Godless PM

[Gob]

Australia’s new Prime Minister has revealed she does not believe in God.

Julia Gillard told ABC radio in Melbourne that she was not prepared to go through ‘religious rituals’ for the sake of appearances.

Ms Gillard added: ‘I am, of course, a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they are not my beliefs.

‘For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay them is to respect their genuinely-held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine.

Ms Gillard’s views are in contrast with those of former prime minister Kevin Rudd, who was a regular at Canberra church services and opposition leader Tony Abbot, who is a devout Catholic.

Ms Gillard, who was born in the Welsh town of Barry, revealed she had been raised as a Baptist, before converting to Atheism.

The Australian Christian Lobby has since warned Australia’s first female Prime Minister that she may have turned off some of her Christian voters with her comments.

A spokesman said: ‘I think she is being honest and true to herself.

‘Obviously, that position will alienate some in the Christian community and some in the wider Australian community.’



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0sOOce8zG

Good on her!

[@meric@nwom@n]

After God put all those bitey attack poisonous things there I wouldn't believe in him either.

[BoSoxGal]

Does one actually 'convert' to athiesm?

I thought I'd just fallen into it by common sense.

[dales]

"Converting" to atheism is a theological impossiblity but might be known as a "loss of faith" which is a has been described as a "Dark Night of the Soul".

BTDT - not a fun place to be.

When one regains a sense of the divine, one's true sense in the Universe is restored and the perpetual darkness is replaced by a sense of infinite possibilities.

[Gob]

I have to disagree Dales. "Converting" (for want of a better word) from any indoctrinated religious belief into rational atheism, means the shackles of dogma and control fall away and one is left with the secure knowledge that the bogeyman in the sky doesn't control your life, or want you to behave in irrational ways to keep him happy.

It's a liberation.

Will the USA ever have an atheist president?

[Lord Jim]

Personally, I don't care who a President believes is God....

So long as they don't think it's themselves....

[Crackpot]

Well there's indoctrination into any belief system but there is also rational belief. The sad thing is most (including atheists) are happy to stick at shallow indoctrination and not take the time not only to truly understand the ramifications of their beliefs but to understand others beliefs.

[Sue U]

I really don't get why this whole god thing is so important to people; what does god/no god even matter? And specifically, my Very Serious Question is, if you knew there was no god, what would you do differently, and why?

[Gob]

Well as far as I can see Sue, God matters to some as they believe there is a consequence of not doing as he says.

If i knew there was a god, I do not think I'd do anything different. It's not my fault that god has not updated the manual of "things that must be done" for a couple of centuries, and that he's left it to a bunch of wackos to tell us the "truth". For all we know, David Ben Bananas may have the exact literal truth of what "god" wants of us, and we're all fucked for eating ham at easter...

[Crackpot]

I really don't get why this whole god thing is so important to people; what does god/no god even matter? And specifically, my Very Serious Question is, if you knew there was no god, what would you do differently, and why?

By what means of revelation? (has it always been thus, Suddenly proven not to exist, etc...) It would make a difference.

[Crackpot]

If i knew there was a god, I do not think I'd do anything different. It's not my fault that god has not updated the manual of "things that must be done" for a couple of centuries, and that he's left it to a bunch of wackos to tell us the "truth".

to difficult for you to read the texts yourself?

For all we know, David Ben Bananas may have the exact literal truth of what "god" wants of us, and we're all fucked for eating ham at easter...

Actually we know that he is wrong since his beliefs are plainly not supported by the texts he claims as truth. (far beyond any tortured interpretation even)

[Gob]

Which texts?

# 5 List of sacred texts of various religions

* 5.1 Ancient Greece
* 5.2 Atenism
* 5.3 Ayyavazhi
* 5.4 Bahá'í Faith
* 5.5 Bön
* 5.6 Buddhism
* 5.7 Cheondoism
* 5.8 Christianity
* 5.9 Confucianism
* 5.10 Discordianism
* 5.11 Druze
* 5.12 Ancient Egyptian religion
* 5.13 Etruscan religion
* 5.14 Hermeticism
* 5.15 Hinduism
* 5.16 Islam
* 5.17 Jainism
* 5.18 Judaism
* 5.19 LaVeyan Satanism
* 5.20 Lingayatism
* 5.21 Mandaeanism
* 5.22 Manichaeism
* 5.23 Meher Baba
* 5.24 New Age religions
* 5.25 Orphism
* 5.26 Pastafarianism
* 5.27 Rastafari movement
* 5.28 Samaritanism
* 5.29 Scientology
* 5.30 Shinto
* 5.31 Sikhism
* 5.32 Spiritism
* 5.33 Swedenborgianism
* 5.34 Taoism
* 5.35 Tenrikyo
* 5.36 Thelema
* 5.37 Unification Church
* 5.38 Yazidi
* 5.39 Zoroastrianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

If I read them all and make the wrong choice, then I'm still fucked aren't I?

[loCAtek]

I have to disagree Dales. "Converting" (for want of a better word) from any indoctrinated religious belief into rational atheism, means the shackles of dogma and control fall away and one is left with the secure knowledge that the bogeyman in the sky doesn't control your life, or want you to behave in irrational ways to keep him happy.

It's a liberation.

Will the USA ever have an atheist president?

Logical fallacy that all religion is dogma. Faith un-indoctrinated, also brings security.

Security from knowing you are part of God and his creation.

[loCAtek]

I really don't get why this whole god thing is so important to people; what does god/no god even matter? And specifically, my Very Serious Question is, if you knew there was no god, what would you do differently, and why?

If I believed I knew there was no God, I would have completely deluded myself into thinking I knew everything in the universe. What would be different is I would be living in arrogance. Why, because human being don't even know everything about this one planet; how can we presume to know everything about the God and the universe?

It's not scientific; the scientific method first says, 'Gather all the evidence... '

Our planet is less than one percent of the known Universe's data and the unknown percentage is ...well, unknown. To base a conclusion without all the evidence gathered is faith, not fact.

[loCAtek]

Which texts?

# 5 List of sacred texts of various religions

* 5.1 Ancient Greece
* 5.2 Atenism
* 5.3 Ayyavazhi
* 5.4 Bahá'í Faith
* 5.5 Bön
* 5.6 Buddhism
* 5.7 Cheondoism
* 5.8 Christianity
* 5.9 Confucianism
* 5.10 Discordianism
* 5.11 Druze
* 5.12 Ancient Egyptian religion
* 5.13 Etruscan religion
* 5.14 Hermeticism
* 5.15 Hinduism
* 5.16 Islam
* 5.17 Jainism
* 5.18 Judaism
* 5.19 LaVeyan Satanism
* 5.20 Lingayatism
* 5.21 Mandaeanism
* 5.22 Manichaeism
* 5.23 Meher Baba
* 5.24 New Age religions
* 5.25 Orphism
* 5.26 Pastafarianism
* 5.27 Rastafari movement
* 5.28 Samaritanism
* 5.29 Scientology
* 5.30 Shinto
* 5.31 Sikhism
* 5.32 Spiritism
* 5.33 Swedenborgianism
* 5.34 Taoism
* 5.35 Tenrikyo
* 5.36 Thelema
* 5.37 Unification Church
* 5.38 Yazidi
* 5.39 Zoroastrianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

If I read them all and make the wrong choice, then I'm still fucked aren't I?

No, religion is based on spirituality, which runs through ALL of them. Pick one with sincerity to go past the dogma and find the truth and you will find it.

[Crackpot]

If I read them all and make the wrong choice, then I'm still fucked aren't I?

Depends on the one you settle on. Most say it depends on what kind of person you are.

Though I think it's a no brainer to rule out the mystery religions. I find it hard to believe any creator god that would want it's truths to vary according to how much money you can give how long you can stand on your head etc.

Speaking of which I'd limit it to Creator Gods since any other gods power is not absolute or permanant.

[Andrew D]

... the scientific method first says, 'Gather all the evidence... '

* * *

To base a conclusion without all the evidence gathered is faith ....

I disagree. If the scientific method required gathering all of the evidence, then it would never have generated any even tentative conclusions. There always is (or, at least, there thus far has always been) more evidence out there. If we have to wait for all of it, we'll never draw any conclusions at all, and we might as well throw science overboard.

It seems to me that the scientific method says "Gather evidence; induce a hypothesis from that evidence; deduce consequences which must flow from that hypothesis; subject that hypothesis to the potential of falsification by evidence showing that those consequences do not actually occur. The more the hypothesis survives the rigors of potential falsification, the greater our confidence in its truth can justifiably be."

(One can describe such confidence as "faith," but then one can also describe as "faith" my expectation that if I drop an object, it will fall down.)

[Andrew D]

Speaking of which I'd limit it to Creator Gods since any other gods power is not absolute or permanant.

How "absolute" does a Creator God's power have to be? It is generally accepted that the Judeo-Christo-Islamic God does not have the power to destroy itself. Does that detract from the absoluteness of that God's power?

And as to permanence, why does that require any god at all? If an uncaused god is acceptable, why is not an uncaused universe equally acceptable?

[Crackpot]

Spare me impossibilities. They're grade school.

My point about permanence is that the Greco-Roman gods Norse gods and many other polytheistic aren't the first Are often usurpers and have limited and often transient power. I don't see the point in pledging eternal faith and loyalty to something that in all likelihood isn't eternal

If an uncaused god is acceptable, why is not an uncaused universe equally acceptable?

That would be possible though there aren't many adherents to the Steady-State Universe theory anymore.

[loCAtek]

It seems to me that the scientific method says "Gather evidence; induce a hypothesis from that evidence; deduce consequences which must flow from that hypothesis; subject that hypothesis to the potential of falsification by evidence showing that those consequences do not actually occur. The more the hypothesis survives the rigors of potential falsification, the greater our confidence in its truth can justifiably be."

(One can describe such confidence as "faith," but then one can also describe as "faith" my expectation that if I drop an object, it will fall down.)

Granted, 'Hypothesis' is often referred to as an 'educated guess';

Wiki:

People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess"[5] — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.

...but in order to remain relevant, the hypothesis has to stand up to repeated testing, with consistent results. A constant hypothesis may become known as a 'science'. Therefore, the hypothetical conclusion that 'There is no God' has a large body of evidence that has yet to be gathered and/or tested for consistency.