34 AM
Wise words and true, Aqua Fyre, yet I fear this blog's resident Green Believers wish to be enslaved by Liars For Gaia. Fortunately, the people of Melbourne won't see them flying in next year....less the Green Believers be hypocrites.
Posted by: Jane | November 28, 2009 3:57 AM
Sorry guys, we've got the "shit fight" to end them all going on over here over an ETS (Employment Termination Scheme)
At the rate our government is spending money we're not even going to be able to afford to send you a pack of tissues to wipe your teary eyes with.
It's no consolation to see that your government is racking up the $zeroes at an even faster rate either.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 28, 2009 4:48 AM
Jane, don't worry, once the environment goes belly up all those zeros won't make any difference at all.
Good to see so many other Aussies standing up for Tim Costello. I particularly like PaulM's backhanded insult. Considering the way that first world economies are being fed to a great degree by the movement of goods and materials from the third world, 3% would be an insignificant amount. But I'm sure PaulM knows that and in his way was showing how much of a good guy Tim Costello is. On ya, mate! I also expect that the commenter who suggested that Tim Costello was quoted out of context is spot on.
While I never had the pleasure of meeting Tim Costello I remember having dinner with a female Uniting Church minister at the end of which I told her that we agreed on pretty much everything apart from that existence of God thing. So, when it comes to the possibility of being religious and a fine person, I'm an accommodationalist. ;-)
Posted by: PaulM of Brisbane Australia | November 28, 2009 5:12 AM
Konrad Talmont Kaminski - nice of you to assume the intent of my post, interesting mindset you have to interpret it in that manner.
Anyhow, 3% of Australias GDP comes to around $31Billion Aus Dollars, now the likes of yourself may consider this pocket change but there are much better uses that money could be spent on to address the levels of poverty & poor standards of Health & Education outcomes in Australia rather than forking out boatloads of cash to the UN who have a record of less than 20% of aid moneys donated actually going to those on the ground.
Tim Costello is a Religous Zealot who is too busy strutting the worlds humaitarian stage & funneling funds from the foundation he runs fighting "climate change" rather than spending for the purposes for which it was donated.
Makes him a perfect fit for the UN doesn't it.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 28, 2009 5:12 AM
I wonder who that female Uniting Church minister was. The only one I know used to be one of my best friends. She totally cut me off when she realised I was no longer a Christian. Or maybe she just decided I'm an arsehole, which may be true, I suppose; who am I to say?
Oh well, whatever with Christians and their Christian morality.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 28, 2009 5:16 AM
Looking forward to watching from the Pharyngula table at the atheist convention when Lying IRC is carried out in a straightjacket for incoherent rambling.
And please can we rid ourselves of wiley already.
While Tim Costello has some cred on working with disadvantaged and all that, his religious views are still fucked up.
Btw, at the same convention centre where this "parliament" is taking place next weekend, we currently have the "Sexpo", and it is killing the local traffic I can tell you ! I shall compare next weekend's traffic.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 28, 2009 5:20 AM
PaulM, come on, mate, you know I was pulling your leg. Let's just say that I do not think that there is a better way to use the money than saving the planet and helping everyone on it live decent lives. You're welcome to disagree.
Russell, I do not recall her name, she was a good friend of a friend of mine. I doubt she'd be the same person you knew as my friend is as much a vociferous atheist as I am. Neither this woman nor Tim Costello think Christians have any special right to call themselves moral. If they did, I certainly wouldn't think as highly of them as I do.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 28, 2009 5:37 AM
Rorschach, I think that saying that Tim Costello "has some cred working with disadvantaged" is kind of like saying that Steve Waugh (Aussie Cricket ex-captain) has some cred for winning some matches. Both are living treasures and for good reason. As for Costello's religious views, of course I thoroughly disagree with them and think them fundamentally mistaken and, actually, immoral. So what? I'd much rather deal with a decent human being whose views I fundamentally disagree with than some rat that happens to share my views. The reason why I dislike religion is not that all religious people are evil, because they are not. It is that religious views (by misrepresenting the world) and organisations (by entrenching inequality) have historically made it easy for people to do evil and have generally opposed human progress.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 28, 2009 6:02 AM
Huh ?
Well, immoral and mistaken views bother me, if they don't bother you, fine, whatever lol.
Define decent, define rat...WTF are you even talking about?? So a "decent" human being by your definition can be someone who holds immoral views? You seem confused.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 28, 2009 6:08 AM
-"In a global context, most of the world is profoundly religious, and there literally can't be peace without religious peace," Mr Costello said.-
The religious should learn to keep their own peace then. 90% of the world might be religious, but it sure aint the same religion.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 6:18 AM
Also 'irrelevant' (thanx to people with attitudes like yours) are the opinions of innocent unborn humans awaiting execution. - wiley
So, wiley, if an 11-year old is raped and impregnated by her father, should she be allowed an abortion? A straight answer, please.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 28, 2009 6:18 AM
Rorschach, don't be purposefully obtuse.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 28, 2009 6:25 AM
You could of course address my replies to your post and explain how your comments were not confused and contradictory.
Posted by: echidna
|
November 28, 2009 6:28 AM
KTK,
Rorschach is not being obtuse. You were being illogical, which Rorschach made clear(er).
You described Costello as a decent person with immoral views.
You also described a hypothetical person who holds the same views as you, but is nevertheless a rat.
The contradictions were (slightly) obscured by the length of your prose - Rorschach pruned your words to expose the contradictions.
Posted by: Dennis Bowden | November 28, 2009 6:39 AM
Well put PZ. See ya next year.
Dennis
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 28, 2009 6:40 AM
Echidna, people are complex and often self-contradictory. The point I was making was that it is easy for people to act in ways contrary to their espoused views and that it is people's actions that are more significant. I think I made the point clearly, though you and Rorschach clearly think otherwise.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 28, 2009 6:47 AM
I think the point I was making can be best understood by comparison with the fact that people are capable of being good scientists even while retaining religious views. Their views and their scientific work are in conflict but, being human, they do not necessarily see the contradiction. Indeed, they may feel that their religious views motivate their scientific efforts. This, as PZ has pointed out on many occassions, does not make religion and science logically compatible. Neither does the fact that very good people sometimes have religious views mean that religious views are logically compatible with morality.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 28, 2009 7:00 AM
Konrad Talmont-Kaminski,
Rorschach's point is that you admire Costello even though you say that he's immoral. In fact you said you prefer immoral but nice people who disagree with you over moral but possibly unpleasant people who do agree with you.
Perhaps you're expressing yourself poorly, but reading your post #174 was a definite WTF moment for me.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 28, 2009 7:11 AM
*Sigh*
Define "very good people". While you're at it, look up "non-sequitur".Then think about "logically compatible". You're one big hot air balloon man.
Posted by: echidna
|
November 28, 2009 7:18 AM
It is always a good idea to clarify with examples.
The problem that I have with what you are saying is encapsulated in your statement:
"Neither does the fact that very good people sometimes have religious views mean that religious views are logically compatible with morality."
This statement falls apart in total ambiguity - one of those rhetorical flourishes that sound nice, but are empty of meaning.
What do you mean to be a good person? Someone who always acts for the benefit of others? Someone who sets standards of behaviour for others to follow?
What religious views in particular? That atheists are fools? That disobedient children should be killed? That one should give all wealth to the poor? That women are not fit to teach? That a woman alone with a man should be stoned to death for adultery?
Let's consider some immoral religious views (you can pick any immoral religious view you like). Can anyone who holds these religious views even be a good person? Does intending to be righteous count as being a good person, or does the actual effect of your actions have more weight?
The point I would like to leave you with is that holding immoral views will affect your actions. Tim Costello is a classic case in point. He is well-known as the type of Christian even an atheist can admire, because he has chosen the path of working for the good of those less fortunate, rather than enriching himself and asserting control over other people.
But when it comes to the atheist conference, the influence of immoral, discriminatory Christian (and Platonic) views (atheists are fools, not to be tolerated, less than human) has come to the fore. It is disappointing. An otherwise good man shows evidence of being corrupted.
Religion poisons everything.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 28, 2009 7:23 AM
If the atheist convention can get by on $250k for 2k delegates, while the religious event needs $4.5M for 5k delegates - over seven times as much per head - then I have to wonder how the latter event compares to other secular events in public funding terms. Since those figures should be a matter of public record, I hope someone digs them up. If it can be shown that the bishops et al are being greedy compared to various other funded events, that could be lousy PR for the religious in the current economy.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 7:23 AM
Konrad's comparison with the relation of religious views with scientific excellence is valid, but poorly expressed. Laudable, altruistic behaviour is indeed compatible, in an empirical sense, with holding flawed and highly unpleasant moral views: there are indeed Christians who behave very well, but make absurd excuses for their alleged God, believe in and approve of Hell, etc. This is exactly parallel to the empirical fact that people can believe in the silly fairy stories of Christianity or other religions, yet do good scientific work.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 28, 2009 7:25 AM
@Crocodile Ghandi #147: I was just parroting what was in the news about a government report on "average public servant salaries" - as I indicated in my post I have no idea whether the report can be trusted or not. The APS6 figure I got was for CSIRO - it occurred to me after the post that maybe the same level classifications are used but CSIRO might have different pay levels from other government departments. However, if the report is right and the 'average' is APS6 (and CSIRO doesn't have a hugely bloated APS6), there are some serious problems with government salaries.
Posted by: echidna
|
November 28, 2009 7:38 AM
Knockgoats,
That's a sensible, eloquent defence of Konrad's position. I would agree with you wholeheartedly, if it were not for my profound disappointment in Tim Costello.
Posted by: Crocodile Ghandi | November 28, 2009 7:46 AM
Mad Scientist - That is certainly fair. As I also said in my post (perhaps not my original post) I may well be wrong. I know that I am not earning a lot as an APS1 but I am also a uni student who is living at home, so I can't really complain :)
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | November 28, 2009 8:19 AM
Echidna, thanks for that (by way of Knockgoats). And if I did not express myself clearly, I apologise.
Also, Knockgoats, thanks for restating my point but what's wrong with goats, anyway?
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 8:33 AM
Konrad,
My nym is derived from how natives of the town where I now live pronounce my real name - or at least, how their pronunciation of it sounds to me. I have nothing against goats! (Well, in their place - they can be tremendously destructive when foolishly introduced to islands where they have no predators, for example.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 28, 2009 9:05 AM
Which is it? Semi-fascist, or lefty? Inquiring minds want to know!
Come on. We're all atheists about Gaia, and even Lovelock himself, who is a couple short of a full deck, didn't mean his religious metaphor that literally.
We don't believe in Gaia. We merely accept that the laws of physics don't go away when we stop believing in them.
Quick releases of lots of greenhouse gases have triggered temperature increases before, 66 and 55 million years ago, for example.
Now, where does your name come from? It sounds like New Age and looks like fantasy. ~:-|
Posted by: Machine Elf | November 28, 2009 10:06 AM
P.Z wrote:
"Since Costello is a "reverend", unfortunately, that probably means he's an ignorant ass who has never learned anything that matters."
Fail.
http://www.worldvision.com.au/aboutus/OurCEOTimCostello.aspx
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
November 28, 2009 10:42 AM
1) Criteria
They are the same as for the religious one and have to do with bringing economic value to the state. The religious one is accepted, the atheist one is dicked around.
2) Media attention
I notice that Compass on the ABC is all over the religious one but seems to have nothing to say about the atheist one. Atheism is part of Compass's remit. Then again they aired that ghastly "Did Darwin Kill God?" documentary. What more can I say?
3) Secularism under threat
There is a strong creeping religiosity in Oz right now. Its organised and has more power than numbers. Public schools have not only been unable to shake religious instruction in schools (not run according to the rules as is) but has gained stupid bloody chaplains with federal and state funding! Secularists need to stand up and fight this one.
A lot of us are: http://australiansecularlobby.com/
Posted by: Marja | November 28, 2009 10:55 AM
This is the first time I have looked at atheism. I'm one of those people who doesn't belong to any religion, because I don't believe in any of them.
But the discussion here - the general consensus seems to be something like 'I'M RIGHT AND EVERYBODY WHO THINKS DIFFERENTLY IS AN IDIOT!'.
You are every bit as bad as the religious fundamentalists. I suppose if you had your way religions would be declared illegal and everybody practicing or teaching one would go to jail.
Disgusting.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 11:06 AM
Marja, your concern about our tone is noted. And rejected. Stick around, and see how we really operate. Get beyond the tone, and look at what we actually say. We have a few idjit trolls like Wiley, who is really just trying to present his inane ideas, without evidence, and usually just to get a rise from us other than discussing the real issues in a cogent manner. So we return scorn in his direction. Welcome to the internet.
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
November 28, 2009 11:11 AM
Hi Marja,
you are seeing some old, somewhat weary anger at people who are being irritating and abusive on purpose. Please forgive us.
As for not believing in any religion, do you have a belief in some sort of god? If the answer to that question is no then you are an atheist right now.
Keep exploring. Its good for you.
cheers
Danny
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 28, 2009 11:30 AM
You make that sound like a bad thing. ;)
Seriously, Most of us are not anti-god or particularly anti-religion. However we do get annoyed when religious people are hypocritical. The Victorian government has decided that $4.5 million for a religious convention is just neato-peachy-keen whereas $250 thousand for an atheist convention is double-plus ungood.
We also get annoyed when godbotherers like Timmy Costello outright LIE! 90% of the Earth's inhabitants are not deeply religious. That, madam, is a lie and since so many of his supporters have told us in this very thread that Timmy is the greatest person ever born since Dr. Gene Ray (Cube Phenomenologist and THE WISEST HUMAN), then Timmy should know better.
Sorry if expressing dismay over hypocrisy and prevarication upset you. We'll try to be nicer to the hypocrites and liars next time.
Posted by: raven
|
November 28, 2009 12:20 PM
Well so you guessed wrong because you are an idiot yourself.
1. No one would give a rat's ass about religion except for one thing. In the USA, the fundie xians want to destroy the USA, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages.
We have to oppose them for our survival and the survival of our nation. In point of fact, they did an enormous amount of damage during their 8 years of power. Two of my friends are already dead in Iraq.
2. Mostly we are just cheering the xians on as they shake themselves to pieces. That Dark Ages thing is going to be a hard sell and they are hemorrhaging members as people's survival instincts kick in.
For the few current examples of theocracies look at Iran, Somalia, or Afghanistan. If you still want to live in one, go move there.
Posted by: shonny
|
November 28, 2009 1:18 PM
If it hadn't been that your ability of comprehension obviously is at about zero degrees Kelvin, I would have suggested that you study the conditions for Aborigines in Australia. But alas, you will have nothing to gain.
Posted by: wiley | November 28, 2009 2:41 PM
@shonny#202
The conditions for Aborigines in Australia:
Free land, free house, free health-care, favored race-based employment application status & a PM who apologizes for saving Aboriginal children from dangerous situations engendered by adult Aborigines.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 2:46 PM
Yawn, the stupid troll is still stooopid and trolling. And still a liberturd, emphasis on the TURD.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 28, 2009 2:48 PM
...a PM who apologizes for saving Aboriginal children from dangerous situations engendered by adult Aborigines.
Is wiley seriously implying that Aboriginals were incapable of raising their children?
Is wiley's last name Coyote and does he carry business cards that says Supergenius?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 2:54 PM
I think he does mail order with Acme, and accidentally keeps hurting himself with his harebrained arguments.Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 2:57 PM
wiley,
I see you're still around. I asked you a question@177:
if an 11-year old is raped and impregnated by her father, should she be allowed an abortion?
A straight answer, please. Yes or no will do, but if you want to say "sometimes", and specify the conditions, that's fine.
Posted by: Walton | November 28, 2009 3:09 PM
$2.5 million for a conference on religion is an obscene waste of taxpayers' money. At the same time, I would be equally unhappy if the government of Victoria had granted the requested money for the atheist conference. I cannot see any persuasive reason why either event should receive a subsidy at the expense of the public. Since taxes are intrinsically coercive, I would argue that it is morally wrong to expend taxpayers' money on any project unless it can be clearly empirically demonstrated that (a) the project is demonstrably beneficial to citizens' quality of life, and (b) it cannot feasibly be funded by the private and voluntary sectors. Neither criterion is satisfied either by a conference on religion or by an atheist conference.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 28, 2009 3:36 PM
Walton
It's primarily an effective means of boosting the overall economy. You know, the spin off effects of tourism etc etc. You get 2000 people in a place that's a hell of lot of benefit to local businesses. A state may throw $250,000 at an event but will subsequently gain a lot more back in taxes from the businesses that profit from income that has come from outside of the state.
On a related spin-off economy note, years ago I did the "Bus De Love" tour in Canberra where the sex industry is well organised and regulated. On that tour the hostess, a local sex-worker, told us the single biggest weekend of income EVER for the Canberra brothels had been the weekend the World Council of Churches had their convention there. Obviously anecdotal but highly amusing nontheless.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 3:49 PM
BoS, from what anecdotal evidence I have seen, the local sex industry her in da US prefers the Republican conventions to the Democratic conventions. The Republicans hire sex, the Democrats find their partners at the convention...
Posted by: lockhead | November 28, 2009 4:25 PM
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOMEBODY CALL THE BUTTHURT ATHEISTS A WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBULANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 28, 2009 4:51 PM
lockhead has just used up his entire quota of capital letters and exclamation points for the rest of the year.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 28, 2009 5:01 PM
"I suppose if you had your way religions would be declared illegal and everybody practicing or teaching one would go to jail."
No. But feel free to continue making shit up.
Posted by: Jason | November 28, 2009 6:36 PM
LOL
http://www.dailygrail.com/Religion-and-Spirituality/2009/11/Inherent-Fail-New-Atheism
Posted by: millinniummany3k | November 28, 2009 8:45 PM
Atheists, with their confrontational, in your face approach of attacking religion, join the likes of the French with nuclear weapons testing, Bush with Iraq and Indonesia with Schapelle Corby in earning scorn for their defiance of a mre moderate approach in handling religion.
Posted by: Gerry Corrigan | November 28, 2009 8:57 PM
In light of their prior funding commitments would not the insistence of equal, proportional or even token consideration by the Australian government of financial assistance towards an atheist conference be seen as an entreaty to the Australians to take a pluralistic view in their funding criteria? Neglecting the possibility that any sufficiently large group of people could feasibly concoct their own motivations to meetup in Australia demanding benevolence from Australian taxpayers it would be more problematic for that group to accept such assistance and in doing so enter in to a pluralistic accord with all groups that have received such funding, particularly if that groups prime motivation was set themselves as the antithesis to a group that had already received funding. Despite the real possibility that many within the religious groups might reject funding of an athetist conference they alone must accept the moral consequences of who they accept money from. Thankfully the atheists will at least this time be spared such quandary.
Posted by: wiley | November 29, 2009 12:06 AM
Knockgoats:
Thank you for that (presumably) hypothetical question, and for your vote of confidence that I may be able to pour out my wisdom on the subject, and my answer is as follows:
Firstly, Christianity strictly forbids incestuous relationships, and Jesus suggested drowning's too good for pedophiles, so the father is unlikely to be a Christian, and definitely not a true follower of Christ who died and rose again, not to save sinners who showed they didn't believe his message by continuing to sin, but those that heard the word and stopped sinning because they truly believe in him.
So the rapist is more likely to be an Atheist, there being nothing in Atheism which forbids
incest or pedophilia. However, we are (presumably)talking about a hypothetical situation, so whatever the nominal or claimed religious/irreligous status of the father, I say drown him in the depths of the sea with a millstone round his neck. And yes, in case you missed my post on the other thread, same goes for Catholic priests who are pedophiles.
As for the 11-Y-O girl, hmmm.. tough one. She'd be no daughter of mine (for obvious reasons) and kids these days do the darndest things, but pre-teenage rape (incestuous or otherwise) is a sign of a society in deep moral decline. However the question of whether an abortion should be allowed in such a circumstance needs specific spiritual guidance that can only be provided, or rather perceived, by the conscience of the albeit (hypothetical) child. I would suggest, as a guide, the anguish now endured by a lady in our church, who had an abortion whilst still a teenager before she got turned into a Christian.
I trust this answers your question, if not feel free to use that nasty ol' f-word in creative combinations with dumb, wit, troll etc., as is the atheist pejorative. What, BTW, is your own answer to your (hypothetical) question, pray tell?
Posted by: 3B
|
November 29, 2009 1:45 AM
Hey Nerd #210, Thanks for the info about the republicans. They hire more whores, start more wars including the war on christmas, the war on drugs and everybody's favorite the war on terror. Peace on earth and good will towards men indeed.
Posted by: Bayard | November 29, 2009 3:15 AM
I live in Melbourne, Australia and will be attending the convention when it all kicks off and this news makes me extremely sad. Australia supposedly prides itself on its church-state separation, most get riled up when unfavourable comparisons are made with the situation in the US, but our government is really not that different. People in power are still scared to show any kind of support for atheists due to a large influence from the churches and also due to the still negative stereotypes that surround even just the word 'atheist'. This double standard, sadly, comes as no surprise to those living here.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 29, 2009 3:31 AM
watch wiley weasel wantonly!
dude, No True Scotsman is not a valid argument. You fail within the first paragraph, thus rendering the rest of your post completely useless and meaningless
Posted by: Rorschach | November 29, 2009 3:44 AM
No it doesnt, at least not legally, since there is no such clear-cut constitutional thing here.
As I understand it, the leader of the Commonwealth/ head of state in the UK is also the head of the church of England , and hence the boundaries are much more blurred then in the USA.
See here : http://www.australianpolitics.com/constitution/general/church-state.shtml
That is true in part, just replace scared with "unwilling" when it relates to the current PM, or most of the liberals( the conservatives around here).
Posted by: Clazmane | November 29, 2009 4:01 AM
Maybe if it had been called a 'festival of democratic rights' the government woud have found the funding...sigh
Afraid that this event is just no 'world youth day', they were able to find $150 million in the coffers for that little outing.
Posted by: Kristy | November 29, 2009 4:15 AM
@Bayard #219 What the politicians don't tell you that since 1981 there has been no Constitutional state/church separation in Australia. Although the founding fathers (Henry Parkes, Inglis Clarke, Edmund Barton, Samuel Griffith et al) clearly intended Section 116 of the Constitution to provide the same kind of separation as the US, a High Court challenge by the Australian Council for the Defence of Government Schools (ADoGS) to the funding of religious schools in 1981 resulted in a decision that Section 116 does not provide a guarantee of church/state separation. The only dissenting Judge was state school educated atheist, Justice Lionel Murphy.
So, while Howard and Rudd and others can trumpet their commitment to the separation of church and state they know damn well that it does not exist in Australia unless they have the intestinal fortitude to amend the Constitution to make Section 116 clearer and stronger.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 29, 2009 4:16 AM
Wiley is asked
In #217 he spends 321 words saying essentially, "Um, that's a toughy, I don't know."
Just another christotard refusing to deal with a real world situation. The moral line is hard and fast, except where it isn't.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 29, 2009 4:22 AM
"The fact that he has to think about it at all tells you all you ever want to know about wiley.
Posted by: Satan | November 29, 2009 4:28 AM
Actually, Trinitarian Christianity requires an incestuous relationship.
Jesus said no such thing.
In the Trinitarian case, the Father was God.
Is God a Christian?
I suppose that technically it is true that God cannot be a follower of Christ.
I assure you, God is not an Atheist. He definitely believes that He exists.
It's only hypothetical if you're not a Christian.
I thoroughly approve of your desire to destroy God the Father, but I'm afraid that He is a bit beyond your ability to punish.
But please, do continue to hate Him.
I do agree that the impregnation of Mary was a sign of society in deep moral decline.
"she got turned into"?
Can you please learn a little English grammar? Your illiteracy and ignorance is a sign of deep intellectual decline.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 29, 2009 4:32 AM
Satan @ 226,
I have a suspicion, unfortunately, that he meant to say exactly that, and it's not a grammatical error.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 29, 2009 4:50 AM
As for the 11-Y-O girl, hmmm.. tough one. She'd be no daughter of mine (for obvious reasons) and kids these days do the darndest things, but pre-teenage rape (incestuous or otherwise) is a sign of a society in deep moral decline. - wiley
As I suspected, you are too much of a moral coward to give a straight answer to a simple question, but I didn't expect even you to make fun of children who are raped by their fathers. There was a recent case you may well have heard of in Brazil, where a 9-year-old was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins. The church, naturally, tried to prevent her having an abortion and excommunicated the doctors who carried it out. Should this real, living 9-year-old have been allowed an abortion, wiley? Simple question, why is it you are too much of a coward to answer it? Remember, it was you who introduced the question of abortion here, where it had no relevance, so you really ought to be ready to answer it. I'm going to keep asking it every time you pop your disgusting head into a thread until you do, you gutless little shit.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 29, 2009 4:58 AM
wiley,
My answer is, of course she should be allowed an abortion. Now, you gutless little shit, give yours. I asked if she should be allowed an abortion: the clear implication being that she wanted one. If she didn't want one, then after appropriate medical advice (it is of course highly dangerous for most 11-year-olds to carry a fetus to term), her wishes should be respected. Now, you can't wriggle out of it by bleating about her conscience. She wants an abortion; should she be allowed it?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 29, 2009 5:07 AM
The RCC also excommunicated the girl's mother for consenting to the abortion. The only people not excommunicated were the girl, who was too young to make an informed choice, and the rapist. But then the RCC approves of child rape.
Posted by: wiley | November 29, 2009 5:09 AM
@#220
I disagree that I used this argument in the 1st paragraph, and especially not here: "drown him in the depths of the sea with a millstone round his neck.... same goes for Catholic priests who are pedophiles". Be reasonable.
@$224
I answered the question. I can only put my argument to you; I cannot bestow upon you the intelligence required to assimilate the information therein contained. At least 4 times I used the word 'hypothetical', indicating to anyone with more than half a brain that I was not dealing with the question as a 'real world situation', atheiotard.
@#225
Yes, Christians are called upon to use their brains. You should try it yourself sometime.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 29, 2009 5:11 AM
Wiley,
Why did you have to mention aborigines!
Dont you know that leading athiests like Mr Dawkins use atheism as justification to take away their culture/religion/culture/religion....which is it? culture or religion?
Oh YEAH - its one in the same.
Let PZ Myers stand up in Melbourne and tell Koories that their "spirit of place" is a delusion. And the bodies of their ancestors are just specimens.
Australian Aborigines - Pay ATTENTION!
Atheists dont just hate monotheism.
They reject your Dreaming JUST AS MUCH as they reject Jesus of Nazareth.
In March next year they are coming to Melbourne and every single one of them denies your SPIRITUAL CONNECTION to COUNTRY.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 29, 2009 5:13 AM
I see from this that you don't actually know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is.pathetic. try again.
Posted by: John Morales | November 29, 2009 5:15 AM
wiley @231, you again failed to answer KG.
Your passive aggressive evasiveness is telling in itself.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 29, 2009 5:16 AM
the day someone uses the Dreaming as an excuse to force their ways of life on an entire nation/world (possibly under thread of death and eternal torment) and deny others their rights and their own cultures, you might have a point. Until then, you're talking out your ass, tardkittehPosted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 29, 2009 5:18 AM
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God” -- Martin LutherPosted by: adam Hill | November 29, 2009 5:21 AM
Seems the Australians are showing their natural common sense. Good on them. Hopefully they will never put money anywhere near the toxic atheists.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 29, 2009 5:21 AM
Hi Lion IRC,
No they dont, as you know of course, but being a liar for jebus you suppress that fact I guess.Because the aboriginals dont try to lobby the government for tax exemptions or influence, dont tell me they are better people because of their belief in their various magic beings, and dont try to push their superstitions into schools or public life.
You know, like the monotheistic sects.
Moron.
Posted by: John Morales | November 29, 2009 5:30 AM
LIRC, it wasn't atheists who set up and ran the missions.
Posted by: Satan | November 29, 2009 5:38 AM
It's reasonable for you to want to drown God?
Not very well, though.
What information? That you hate God and want to drown Him?
It can only not be a 'real world situation' if you deny that Christianity is real.
Are you admitting that you follow Me?
If you deny Christianity, then you too are an atheist.
If you're not a Christian, how is this relevant?
Posted by: wiley | November 29, 2009 5:53 AM
Keep your hair on, K-goats!
What part of my answer did you not understand?
On the contrary. One of the presenters at the hate-fest shamelessly and needlessly took out out a contract on her unborn child, and speaks endlessly about how good she feels about that. Why should Christian taxpayers be forced to sponsor the promotion of Atheist-inspired human sacrifice?
So you say. Do you follow your conscience, or do Atheibots have a conscience by-pass? I ask because in this situation, it is not you, KG, that will be racked with a guilty conscience in years to come, but the girl.
Posted by: Satan | November 29, 2009 6:05 AM
The parts where it was not clear on whether you want to kill God or not. Can you expand on that, please?
For the same reason that Atheist taxpayers are forced to sponsor the promotion of Christian-inspired human sacrifice.
If you're not a Christian, though, why do you care?
Actually, she would not have had a guilty conscience, because she would have been dead had the twins in her tiny womb developed to term.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 29, 2009 6:06 AM
except that of course most of the time women feel guilty only because they are being guilt-tripped by monsters like you.Posted by: Knockgoats | November 29, 2009 6:14 AM
What part of my answer did you not understand? - wiley the cowardly little shit
I understood it, you cowardly little shit: you did not say whether she should be allowed an abortion if she decides she wants one. Why not just say "yes" or "no", you cowardly little shit? I'll deal with your other points if and when you answer my simple question, you cowardly little shit.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 29, 2009 6:18 AM
Wiley,
You were asked a yes or no question. You spent 321 words telling us that the rapist wouldn't be a Christian (you really should find out about the No True Scotsman logical fallacy) and that some woman in your church regrets having had an abortion. But nowhere did you say "yes, the 11 year old should have an abortion" or "no, the 11 year old should not have an abortion."
My guess is you're too stupid to know how to answer a yes or no question. Christianity does that to people.
Posted by: wiley | November 29, 2009 6:26 AM
KG: Be nice.
Lion: Wasn't me, Orion 1st mentioned Aborigines, @#144.
But don't get me started on Delusional Dawkins!
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 29, 2009 6:38 AM
wiley,
I feel no obligation to be nice to cowardly little shits. Now, answer the question, you cowardly little shit: should an 11-year old, raped and impregnated by her father, be allowed an abortion if she decides she wants one?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 29, 2009 6:38 AM
Why don't you deal with the question at hand first? Or are you too much of a coward to answer it?
Posted by: Rorschach | November 29, 2009 6:44 AM
Survivor, please.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 29, 2009 6:56 AM
Wiley, why won't you answer Knockgoats's question? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 29, 2009 7:43 AM
Why don't you start Wiley, by being less of a shithead, and trying to be purposely disruptive. That also means answering direct questions directly. Use you brains to be cogent and direct, and not passive aggressive. The latter makes you look like the lying weasel you are.Dawkins is a very rational, direct, and cogent man. What is your problem? He doesn't believe in your imaginary god?Posted by: Knockgoats | November 29, 2009 7:44 AM
I think Sir Wiley has "bravely turned his tail and fled"! I shall pursue him, however, from thread to thread, until he either disappears for good, or answers the question.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 29, 2009 8:18 AM
No, an autotheist...
It is very hypocritical for you to say that. You don't believe in any such spiritual connection either.
I'm happy with freedom of religion. My freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa... Getting SIWOTI syndrome in meatspace would be rather exhausting. See comment 235.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 29, 2009 9:05 AM
The abortion answer according to the bible is NO. It is not difficult. She doesn't get a choice to have an abortion. Wiley can waffle all day. It won't change the bible's attitude to women.
-They reject your Dreaming JUST AS MUCH as they reject Jesus of Nazareth.-
The "dreaming" which christians also reject. What is it with christians and hypocrisy? Lion, tThere is more to communicating than putting the fullstops in the right place.
Posted by: The Butcheress of Abu Ghraib | November 29, 2009 4:59 PM
If you all stop acting like fucking retards for a moment, you're crying like a little bitch over not getting money from the government. Yet atheists scream rape because religion gets money from the government. What. The. Fuck? Are you trying to make atheism look more hypocritical and pathetic than it already is?
Posted by: Kristy | November 29, 2009 5:06 PM
Atheist Foundation of Australia speaks out against the funding decision and the Australian Labor government's 'ungainly lean towards the religious right' in an 'op-ed' piece in today's National Times. Check out the illustration of a crucifix lashed to the mast of Australia's parliament house!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 29, 2009 6:32 PM
Actually, the bible does not prohibit aboortion.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
Posted by: Rorschach | November 30, 2009 3:14 AM
Kristy @ 256,
thanks for the link to the article.Red Symons had some archbishop or other on his radioshow the other day, and mentioned that atheists were "whinging" about not getting funding, I didnt think that was very helpful of him.
Who reads the "National Times" ?
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 30, 2009 6:57 AM
-Actually, the bible does not prohibit abortion.-
But none of those quotes allow the woman the choice. Which was the original question I believe.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 30, 2009 7:06 AM
I would have thought the retard would be the one who clearly doesn't get the point, nor understands hypocrisy, nor apparently understands what "rape" is. But then as you are a religious nutbar special this comes as no surprise what so ever.
Posted by: John Allison | November 30, 2009 11:04 AM
One would have thought that the effective financial contribution by New Souh Wales towards the Pope's Sydney visit for World Youth Day last year would have set a precedent. Melbourne, in next door Aussie State - Victoria - could, given the States' rivalry, be reasonably expected to help out. Do they perhaps think that the admission charges are too paltry? Or do they think that an atheist conference will have serious economic consequences? Victoria, I'm ashamed of you!
Posted by: Dan | November 30, 2009 11:19 AM
This might be just me, but does this whole thing stink of an American DMV-like experience?
Could it be that there are no political/religious undertones and is simply bureaucracy at it's finest?
Nah, the religous persecution angle is way more fun. Let's roll with that.
Posted by: Rory | November 30, 2009 4:44 PM
Related (aussie) article here:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/believers-45m-atheists-nil-20091127-jw77.html
Posted by: Aquaria | December 1, 2009 2:36 AM
We fail?
You can't win in the marketplace of ideas without lying, whining or murdering.
Bring evidence for your imaginary friend that can be tested by scientists, magicians and professional debunkers, or shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 5:49 AM
oh? you want us to go back to pointing out the coverups of child rape that your religion is responsible for? how about the corruption in government and the influence of "the family" to name but two. This is the least of things done by christians, you should be grateful we are distracted for a few moments away from the truly evil and despicable things done by your religion recently.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 6:28 AM
Interesting. So basically you're arguing that because we don't know anything, that God might sit outside our knowledge? Of course it is possible, but what reason do we have to support it?Of course humans can study as much as they like about the history of early americas, but I'm betting that studying the fundamental properties of nature is going to tell us something much more relevant. We don't need to know everything about the universe to know that it's 13.7 billion years old, the relevant data is enough. Just as it is for the earth being 4.6 billion years old and life evolving over the last 3 billion years or so. And on that note, don't need every fossil either. All the ammonite shells shells in the world does nothing compared to one dinobird or fishibian or upright ape with handaxe.
The argument is vapid, it at best points out that we don't know a lot. Which is true, but does the fact that I don't know that there isn't a invisible indivisible corporeal dragon floating in my garage give me any reason at all to believe there is one? Sorry but you've got the burden of proof around the wrong way. Given all that we don't know, you need to provide claims that what you are saying we don't know does infact exist.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 1, 2009 4:24 PM
I fckng ht rlgn. It s vl nd mst b wpd t n mttr hw mny hv t b klld t chv tht gl.
[NO. -- pzm]
Posted by: John Morales | December 1, 2009 4:41 PM
Anonymous, what a feeble attempt to smear atheists.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2009 5:44 PM
Go here and visit the blog of the first listed person.
That'll teach you to make shit up.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 12:53 AM
re: #277, see #271.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 2, 2009 1:04 AM
"They're perfectly happy to treat every priest as a paedophile, every Christian as a homophobe, every Muslim as a Islamic Jihad serial killer."
Then:
"http://www.atheists.net/
This is the maturity and level of tolerance of atheists?"
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 2, 2009 1:35 AM
It would take a significant misalignment of a person's moral compass to believe that exposing organised childrape and the attempt to hide the perpetrators constitutes a "smear campaign".
Sicko.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 1:40 AM
lockhead, I can't quite make out what you're saying.
Who is "he" who is making a point?
Who is "this atheist despot"?
Who brings this up and portrays it as the norm (and does that have anything to do with "90 per cent of the world is deeply religious")?
Shining light on religion merely illuminates what it is. Why do you refer to illumination as "negative light"? :)
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 2:02 AM
What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience? A fraction of one percent? Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?
I'll give you a year to find out.
*looks at watch*
reeeeaadddyyy...
GO!
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 4:38 AM
Butcheress, it's an atheist conference.
No-one is being proselytised thereby.
--
Stalking:
There are set criteria for Government funding of public events, which the organisers believed the convention met. It would've been imprudent of them not to apply.
I guess the double-standard described in the post doesn't bother you; it bothers me, because I dislike hypocrisy.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 4:55 AM
Stalking:
1. I think it's silly, but then I think dancing is silly too, and I don't do it. I have no problem with others doing it.
2. Nope. Not in the least
3. Did you even read what I wrote?
What I don't like are double-standards.
Posted by: echidna
|
December 2, 2009 5:23 AM
Spot the non-aussies. Right-wing septic tank is my guess.
Aussies in general don't have an issue with government support. The overriding value in Australian society is a sense of fairness.
It is not fair for religions to get support, while atheists don't. From a government perspective, the grants help boost the economy. The organizations are happy, because they benefit too. Nobody really gives a rats arse about who is supported, as long as the process is fair.
But what the government should not do is play favourites with organization types. What's good for the religious types is good for the atheists.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 5:23 AM
Stalking, are you being deliberately obtuse?
Again: When the Government offers funding for community events, and has a set of criteria for eligibility, then those criteria supposedly apply equally to all applicants.
It is not clear that this is the case here.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 5:47 AM
m3k:
Yeah, I do¹. But that's not the issue at hand, and it has nothing to do with what I've written here.
The issue at hand is (as echidna wrote) fairness.
--
¹ I also have a problem with Government funding for other non-essentials, such as the arts (e.g. opera).
Posted by: echidna
|
December 2, 2009 6:03 AM
millinniummany3k@292 said:
I don't know who the "you" is that you are referring to, but I will answer anyway.
I have no problem with religious organizations receiving government funding, if the funding is proportionate with what other groups under the same criteria would receive.
That said, I also think that religious groups currently enjoy benefits above and beyond what is available to non-religious groups, particularly with government funding for education (private protestant religious schools here get more government funding than public schools), and also the more-than-generous tax exemptions.
The system is currently unfair, and weighted disproportionately toward religious organizations. However, loss of privilege is always to be feared, and in this case, atheists are being blamed for presuming to exist.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 6:05 AM
m3k, heh.
♪ "They Will Know We Are Christians by our Love" ♫
Good job!
Posted by: echidna
|
December 2, 2009 6:16 AM
mk3@294:
You have nothing to say that I wish to hear. You are a septic tank, aren't you?
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 6:24 AM
FWIW, I suspect Stalking, m3k and dorkmanscott are one and the same troll.
Posted by: echidna
|
December 2, 2009 6:30 AM
John M,
I think you are right. Totally clueless - no wit, no content, just insane ranting.
Sock-puppetry is a dungeon offence, isn't it? I hope so.
Posted by: echidna
|
December 2, 2009 6:52 AM
millinniummany3k, you are obtuse, aren't you?
You are displaying such a lack of understanding of the principles of fairness involved, and you have no clue about the proper role of government in Australia. Basically, we believe that government is meant to govern for the overall good of Australian citizens. It's as simple as that. When Reagan uttered the words "government is the problem" he sent the US into a death spiral that it hasn't recovered from.
Demonstrate the "self rightous hypocracy[sic]", using quotes, that atheists have displayed. I'll bet you that you can't - because we haven't.
We are protesting the unfairness of applying government criteria unequally between atheist and religious groups.
You also don't seem to understand that Australia has a much stronger sense of social justice than the US. That includes the religious organizations. Tim Costello is exemplary in this regard, except that he doesn't wish to acknowledge the rights of atheists to exist.
The US has moved far right of civilized society - and seems to have lost all concept of society, and the common good.
You certainly don't seem to have had a good education, judging by your reading comprehension, analytical skills and basic spelling.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 7:49 AM
This is not quite what he said, and it is not a problem either. John is saying that the government should not be giving out these handouts to any organizations for meetings as a matter of his political beliefs. But, if they are going to give out money to organizations for meetings, then they should be fair and give money qualifying organizations regardless of religious belief, both religious and atheist. One is being truly obtuse is one doesn't see that.I have been an atheist for my adult life. I still haven't seen any atheist agenda. Perhaps the only on is keep your religion to yourself, and out of the public square. As you said yourself. Deliberately obtuse.Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2009 4:09 PM
PZ,
there's a sock-puppeting troll with an agenda impersonating me @307 & @309. I suspect the posts from the #280s on, other than myself, echidna and Nerd.
Annoying.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 4:13 PM
I suppose I'm going to be obtuse as well because I commented on the goalpost moving to fit atheist agenda. And a troll. And a sock puppet.
will you be handing out leaflets on how to create your own self fulfilling prophecies later?
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 4:16 PM
anyone who does not come in with a message of hate against religion is imstantly a target.
considering we gave an award to one of our religious commenters, Scott Hatfield, i think what you missed is that it's inane and unthinking asswipes like yourself that instantly present an irresistible target for people here.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 4:18 PM
In other words you're a fucking commie cockbreath motherfucker who expects the government to give handouts to atheists but not religion. Nice way to be a hypocritical cunt.
cleanup on isle 5!
mouthbreather drooling on the floor again!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 2, 2009 4:24 PM
The Butcheress of Abu Ghraib, Spider Al, lockhead, millinniummany3k, Anonymous, Stalking Horse, dorkmanscott, and Dragon are all the same pathetic individual, resorting to ridiculous sockpuppetry to make hiimself look credible. He has been banned. Since he also started imitating other legitimate commenters, all of his comments have been burned to the ground and thrown out.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 4:58 PM
bye-bye banned troll.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 5:08 PM
I could stay here all day making things up about atheists
that's why we think you so pathetic.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 2, 2009 9:47 PM
What criticism? I see nothink...Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 10:59 PM
Fuckface, it is not a case of PZ being a coward. You have been plonked. Scroll down to the bottom. This is what you will find.
Miscreant: The Butcheress of Abu Ghraib, Spider Al, lockhead, millinniummany3k, Anonymous, Stalking Horse, dorkmanscott, Dragon
Crime: Sockpuppetry
Comments: Also used other users names in his games. All comments by this loser have been deleted.
No one is going to play your sad little game. Fuck off!
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 2, 2009 11:28 PM
#296
And someone is whining that he couldn't give a productive argument.
yawn.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 2, 2009 11:33 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak, do not bother numbering the comments. Your comment will soon be #296.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 2, 2009 11:40 PM
Darn, now I'll sound like I'm talking to myself. lol
Posted by: Min Krysa | December 3, 2009 1:15 AM
Have you ever heard of the Kobayashi Maru?
Posted by: Rorschach | December 3, 2009 1:50 AM
What a cute little infestation of confused canetoads that was !
Posted by: Min Krysa | December 4, 2009 12:49 AM
When you set yourself up on one side and go up against an opposing aide, you set yourself up to fail. No matter what you say or do, no matter how you say or do it, every possible action you can make is wrong.
Posted by: Sam | December 4, 2009 2:22 AM
This is actually pretty disappointing from PZ.
a) Athiests already have a place at this conference, why should we get money to hold our own when the religious folk invite everyone?
b) Why are we saying that athiesm is entitled to the same treatment as religion? Is athiesm a religion now?
c) Tim Costello is one of Australia's fine upstanding citizens, regardless of what religion you are or arent from. Also, he is one of those great figures in religion that encourages open dialogue from both sides. It's really unfair to call him an ignorant ass.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 4, 2009 2:43 AM
Sam @ 302,
*False equivalence alert*
Darling, there are guidelines out there as to who can apply for government funding, and the atheist convention was entitled to apply.
That's open to opinion, isnt it....
Posted by: Sam | December 4, 2009 3:05 AM
Rorschach
c) Sure it is open, but as we all know, a sensible opinion is a well informed one, and I hardly think calling Tim Costello an ignorant ass is a well informed opinion. Among other things Costello has campaigned against gambling and expanded gun ownership, as well as heading up World Vision Australia for many years. Religion aside, this guy has lived his life in the service of our country. If you don't think thats a fine upstanding citizen then geez, I wouldnt ever want to try and live up to such high standards.
Posted by: Min Krysa | December 4, 2009 3:42 AM
If he was more opposed to religion perhaps, that might make him a better man in some people's eyes.