Raven Paradox

Congregaticide - neticide - socialmediacide - fuck those facebook whores

[matt] — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:24:38 +0000

I have had enough, so it is time for a rant.

I hate people - loathe them in fact, always wanting something from you like knowledge about how your day has been, how you are, what is happening in your world… when all that they really want is to steal some precious oxygen and prompt you to query them on things of vast importance to them but which have absolutely no merit to you (or anyone else for that matter).

The rhetorical questions that we ask one another in our daily lives, as if by rote, have been amplified through “social media phenomenons” like facebook and twitter.

Whilst I am a self confessed user of both - it makes sense in the industry that pays me to laze about drinking wine on the weekends; I loathe the new cretinous sub class of humanity that has been given birth by these tools.

The common variety facebook whore will have between 200-300 friends.

If they are using it for business purposes - well and good, however if, as was the case with one oxygen thief that I knew, one of these virtual parasites has, lets say 372 friends and then comes crying when “two people have deleted me from facebook”, expecting sympathy; then they may as well neck themselves and do us all a favour.

Fuck me… this, well, to put it bluntly, piece of human waste honestly expected me to care that she had lost two “friends” from her cast of hundreds - and, more to the point, was indignant when I asked her who they were.

“Well, um, I don’t know, but the point is that I am upset and my other friends cared but you don’t”

Indeed I don’t, and you had better wake the fuck up to yourself if you think that the measure of your worth is gauged by a number next to your name on an insidious marketing tool like facebook.

Who cares how many friends you have in the virtual world?

I have decided that enough is enough.

In the “real world” - the place that I choose to go about my daily life - you know, the one that requires effort, engagement on a real level, getting the fuck up out of bed in the morning even when you really can’t be arsed facing the world yet again, I probably have what I would consider 10-20 friends if one doesn’t count family and colleagues.

I got to the outrageous point whereby I had 120+ “friends” on facebook. Yes, I was guilty of allowing virtual friendless social parasites to befriend me, no doubt feeding their burgeoning friend lists with the arrogant fuel that their narcissistic desires fed merrily upon - but it was fun for me to imagine their horror and despair when they scanned their “friends” list only to discover that it had been reduced by one when I evilly deleted them.

Basically my new strategy with facebook is thus:

if I like you, you are in
if I work with you, to avoid complications and uneasy lunchroom conversation and you don’t have a direct line to HR or the exec com team, you are in
if there is some kind of mutual benefit to us being linked virtually (say, you can get me backstage at Cradle of Filth) you are in
if I would have a beer/wine or selected spirit with you without having to put my mind into neutral, you are in
if we have shared a night of drunken debauchery that doesn’t bear repeating here, you are probably in
if you were to tell me that your mother/father/brother/sister/cat/significant other had suffered a hideous disfigurement and I envisage that I couldn’t care less, you are out.
if I really don’t give a fuck what you are having for dinner, what time you are going to work, what your kids are doing, what household chores you are performing, what illness you are currently suffering, what you are doing on the weekend, how miserable you are feeling or what the fuck is going on with you and the love of your fucking life - you are out.
If you are a grade A oxygen thief - then that is my fault, you should never have been on the list in the first place.

Call me arrogant - I don’t give a fuck, but the time has come people - time to take a stand.

Who really cares if:

“Jemima really wishes that she didn’t have to work today” - toughen up bitch, the rest of us are dragging our arses out of bed
“Johnny is pissed off that he missed out on tix for Vibes” - get a fuckin Visa debit you moaning fuck
“George is devastated that Chloe left him for the pool boy” - should have learned how to fuck George - and waxed your back
“Matilda is drunk” - gee, thanks for that pearl of wisdom you sad fuck
“Cleopatra is hunting for Antony” - there are dating sites for that.

What I want to read are things like:

“Nathan is really pleased with the quality of his new midget butler”
“Harold has mastered the Pakistani Drill Press”
“Lethal was not amused by the Angry Pirate that she had received”
“Clint was devastated that he only had a handful more weeks of Warhawk left”

Get creative people - noone really gives a fuck if you are downtrodden, oppressed or bitter - that is what the news is for.

Harden up and cull people, cull until you can cull no more - even if it means culling me.

Time to commit some more congregaticide (faux latin for social networking culling)

Green mobile phone plans? Green this, environmental that, damn hippies…

[matt] — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:01:20 +0000

Green has been “the new black” for some time now… now it seems as if one can offset ones middle class guilt simply by purchasing a mobile phone plan.

The premise seems to be to be that one can drive ones V8, set up a wall of plasma TV screens, have a coal pit burining in ones back yard to melt down all the plastic shopping bags - whatever one pleases… and then, if one grabs one of these mobile phone plans, one can undo all the damage and erase any simmering middle class guilt without having to stop washing, growing dreadlocks and cooking lentils over tealight candles.

Fantastic idea I reckon, I might have to sign up for one so that I don’t have to move to Brunswick…

Green mobile phone plans… I suppose it had to happen.

Dirty filthy hippie

How do I appear on the first page of google?

[matt] — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:54:28 +0000

People often ask the question “how do I appear on the first page of google?”

There are many different ways that one can go about doing this, but they almost all involve SEO or Search Engine Optimisation.

What a lot of people don’t tend to realise is that building a website that will rank well for chosen keywords and phrases isn’t really rocket surgery. People in the website/search engine optimisation business do carry around vials of smoke and pocketfuls of mirrors - and why wouldn’t they, it keeps them living in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

Search is a highly competitive industry, and google is constantly coming up with more succinct methods to ensure that you, their client (well, after all, in this country, google does account for over 90% of all search) wil keep coming back - this has given rise to the search engine optimisation industry - the proponents of which will do what they can to achieve a result for their clients that firstly:

gets them to appear on the first page of google
keeps them appearing on the first page of google

I am currently conducting a little experiment about how to appear on the first page of google. It is mischief combined with SEO and more than a little cheekiness… wonder how it will go… will I appear on the first page of google for the terms “appear on the first page of google”?

Check back to see some time…

Appearing on the first page of google

[matt] — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:36:42 +0000

How does one appear on the first page of google?

There are many methods, one can employ black hat SEO techniques to get a placing on the first page of google, and risk being penalised (which isn’t all that bad if you are just running a short campaign or want to have some fun) - but if you want your site to appear consistently on the first page of google, it is far better to utilise what are known as white SEO hat techniques.

Truth be told, I am not going to go into the methods that I use to assist people to appear on the first page of google with their chosen key words and phrases and am really just attempting to make a bit of mischief and see if I can knock off @jimboot (Jim Stewart) from Stewart Media who currently happens to hold the #1 position for the search phrase “appear on the first page of google“.

Jim sort of set a bit of a challenge, threw down the gauntlet if you will at one of his recent SEO workshops, to see if anyone could knock him off from that position. Whilst I don’t think that this particular site has a hope in hell of taking away that his position at the top of the first page of google for that search phrase, I thought I would be cheeky and give it a crack.

I might even have to link back to his page with some anchor text like knocking jimboot off the first result for appearing on the first page of google

SEO is an enjoyable pastime to indulge in and it is about time that I had a bit of fun. So, let’s see if I can get a page one result for the search term and appear on the first page of google with this post.

A picture of our Prime Minister

[matt] — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:18:06 +0000

The below speech was made by Anthony Albanese - member for Grayndler - on the 6th of April, 1998.

Outside of anything ever uttered by The Great Man, it ranks,for mine, as possibly the greatest Australian parliamentary speech ever made. It paints such an accurate picture of our current prime minister that had this been made required reading back in 1998, we would have been rid of the menace that is John Howard a very long time ago:

“Today my grievance is against the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his failure to provide leadership. You can trim the eyebrows; you can cap the teeth; you can cut the hair; you can put on different glasses; you can give him a ewe’s milk facial, for all I care; but, to paraphrase a gritty Australian saying, ‘Same stuff, different bucket.’ In the pantheon of chinless blue bloods and suburban accountants that makes up the Australian Liberal Party, this bloke is truly one out of the box. You have to go back to Billy McMahon to find a Prime Minister who even approaches this one for petulance, pettiness and sheer grinding inadequacy. I read the late Paul Hasluck’s description of Billy McMahon, and I cannot find a thing that does not describe this Prime Minister equally well:

I confess to a dislike of McMahon. The longer one is associated with him the deeper the contempt for him grows and I find it hard to allow him any merit. Disloyal, devious, dishonest, untrustworthy, petty, cowardly - all these adjectives have been weighed by me and I could not in truth modify or reduce any one of them in its application to him.

In John Howard, here also is a man, small in every sense. Some have said that he is the worst Prime Minister since Billy McMahon. That is unfair to Billy McMahon. I am one of the few people who have opened up and read David Barnett’s biography of John Howard. I have to admit I have not read it all, because it is impossible to stay awake. I did, however, get to page 17. Here Barnett outlines Howard taking six weeks off work to campaign for the McMahon government. Was Billy McMahon grateful? Barnett outlined:

An appointment was arranged with McMahon in his office in Parliament House. Howard was ushered in, and Bill McMahon jumped to his feet. “No” he said. “I don’t want to see him.” Then McMahon, who also had an appointment with a Japanese delegation, stopped himself. “I thought you were Japanese” he explained.

Barnett goes on to explain what John Howard’s incredibly crucial and high-powered job was in the McMahon campaign; he was given the job of rolling the manual autocue built into McMahon’s podium. How appropriate. In this book Howard is quoted as saying of McMahon ‘he arrived in the job too old and too late’- this from a man who was born old and for whom time has stood still.

But the gulf, Mr Deputy Speaker, between the man in his mind - the phlegmatic, proud old English bulldog - the Winston of John Winston Howard - and the nervous, jerky, whiny apparition that we all see on the box every night. When he looks on the box he gets to see what we see - not the masterful orator of his mind but the whingey kid in his sandpit. Spare a thought for us, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we have to watch this performance every day - the chin and top lip jutting out in ‘full duck mode’.

This prime ministership is not about the future of our nation. It is about John Winston Howard’s past. We do not hear about the future of this nation when we listen to this Prime Minister. In every performance all we get are his life’s grievances. All we get is the accumulated bitterness and bile of 13 long years in opposition and the people he blames for keeping him there.

John Winston Howard grew up in the inner west of Sydney. His father owned a service station on the corner of the street where I now live. These were the halcyon days of little Winston’s life - when the working classes knew their place and when all migrants were British. Lucky John Winston Howard moved further north across the harbour. He certainly would not be comfortable living in the inner west of Sydney any more. A bit too much change for his lifetime.

John Howard has always been proud to call himself a conservative. The problem I think is that he has confused this with preservative. He probably wishes good old Ming had dosed the country with formaldehyde when he had the chance. Because it all started going wrong in the late 1960s. Here is a man who lived at home until he was 32. You can imagine what he was like. Here were young Australians demonstrating against the Vietnam War, listening to the Doors, driving their tie-died kombi vans, and what was John Howard doing? He was at home with mum, wearing his shorts and long white socks, listening to Pat Boone albums and waiting for the Saturday night church dance.

Yes, it all started to go wrong back in the 1960s. Radical and sinister notions of equality for women, world peace and, dare I say it, citizenship rights for indigenous Australians. So what do we hear when we listen to John Winston Howard today? We hear the hatred and resentment in his voice - the sort of hatred and resentment we saw at the reconciliation conference last year - hatred and resentment from a man who was never part of the scene, who was not accepted, for whom a different life was too big a leap and who took refuge in a previous generation. You can see it in his instinctive hatred of any progression, and he sees it everywhere - policies of social inclusion, multiculturalism, women’s liberation, Aboriginal reconciliation. In all of them he only ever sees the jump he was too weak to make decades ago. Now he wants the whole nation to stay back and keep him company.

Try an interesting little exercise some day. Punch `Howard’ and `multiculturalism’ into the Hansard database. You will find he has never mentioned the word. When you punch in `Howard’ and ‘multicultural’ you do get it nine times but each and every time he is referring to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This is the man we have leading the country - a man who is so instinctively petty and so bitterly obsessed that he could craft an entire parliamentary career without mentioning the word `multiculturalism’ and what that represents, because it is an idea he is opposed to. He is positive]y Orwellian in his pettiness. This is a smallness of mind, a meanness with breathtaking scope - I can just imagine his enormous pride at this aspect.

It is a small thing really but remember when the Spice Girls came to Australia at the beginning of the year? Everyone said it was just the silly season that the Prime Minister’s refusal to meet with them got so much press. Well it was and it was not. What did he say? He said it would not be ‘appropriate’ to meet with them. That is vintage John Winston Howard. If he really did not want to meet them he could have just said he was on holiday at Hawks Nest - same place, same flat every year for decades - with the family and that would have been fair enough. People would have respected that. But he could not resist. He could not resist telling the youth of Australia that he thought they were infantile and stupid and therefore it would be inappropriate to meet these people who, after all, are Tory supporters from Britain.

We have a man leading this country who is prepared always to go out of his way to insult people he does not like, but not with the courage to come out and say it but do it sneakily. Weakly and sneakily. Weaseling around the point. Remember when he decided to give Jeff Kennett a blast? He does not do what anyone else would do - go into parliament or outside and do a doorstep. He tells the coalition party room and then organises for one of his mates to leak it. No wonder Jeff thought it was so funny.

This is the man we have leading this country - yesterday’s man, a weak man, a little man, a man without courage and a man without vision. Billy McMahon in short pants. This is the man who has brought the full force of his personality to bear on Australia. Australia is now learning what it is like live life through John Howard’s eyes. This is the man whose only aim in the end - forgetting the prime ministership - was to pay back all those who had tried to stop him along the way. Australia is a better country than that and Australians are better people than that. Australians are, if we are anything, courageous people.

So steeped in conservative values and fear of what is new is John Winston Howard that, if he were born before the Wright brothers, he would have organised a campaign against air travel of any description on the grounds that it was new and potentially dangerous. He is an antique, a remnant of the past that should be put on display, but not in government and certainly not in a leadership position, for anachronisms belong in museums and historical texts, not in parliament. Australians deserve a courageous leader; they do not deserve the kind of leader that used to dob on them in the schoolyard. They do not deserve John Winston Howard and in time they will put him out to pasture. Roll on that day, come the federal election.”

Brilliant.

Roll on that day, come the federal election.

Technorati Tags: federal election, john howard, anthony albanese, paul keating, australian politics, pathetic little man, grayndler

For whom the bell tolls

[matt] — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:15:49 +0000

Some time this year, John W Howard will suffer the ignominy of a humiliating defeat.

It should have been (and perhaps still will be) at the hands of his long suffering treasurer Peter Costello.

Anyone who remembers John “The Boy Treasurer” Howard’s time at the helm of the economy in the Fraser government knows that Howard’s oft repeated mantra of “good economic managers” knows that the good fortunes that this country has enjoyed over the past 15 years or so have had little to do with Howard’s ability to manage the economy.Whilst rusted on Liberals will often trot out figures such as “17% interest rates under Labor”, they seem to forget that there were “22% interest rates under Howard”.

They also conveniently forget that it was the courageous and visionary reforms of Keating in the Hawke government of the mid to late eighties that set Australia on the path toward prosperity.

Costello has steered the ship competently but without the fiscal or economic vision that was Keating’s birthright.
He has been overshadowed by the dominant personality of Howard - without precedent as the most controlling party leader this nation has ever seen - he has attempted to speak out on social issues on occasion, to espouse his vision for a kinder, more forgiving, harmonious Australia but one gets the feeling that he has been privately chastised for doing so… his views on matters of social policy have often been in direct contrast to Howard’s.

Costello may make a good opposition leader, but would he make a good Prime Minister?

Sadly I don’t think that we will ever know. Howard shafted him on the leadership deal and Costello has never had the fortitude to stalk him from the back bench.

I am looking forward to the demise of John Howard. In all the time he has been Prime Minister of this country, he has done one wonderful thing - an undeniably wonderful thing - the introduction of gun control laws.

Aside from that, I cannot think of anything positive to say about the man. Certainly it can be said that he is tenacious and stubborn, a fighter perhaps but these attributes he displays to a fault.

He is quite possibly the nastiest, most divisive, intolerant, unkind, most mean spirited Prime Minister that this country has seen.

However his demise comes about, be it at the hands and pencils of the Australian people or the knife of Costello, it will be a sweet moment for all those who yearn for this country to return once again to the kind, tolerant, benevolent, open place it used to be.

I am sure that Paul J Keating wakes up with a massive grin each and every day.

Technorati Tags: Paul Keating, John Howard, Election 2007, Australian politics, Peter Costello

The insanity within

[matt] — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:50:47 +0000

The Australian had the good judgement to post this article by John Heard.

Heard is intentionally provocative, yet, for his age, quite well versed. Sadly though, his latest article does neither he nor his argument any justice:

God is not responsible

Whilst Heard violates all the requirements of a logical argument, it is worth reading not only what he has to say, but also the 10 pages of comments that his article attracted. It shouldn’t be too hard to make your own mind up:

God is not responsible

WE live in curious, irritating times. We are oppressed by superstition and absurd ideologies. We must understand at the root of much that is wrong with the world is a single, common, insidious factor: religion. At least according to public atheists and anti-theists, a remarkable number of whom have devoted large amounts of air time and ink lately to bashing Christians in particular and religious believers in general (writes John Heard).

In television series after book, from Richard Dawkinsâ€™s The God Delusion to Christopher Hitchensâ€™s God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a cacophony of historical, philosophical, political or more obviously silly reasons are advanced for why religion, religious faith or religious adherents are infantile, irrational, dangerous or otherwise contemptible.

The terror wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and the Palestinian territories link up across the world with al-Qaâ€™ida bombings and lend such a view some currency. Other ethnic and religion-related battles of the recent past, particularly in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, contribute to a sense of millenarian madness.

Sometimes it seems like AD1000 all over again.

Militant atheists are right, then, to see religious believers in or behind many of the great struggles of our time. They are wrong, however, to then conclude that humankind must therefore scrap religion.

Examples of bad behaviour perpetrated by religious believers simply donâ€™t tell us anything definitive about religions themselves and certainly nothing necessarily negative about the gods they posit.

This shows the central claim of many of the recent crop of atheistic books relies on a belief less tenable than the relatively well-documented resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and a hypothesis that wouldnâ€™t get past a first-year science student. For if the atheist authors bothered to investigate anything other than the most apparently bizarre topics of religious interest, theyâ€™d discover that only a belief that God directly controls the actions of believers - in other words, the kind of determinism that Christians and others long ago rejected - would make God somehow culpable for the violent actions of his followers.

Similarly, only scientific proof that a manâ€™s religious affiliation predicts his behaviour, a hypothesis long ago rejected by psychologists, would make religion an obviously poisonous thing.

Rather, those tragedies, these examples of war and violence seem to favour an interpretation more common to the great Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam): namely that we live in a degraded reality and that man, left to his own devices, is a fairly despicable creature.

In the absence of a divinely endorsed militia, the most obvious explanation for war and chaos is that humans take up arms and nations of humans continually declare war, and for many reasons. Sometimes we use religious claims to justify our actions, but these are most certainly human reasons, human interpretations of religious claims and human actions.

The responsibility for strife rests with humanity. To paraphrase a well-known slogan, religion doesnâ€™t kill people, people kill people.

Indeed, most religious believers, certainly a Christian looking for empirical support for his interior convictions, could reasonably conclude from the misery of the present context and the long history of human strife that there might just be something to a religion that looks beyond human weakness for inspiration.

Certainly, in many cases the appeal to God as a restorer of divine balance, as the creator of a serene and charitable community, particularly in the Western political and legal systems, is the only thing that moderates nationalism, greed, vengeance, victorâ€™s justice and other examples of excess.

Similarly, there have been great crimes committed in the name of religion, but it is wild to claim, as some atheists have, that bad fruit fills the religion basket.

On the contrary, the gifts of Christianity alone to culture, Islam to early medicine, Roman Stoicism to philosophy and Judaism to the legal order are priceless. It is also impossible to think of anti-theist print journalists without the Gutenberg printing press invented by Christians to make mass copies of the Bible. Similarly, various atheistsâ€™ positions as academics would be inconceivable if the Christian monastic tradition hadnâ€™t preserved ancient knowledge during the Dark Ages, then shared it again in newly created universities from the Middle Ages onwards.

Indeed, the only reason religion rejecters can tally the apparently long list of religious errors is because religious believers invented the intellectual disciplines and furnished the academic tools that are used today to attack religion. And it was a Christian, Pope Gregory XIII, who divided time into units - days, months and years - to tell monks and priests when to pray and atheists when to launch their books. Similarly, atheists too often forget that, while theyâ€™re tallying the lists of death and destruction apparently wrought by believers, theyâ€™d better add the most egregious numbers, the most horrendous crimes - the Holocaust, Maoâ€™s Cultural Revolution, Stalinâ€™s famines, gulags and secret police - to the column reserved for totalitarian regimes of a decidedly anti-religious and often officially atheistic bent.

Competing universalising urges within various religions may throw up extremist Christians, militant Muslims and the kind of fanatical Jews who carried out the assassination of Yitzak Rabin, but none of these criminals, no fanatical movement in the eons of religious history, not even modern Islamofascism or the whole miserable chapter of the Crusades, has wreaked the sort of havoc the Jew and Christian-hating Nazi regime achieved in one brief decade.

On the contrary, time and time again religious faith has applied the brakes to monstrous human excess.

It is also true that no religious nation on earth, not even theocratic Shiâ€™ite Iran, offends against basic human rights on the scale of officially atheist China.

It is a big leap then, a leap of blind faith perhaps, to look to selected examples of violence or chaos linked to religious believers and conclude that God doesnâ€™t exist or isnâ€™t great, that religion poisons everything or that those who believe in God are somehow deluded.

No, the responsibility for mass suffering, for warfare and violence, the secret to the strife humanity has always endured appears to rest within, God help us, the human heart.

John Heard is a Melbourne writer.

Over to youâ€¦

brian R of gladstone (07 June at 01:57 AM)

How can a responsible person blame God ? of cause they canâ€™t . It would be like blaming someone that we know nothing or very little of.Fault is easy to carry.Carlessness , stupity , blame , ego , cruelty well who could carry that?

ferg of melbourne (07 June at 02:08 AM)

A poorly argued case with low spot being the paraphasing of the US National Rifle Association slogan â€œGuns dont kill people,people kill people â€œ..into â€œReligion does not kill people etc â€œ……..certainly guns help to liquidate more people at a time so what does this say about religion?

cck (07 June at 02:22 AM)

God had the power, omnipotence, and benevolence to turn Lotâ€™s wife into a pillar of salt. For the crime of looking at a city.

Surely, then, he has the power to turn a terrorist into a pillar of salt.

(And in Lotâ€™s case, the power to stop the subsequent family friendly Lot-on-daughter incest action)

We are told God loves each and every one of us. LOVES us. How can you say to us who see the violence, death, and destruction in this world, and claim WE have taken the â€œblind leap of faithâ€ to dismiss the notion that there is a all-powerful, magic sky-man who LOVES each and every one of us and could send us all to heaven for ever and ever, yet choses instead to translate lewd stories to scribes in Mesopotamia, then sit on his hands.

Plus, on the China issue: Theyâ€™re communists. officially. Blame the religious ideology of communism all you like for the atrocities of china all you like, but not atheism.

Sweden and Norway are better examples of atheist states, and you know it.

dr John Gray of South Africa (07 June at 02:38 AM)

I agree 100% with John Heard from Melbourne.
Sitting pretty in South Africa - I, by the day, admire the â€œhedonistic Australiansâ€ more and more for their good Christian moral fibre shining through in some of their recent remarks about religion and especially Christianity.

Good on you!

JG.
______

Rev Rick Cheung of North Balwyn (07 June at 02:50 AM)

I certainly do not agree with those atheistsâ€™ rather simplistic argument to blame God or religions for all the worldâ€™s ills. It is true enough that the human history would confirm that atrocities have been committed by both the religious and non-religious alike. However, it is too easy is to draw on the conclusion that the problem really rests with the â€œhuman heartâ€ inside, whatever that may mean.

While I appreciate what John wrote, such reasoning would portray either a hopeless situation for humanity, or a god who is forever ready to hold humankind to condemnation.

I, as a practising Christian, do believe that the so-called â€œbuckâ€ does ultimately stop with â€œGodâ€, at least the â€œGodâ€ as understood by Christians as revealed through Jesus Christ.

The very basis of the Christian gospel is that the God of the Universe and the Creator of all did ultimately accept the responsibility of sin and evil. Otherwise, it will make no sense to believe in the Gospel that the Son of God once took upon the judgement of all humanity upon Himself on the cross in Calvary.

Lesley (07 June at 03:07 AM)

Humans are warlike and argumentative and if the row is not over religion
it will be over something else.
Also we canâ€™t bear to face the fact that there is nothing after death
hence all the hocus pocus. I suppose it is a comfort to those who have
lost a loved one. Probably hardwired into the brain to cope with tragic
loss and for those whose life on earth is a living hell the thoughts that
there is a better place for them eventually allows them to cope with
their lives.

Richard Keeble of Coral Gables, Florida USA (07 June at 03:26 AM)

Thanks for the great touch of reason. Itâ€™s a rare commodity in this age.

Stephen Rogers of Tarrawanna NSW (07 June at 03:46 AM)

Itâ€™s not â€œGodâ€ that goes off to war, John, but his supposedly fervent and fanatical followers who are happy to sing â€œOnward Christian Soldiers, marching off to war. With the cross of Jesus…..etcâ€. Nowhere in any teachings of Jesus have I seen him preaching war as a way of solving human problems.
Religious faith did not apply any brakes to The Inquisition excesses, and the wiping out of civilisations in the name of God. Yet you claim the Holocaust was a result of Christian hating Nazis. It was a case of racial superiority that drove Hitler, not any God delusion.
Your remark of the Dark Ages deserves nothing but contempt. The monastries collected money and goods from the serfs and kept them oppressed by the fear of God. Education of the masses was never a policy of the leaders of Christian faiths. Keeping them ignorant and feeding them superstitious nonsense was always the aim of the broad church. Any enlightened Christian was branded as a heretic and after being severely tortured was burned at the stake.
Religions of all types have been just as fearful and bloodthirsty as any Stalinist or Islamist regime.Your blinkered view of human history is evidenced by a belief in a a non entity. My eldest sister is a Jehovahâ€™s Witness, while my younger brother follows the Mormon faith. They are comfortable and relaxed in their beliefs, and that is good. I am a total non believer, yet I love them both equally and dearly. No God put that into my heart, or brain for that matter. It is simply in my genetic make-up.

Don Wilson of Thailand (07 June at 03:59 AM)

Religion doesnâ€™t kill people, people kill people??? Are you a member of the US gun lobby….Guns donâ€™t kill people , people kill peopleâ€¦ very nice

So all the people that are being killed in Iraq are not being targeted because of any particular religious leaning? They are being killed at random by madmen (sorry girls..mad people). not religious Zealots

And George Bush didnâ€™t really say that God told him to go into Iraq and kill thousand of people just like you and me and your mum and wife and children. He was just follow orders. As was John Christian Howard.

I would rather pray to Richard Dawkins (who is a real person) than to a christian god that does not exist. So yes you are right â€œGod is not Responsableâ€.

RobUK of Sussex England (07 June at 04:08 AM)

How refreshing to read a reasoned article about the effect of â€œreligionâ€ on wars, etc.

That â€œreligionâ€ is blamed for much of historyâ€™s terrors is indisputable; that it is responsible is unproven.

No, as John Heard asserts, it is the human heart that is where the buck stops. In our modern-day â€œblame culture, many seek to hang their own dysfunctional attitudes on a â€œreligiousâ€ hook…but how few are willing to accept the fact that we are all totally responsible for our own actions.

Alex of New York (07 June at 04:10 AM)

John, I agree that the determanism arguments are rubbish but isnâ€™t the more compelling question (certainly for these times): how do we stop people using religion as a tool for mobilising massive support for more focused ideologies? Is the answer to have more religions, so that no single ideology dominates a personâ€™s perspective, or to lose faith in religion as a means for social organisation altogether?

cck (07 June at 04:12 AM)

From your blog: â€œAlso, take a look at the atheistsâ€™ books, if only to get a glimpse of the flimsy arguments and bald ignorance that sometimes parade as secular wisdom.â€

Flimsy arguments indeed - based on logic and reason.

Like the flimsy arguments of Euclid, Newton, Darwin, Tesla, Maxwell, Einstein….

So flimsy they donâ€™t even hold the axiom â€œgod is real because the bible is true because god wrote the bible truthfullyâ€ to be evident!

Sherro of Templestowe (07 June at 04:15 AM)

God created everything, and all He asks of us is to follow a few simple rules. If we donâ€™t we will go to Hell for eternity and suffer unimaginable pain and sorrow, but he loves you, and he needs MONEY. Great at creating the universe, not so good managing cash. This is despite a 16sqkm tax haven in downtown Rome stuffed with untold riches.

Of course the rules are open to interpretation. I mean, when you think about â€œThou shall do no murderâ€, well, religion seeâ€™s this one as negotiable. The Holocaust, the inquisition, the IRA, the Crusades, 9/11, burning â€œwitchesâ€ alive, civil war in Iraq, Beslan, killing those who said the Earth was round, stonings, crucifixans, beheadingsâ€¦ more people have been murdered in the name of God than for any other reason.

It all comes down to the â€œGodâ€ question:
-Do you believe in God? No BANG! dead.
-Do you believe in God? Yes. - Do you believe in my God? No. BANG! dead.
-My God has a bigger d*** than your God.

Now if people want to prevent their raped teenage daugther from having an abortion, or deny their elderly parents access to stem cell research to cure their crippling disease, or even have their wives covered from head to toe, Iâ€™m quite happy for them to do what they see fit, IF, in return we can have just one more religious rule
â€œTHOU SHALL KEEP THY RELIGION TO THEMSELFâ€

Marilyn (07 June at 04:29 AM)

What rubbish. More people have been slaughtered in the name of god than for any other cause.

That is what Hitchens, Dawkins and others are saying. I have been an atheist all my life, have never needed the structure of some organised bunch of god botherers to tell me how to be a decent person yet I have managed to go through life doing a good deal more good than I ever hurt anyone.

Brian of Nazareth (07 June at 04:47 AM)

If man cannot be trusted to have a gun or drive above 100 km/h, why do we trust him with religion?

Liam of Philadelphia (07 June at 05:03 AM)

Two things, firstly: â€œ…religious believers invented the intellectual disciplines…â€ Well, yes, if the main employer and creator (small â€œc”) of intellectuals in town was the Church, then the chances are thatâ€™s where the intellectuals were to be found and their work published. Thankfully, thatâ€™s no longer the case.

Secondly, I donâ€™t think atheists are seeking to hold God â€œculpableâ€ for anything. To atheists, He doesnâ€™t exist, so how can He be culpable? Thatâ€™s the primary point. The attack on churches and religions and how they may (mis)behave is a secondary set of arguments. If thereâ€™s no God, then there can be no true religions, be they good or bad for humanity. I suggest those with religious beliefs focus on that as the foremost question â€œIs there a God?â€. The rest is noise and subsidiary.

Jim of Alstonville (07 June at 05:05 AM)

What needs to be pointed out to all and sundry is that belief in God is an article of faith, and in this instance faith is only a hope that a God exists. It is not proof.
Gullibility is considered an undesirable quality in all areas of human life with the exception of religions.
It is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right so the most reasonable conclusion that one can reach is that they are all wrong. Believing by faith in such things as a God is a fixed way of looking at the world and the most constant characteristic of this faith belief is their intolerance of others. It is not the skeptic or explorers but fanatics and ideologies which menace decency and progress. No agnostic or atheist ever burnt anyone at the stake or tortured a pagan, a heretic or another unbeliever for what they believe.

L. Wood Moore of Gold Coast (07 June at 05:15 AM)

You have overcomplicated the issue John. The recent flood of anti-religious books and documentaries is in large part a response to the rise of the conservative right in America which of course began 6.5 years ago. The evangelical extremes there finally managed to push their candidate to the top of the heap giving them the confidence to comment on every issue. Now for the first time they are challenging the scientific establishment with some pretty creepy stuff like teaching creationism is schools etc. For future reference they should remember - scientists are actually very intelligent people who for the most part stay away from highly emotive, non-scientific debates, but when pushed beyond a certain threshold, can be very passionate and effective in justifying their existence. Somebody pushed the pendulum too far, now it has to swing back. Give it another 2 years - GWB and the conservative right will be out of power - and things will get back to normal.

Geoff of Brisbane (07 June at 05:41 AM)

Atheists donâ€™t force our belief on anyone. We donâ€™t go knocking on doors to convert other people. We donâ€™t preach on street corners and shove pamphlets at you. We donâ€™t have television shows or advertising to try and change your mind about your own beliefs. We donâ€™t invade â€˜evil nationsâ€™ and send missionaries to other countries to convert the masses to our way of thinking. We are not hypocrites that preach the ten commandments or other religious creed and then do the very opposite of what we are preaching. We donâ€™t expect you to give up your beliefs or your belief in God. But, we do, and in modern times able to air our views on life as we see it. Why donâ€™t people of all religions stop letting their beliefs get hi-jacked and used by political leaders that just want more money and power than they already have. By the way, it seems to me that the big businessmen of the west canâ€™t get to the Athiest China quick enough to make a buck at the moment. How many born agains in that lot I wonder?

David of Bundaberg (07 June at 06:10 AM)

I hope that the religion â€œbashersâ€ read this article with an open heart and an open mind. The truth will prevail in the end.

Lachlan McLean of Fortitude Valley Qld (07 June at 06:12 AM)

Its worth noting that Jesus Himself when commenting on the religious establishment of the day did not heap praise upon the â€œsystemâ€.
Jesus took the time to explain what â€œtrueâ€ religion is. Anybody can writeand complain about the activities of the religious. Jesus did.
But no one can take issue with Christ for preaching, â€œLove your enemiesâ€. You will find all these criticâ€™s have more in common and agreement with Christâ€™s teaching (because its truth and hope for this world) than their list of disagreements with Christâ€™s teaching.
My challenge to our readership is this. What specificâ€™s of Christâ€™s direct teaching as recorded in the Bible do you not agree with? Thatâ€™s the hard question to be answered.

DIOGENES OF DENVER of DENVER, CO. (07 June at 06:19 AM)

This â€˜issueâ€™, whose to blame for the state of the world/life, is more applicable to a third form house debate competition than given space for consideration in one of the great newspapers on the planet.

Militant aetheists are no different than anyother segment of the lunatic fringe: this groupâ€™s angst just happens to be directed at believers, regardless of â€˜ismâ€™.

The ancient Jewish sages, when asked to prove if G-d exists, simply pointed to the heavens and let the cosmos answer the unbelieverâ€™s question. If an aetheist, or anyother rationalist, can tell us why the planets, stars and moons all hang, suspended in space without any wires or chains to hold them in place, and can back up a rational explanation with scientific fact, their ranks of believers will swell to overflowing. Immediately.

Noise, precociousness and self-appointed gnostic â€˜credentialsâ€™ arenâ€™t sufficiently motivating enough to deter the faith of believers who continue to reject the notion that G-d does not exist.

As for the state of the world: Man creates the continuum of messes that have pock-marked human history. Reason, or the lack of it, is the reason for the mayhem that always surrounds humankind.

Michael Sullivan of Toronto Ontario Canada (07 June at 06:28 AM)

Your last sentence; â€œNo, the responsibility for mass suffering, for warfare and violence, the secret to the strife humanity has always endured appears to rest within, God help, us, the human heartâ€ , says all that needs to be said!

Lynne McKay of Everton Hills, Brisbane (07 June at 06:32 AM)

Religious bigotry still survives although not as bad as the Inquisition; Salem; Hitler; the Crusades and South American Religions but the biggest problem is that this bigotry is perpetuated at Grand-dadsâ€™ and Grandmasâ€™ collective knees as they pass down their beliefs and bigotry to succeeding generations. No matter how loudly the Religion Backed pundits deny the fact, religious beliefs or actions â€˜in-the-name-of-religionâ€™ has caused the world more wars, pain and horror than any other single cause…just look at the recent war in the Baulkans, a war against Islam which has been going on for over a thousand years! Islamic Jihad is still based in religion no matter what the Terrorists or the excusists say!

Ross Halpin of Mitchell. Q. (07 June at 06:36 AM)

I saw a t-shirt once, which said it perfectly : â€œ Itâ€™s not the man, itâ€™s his bloody fan club.â€

The Geriatric (07 June at 06:55 AM)

Christians say that God created Man in his own image. If indeed, God resembles Man, then he is probably an ego-centric, biggotted , power-drunk old fart like a lot of his â€œrepresentativesâ€ here on Earth.

Alan of Brisbane (07 June at 06:58 AM)

Religion isnt of itself the worst problem, but rather the lack of will to regulate it.
The mistaken notion that the religious have significant clout is a red herring.

The true blame lies with the section of the community who are not aligned with a particular religion yet they will not side with the higher IQed science based and educated atheists. As long as this wider group allow religion to be unregulated and Tax Exempt , then the real opponents of religion, the Atheists are powerless.

Of course the reason the wider community tolerate religion is because P.C. has as a significant maxim, the tolerance of all religious beliefs.

Dont hold your breath waiting for these people to get a brain. You the writer are the classic Non Believer/Agnostic who wont join with us to put the brakes on Religion.

RenegadeScience of Mildura (07 June at 07:01 AM)

Off course God is not responsible - he doesnâ€™t exist.

Itâ€™s the belief in a God that is responsible.

Bob of Waverton (07 June at 07:03 AM)

As a clinical psychologist, and author of several books, who studies religious fanaticism there is a point I would like to add to John Heardâ€™s piece. Most of those who carry out acts of terrorism–suicide bombings and the like–are not especially religious people. Rather they are drawn to a particular fanatical sect for the community, for the relationships. When I have talked to those who have plotted to carry out acts of carnage which will also involve their own demise they often claim that their death will prove their loyalty to the group, will make them more loved. A suicide bombing can be seen as an act of love. The majority claim no particular deep-seated belief system. Other studies in a number of countries have come to the same conclusion. Often there is a secondary motive and that is to gain attention, not to their cause, but to themselves. They share this drive with school and college shooters. Actual and would-be perpetrators have told me of their fantasies about who will attend their funerals, of the headlines their actions will generate. Professionally I donâ€™t think we can blame religion for some peopleâ€™s twisted need for community, for attention and for importance–needs which, incidentally, we all share whether weâ€™re atheists or theists..

AG of Canberra (07 June at 07:08 AM)

John,

I must say your piece was a very obvious response to the very obvious criticisms of religion, which all in all (in my opinion) entirely miss the point.

Its not that I object to religion or religious people, itâ€™s that I donâ€™t believe that it (religious belief) should be politicised or sold to the masses like the latest fashion accessory. Religion is more about a personâ€™s relationship with themselves, than something which should be passionately defended from misguided attacks.

When reflecting on the atrocities that have been carried out in the past, as you so rightly and somewhat obviously pointed out, religion wasnâ€™t always to blame. However, you also dissolved religion of all responsibility for the carnage which was carried out in its name. To support your argument using the paraphrase â€œreligion doesnâ€™t kill people, people kill peopleâ€ tells me that you must be an unwavering believer, someone who tends not to look at the facts, but merely feels that they should defend their religious belief from unwarranted â€˜bad pressâ€™. As you well know the gun lobby uses a somewhat similar phrase when their â€˜religionâ€™ receives unfavourable press, but you and other religious defenders probably donâ€™t like being bundled in with those fanatics. Whether you like it or not religion has to take some responsibility for the terrible actions which were and still are being carried out in its name.

I should probably clarify why religion should take responsibility. Religion as an organisation not religious belief should take responsibility for these actions because large religious organisations enable people to carry out terrible atrocities in their name. Without these organisations I donâ€™t think religion would have a problem.

Mandy of virginia (07 June at 07:09 AM)

What selective logic. Religion is well past its use by date .It was once the leading edge but not now. Following your logic , because steam engines ushered in the Industrial revolution, we should hallow them at significant levels of society.

As for comparing Iran with China you must be joking.

You and people like you confound Overdue regulation of Religion.

As an historian you make a good tabloid journalist.

lexcen of Melbourne (07 June at 07:12 AM)

I donâ€™t remember the Pope protesting against the Nazi pogrom against the Jews.

Sylvano of Sydney (07 June at 07:16 AM)

Excellent piece Mr. Heard; keep it up. I particularly enjoyed the line, â€œ…the relatively well-documented resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth…â€ I admit to be ignorant of material beyond the references in the bible, and look forward to your additional references to study.

Also, can you widen your analyses in your next writings to reveal the equally sloppy thinking of the pantheists, animists, followers of wicca, the Jedi Knights, the church of the flying spaghetti monster, …

Maximus of Wollongong (07 June at 07:18 AM)

Jeremiah 17:9 â€œThe heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?â€
The Bible states that it is manâ€™s natural wicked nature which is the cause of his evil.

terry of adelaide (07 June at 07:22 AM)

“guns dont kill people, people kill peopleâ€ is the real quote and thats wrong too. Babbling away about history is not relevent to whats going on in the world today. If your not aware of what the fight against terrorism is about or why these terrorist fools kill innocent people, i suggest its time to leave the bubble you live in and enter the real world.

godless of Buderim Qld (07 June at 07:23 AM)

“God is not responsibleâ€ ? - great, just what we need, an irresponsible God.

terry of adelaide (07 June at 07:23 AM)

Of course godâ€™s not responsible. Heâ€™s getting all the bad publicity. Its the fools who kill in his name that are to blame.

austral of Sydney (07 June at 07:33 AM)

John,

Spot on comments about Christianity and people, not God, being responsible for the evil on this planet. It is so easy to blame God and feel absolved from any responsibility and accountability for our actions. Richard Dawkins, get a life, stop blaming God and look around. Biology alone could give you enough insights to question your shaky disbelief system.

Me of Sydney (07 June at 07:44 AM)

Having been taken captive by religion at the age of 19, I wasted 25 years of my life trying to make it work, whilst my good willed cynical friends gave up on me, and the religious people

MUDCRAB of FNQ (07 June at 07:56 AM)

“time and time again religion has applied the brakes to monstrous human excessesâ€……….sure, like when Pell didnâ€™t come out and shout about the obscene payment of $30mill to Macbank executive.

Greed is the monstrous human excess of our times……..itâ€™s encouraged by unbridled capitalism which is the philosophy of John Howard.

Would a church leader dare to quote â€œIt is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter the gates of Heavenâ€?. Of course not…….because he would be criticising the wealthy , powerful and influential. It is so much easier to criticise and villify helpless young women who find themselves with child and nowhere to go. No wonder more and more people are critical of hypocritical dogma.

ruth (07 June at 08:01 AM)

Thank you for your measured comments about time we had some realism in the debate!
We need to remember the Christâ€™s message to us was primarliy to love one and another.

Raj Arumugam of Brisbane (07 June at 08:02 AM)

To blame humanityâ€™s woes or excesses on religion or belief systems is simplistic. One should imagine a world without religion - and ask the question: Is the world necessarily going to be a better place? In a world without religions, human beings will find some other cause or motivation (nationalism, economic interests,etc) to wage war or anything else that people now blame on religion. As long as human beings donâ€™t work out their inner selves, with or without religion, weâ€™re not going to be any better. To blame religion is just shoddy thinking.

Fred of Central Coast (07 June at 08:07 AM)

Why do the god believers always want to have it both ways? If their god is omnipotent and omniscient he has to be just as responsible for cancer in children as he is for daffodils. What kind of a loving father would I be if I knowingly allowed my daughter to walk into a fire on the basis of allowing her â€œfree willâ€. As for touting the achievements of believers in the past, this has no more merit than acknowledging the fact that the people who invented the wheel thought the world was flat. And a lot of hideous murders etc. have been committed by people who donâ€™t believe in UFOs but that doesnâ€™t give nutcases a claim to morality.

Stephen Morgan of Eden’s Landing (07 June at 08:09 AM)

Beware of the wolf in sheepâ€™s clothing!!

A clearly pro-Christian article, factually inaccurate - Christian monasticism protecting academia during the Dark Ages John!! Surely you mean that in spite of the Crusades Islamic scholasticism remained the greatest influence on Christian learning once the Renaissance arrived.

A clearly pro-Christian article, factually incorrect - Hitler was a Christian, and always claimed that he was acting for his faith in his deeds.

A clearly pro-Christian article, factually incorrect - the USA, a Christian nation, is responsible for the greatest contravention of human rights today in that over 100,000 innocent civilians have died at the hands of US troops in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Iâ€™ll agree, religion is not the problem. Itâ€™s not Christianity, and it certainly isnâ€™t Judaism or Islam. It is selfish bigots who feel it is their right to impose their views on the world â€“ and sadly, the greatest excuse for that style of behaviour is religion.

So many contributors will admonish Islam for not challenging the elements within their faith that clearly contravene the bounds of decency. So what is this article but a Christian equivalent â€“ itâ€™s not me, itâ€™s the other guy, a shirking of collective responsibility for the wrongs of Christianity by selectively and incorrectly cherry-picking history.

Christianity is every bit as capable of the same bigotry, hostility, violence, and of the same beauty, compassion and love, as any faith, or indeed atheism. It is the individuals within humanity that create all of these environments, and membership of any group, nationality, culture or faith neither excuses us for our acts nor gives us greater permission to impose our will.

Kim of Brisneyland (07 June at 08:10 AM)

John Heardâ€™s argument is devoid of any reason. The rise in popularity of Dawkins and Hitchens is a direct result of the religious fundamentalistsâ€™ sustained attacks on scientific study in schools, the establishing of bogus universities that suppress thought and enforce belief, the murder of Doctors and their continued political lobbying to suppress scientific research.

I could well understand how in Heardâ€™s distorted world view, a first year science student, with a mind thoroughly corrupted with religious absurdity, could not reason their way past the ridiculous idea of a physical coming back from the dead.

frustraighted of Canberra (07 June at 08:19 AM)

There are many examples of good the noble and fruitful outcomes contributed by the religious over the past 2000 years. I hope the enlightened non-religious will contibute as well and better over the next 2000 years.

P.S. I feel your essay would be improved by removing the reference to the â€˜people dont kill people guns kill peopleâ€™ touted by the loony gun lovers of the USA. Its unhelpful at best.

James of Newtown (07 June at 08:20 AM)

Curious and irritating times John? Would that be because your particular form of superstition and absurd idealogy is no longer universally accepted? I can imagine this would irritate you enormously since the tenets of your faith donâ€™t stand up to rational scrutiny.

Furthermore, you canâ€™t ignore the thoroughly brutal history of Christianity as practiced for over 1000 years, tempered only by the rise of secular democacy. And to think if I had had expressed this view in a Christian country a few hundred years ago, I would have been signing my own death warrant.

Look at how one of your silly leaders, George Pell, threatened members of NSW parliament yesterday over a stem cell research vote. This is Christianity for you John. Good riddance to it.

AndyB of Brisbane (07 June at 08:21 AM)

Of course God is not to blame - you canâ€™t blame someone that doesnâ€™t exist….

Billy of Brisbane (07 June at 08:25 AM)

Atheism is, in itself, just another religion: a set of beliefs

This explains why atheists attack other religions so virulently and with such enthusiasm

Atheists worship the god of nothing

Ronda of Brisbane (07 June at 08:26 AM)

Religion was once the cutting edge of science, when our inquisitive primitive ancestors were searching for explanations for what they saw as supernatural phenomena, eg. lightning, thunder, volcanic eruptions etc. Swallowing as much alchohol as you could stand and biting on something before having a limb amputated was once the cutting edge in anesthesics. No-one, not even the religious, doesnâ€™t understand that lightning etc are merely natural occurrences with physical explanations. They willingly submit to medical science to solve their health problems. The reasons for the invention of God have long been redundant.

People like you are the problem. Go and live in the middle ages if you love it so much.

Rob Banks of Stanmore NSW (07 June at 08:28 AM)

John keep reading, less writing. The argument against religion is that it is a political tool, Christianity itself was moulded by politics from itâ€™s roots up. Where on earth did you get the idea you can equate Law with Judaism? Try the Sumerians and the Code of Ham Ur Abbi (Eng. Hammurabbi). As for Gutenberg and the Bible it is not a case of that he did but why, and that was because the Bible was denied to the masses, so much for education and culture. With you as a defender of faith John Iâ€™m glad to be on the side of the atheist. Religion has always been the bedrock of the art of propaganda. There are so many holes in your reading of history and religion it does not warrant a full reply, pearls before swine.

norman of old bar nsw (07 June at 08:29 AM)

One only has to look at the performance of atheists during the last century to see how frightening and violent they can be. Atheistic communism butchered in excess of 100 million in a short time. Richard Dawkins claims that science will solve everything - his science isnâ€™t very accurate as I donâ€™t recall him frankly discussing the atheistic butchers of last century and other centuries.

Nick of Surburbia (07 June at 08:30 AM)

I believe your on the right track. Iâ€™m not religious, but think it is a cop out to blame religion for these things. God or Allah does not pull the triggers that shoot our guns or levers that drop the bombs - humans do. The responsibility should thus lie with us.

Zammie of Darwin (07 June at 08:34 AM)

Well, someone had to say it! Letâ€™s not forget the abolition of the slave trade. â€˜Born Againâ€™ Christians, a Biblical term that has been hijacked by everyone nowadays, were responsible for changing government policy. Interestingly, the economy didnâ€™t collapse. Letâ€™s try taking out the Salvation Army and other church-run welfare organisations and see how well-off we would be. I shudder to think what would happen to the cause of the poor and the homeless. The Bible reminds us that â€œ Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the worldâ€ - James 1:27. Contrast that with our dog-eat-dog economic raltionalist society that will crush whatever stands in the way of personal gain and profit. Without God as our external reference point, mankind sinks into self-centred delusion of relativisitc morality and selfishness.

Yeti of Alberton, SA (07 June at 08:35 AM)

Iâ€™ll bet, John Heard, that if the Crusaders had access to the sort of weaponry that the Nazis did in WW2 then the death tolls way back when would have been far more. To compare Islamofascism and the Crusades with atheistic regimes is tosh. As an avowed atheist I donâ€™t believe religion is responsible for all the worldâ€™s ills, and I certainly donâ€™t wish for a moment that religion disappeared from the face of the Earth. Good luck to those for whom religion provides some sort of comfort or rationalisation for the evils in the world.

What I object to is the moral superiority of many religions that permeate every level of society. Politicians using religion as a justification for foisting their religious beliefs on the rest of us is but one example. The Church should truly be separate from State, and furthermore when the Church has its own house in order, then they can come knocking to preach how divine their message is. Until then, theyâ€™re preaching an outdated and unwanted message to an increasing number of us.

realist (07 June at 08:37 AM)

Religion is the root of all evil! Its holy smoke!!

Reality is very different. Religion has no place in a thinking society, and certainly doesnt deserve â€˜charityâ€™ status. Religion is big business and enjoys some sacred place in society because of what - fear! Give me a break.

Religion is archaic and causes so much unrest, wars, deaths and persecutions than anything else.

aldeberan of Brisbane (07 June at 08:39 AM)

Either God exists or he,she or it doesnâ€™t. If he,she or it doesnâ€™t, there is nothing that we mere mortals can do about it, squatting as we do in the shadow of Olympus.
If he, she or it does, then it depends entirely on the powers that we ascribe to the manifestation of the deity. And we, of course can change our mind in a particularly human way. Usually because a bunch of hairy, old, blokes want more power, influence or money.

Maybe we need yet another religious council to decide what our god(s) are really capable of?

This is the real problem isnâ€™t it. We mere mortals decide what powers our deities have and even then we can never define them sufficiently enough so that when we translate those powers into another language, culture or race it gets really screwed up in the translation.
God is a human invention put together at a particular time in history and like all our time based inventions it doesnâ€™t translate into a modern world.
Try and defend the chastity belt to a modern feminist movement! Or the earth being flat.

Good luck.

Preston of Brisbane (07 June at 08:39 AM)

You are the problem. You think you are intelligent but really your I.Q. would barely go past 110. Inconceivable that you didnt mention Charles Darwin. You are too dumb to pass the I.Q. test which is understanding Natural Selection.
What preposterously stupid logic. In any real academic environment you would be dismissed as a cretin with your foolish analogies.

Anne of Adelaide (07 June at 08:42 AM)

I thiink that anyone who thinks that Christians no longer believe that their god directly controls their actions and their fate should live in the USA for several years. It will help you to understand the anger and frustration of the current crop of authors who question the value of organised religion. Forget Iraq and the attendant discussion of why we need to convert those of other faiths. Indulge yourself in a discussion of why there is no point worrying about the environment, oil supplies, and the limited supply of trees in national parks when, afterall, the apocalypse will wipe the slate clean so we can start all over again. These people have no doubt that God will look after his true believers.

around me happily let me continue in fruitless endeavour, I would say that religion is one very big thread evil.

It was like I had been on a main highway to adulthood, and was headed off by predatory religious salespeople, who seemed to know all problems I had never heard of. They persuaded me to divert me into a place they called eternal life. But in reality it was a stony field surrounded by barbed wire. They told me that by becoming a captive to Jesus, this was the the narrow way was the way to freedome and eternal life.
That was the beginning of 25 years of going in circles and being warned of unthinkable consequences if I left, until finally, in my last plea for help, I was advised to do the very first things I was told to do at the beginning, which I knew did not work.

I left by the front door.

Life is so much better without it.

keith gregg of west perth (07 June at 07:55 AM)

In general, religion does not directly cause acts of atrocity by humans. However, it does give a great many committers of atrocities an excuse for what they do. An intelligent, civilised society should dump religion, not because it causes wars - they will always occur - but because it is immature in the extreme to place oneâ€™s fate and future in the hands of an imaginary being.
Those who insist on doing so should just grow up and start to take responsibility for the direction and outcome of their own behaviour, and attribute the elements of good, evil, or indifference, to where they belong - to the facts of physics, chemistry, biology, and their influence on human behaviour. To do otherwise carries no more credibility than a cargo-cult that believes god delivers desirable material goods through beings who live in the sky.

Brad, expat from the US of ADL (07 June at 08:47 AM)

John,

Atheists that I know or have read, wouldnt dispute that, like all social movements, religion has contributed to the overall cultural aggregate of art, science, politics, etc. Additionally, no one would argue that there have been some â€œbad atheistsâ€ out there who did some destructive things (though not in the name of â€œAtheism.”)

What most have an issue with is that religion, as a social construct, now has a net negative affect on the world in which it operates. The faith that supports it produces destruction, both socially and physically, and offers little to no solutions for resolution. Religion is by its very nature exclusionary and as a result, it simply exacerbates the mryiad of other reasons that people find to want to destroy each other or the planet around them.

If, as you say, â€œthe secret to the strife humanity has always endured appears to rest withinâ€ then god either canâ€™t help us, or wonâ€™t. Its time we put superstitioins aside and worked together as fellow humans to solve the strife. Thatâ€™s where the future lies.

reality check (07 June at 08:47 AM)

This shouldnâ€™t be a relative question. The real question is that does religeon, in absolute terms, create additional deaths. I would suggest that it does. That isnâ€™t to suggest that â€˜allâ€™ religions are bad, but it is to suggest that belief structures do tend to get hijacked by the few (and in some cases the many) to create outcomes which humanity can do without.

For the people who come forward with the obvious rejoinder, that those who donâ€™t believe are responsible for violent outcomes - fair comment, but they donâ€™t use religeon to justify that stupidity, they find another crutch. In essence, their idiocy does not make â€œyoursâ€ any less.

Seperation of church and state is an excellent start to avoiding this type of outcome.

Emm of Perth (07 June at 08:49 AM)

Definitely irresponsible.

Bek of Canberra (07 June at 08:49 AM)

Thankyou for your article John. So often I get tired of hearing the God bashing talk that blames all the world problems on religion. As you correctly pointed out, most of these militant critics do not seem to understand that the central tenant of Christianity, and many other religions also, is that we live in a world full of messed up human beings. Yes, we Christians have failed many many times, but my mistakes are not Godâ€™s mistakes. I live by grace, that is the knowledge that I and all other Christians are far, far from perfect, but that God forgives even the worst of us. If you want to know what God is like, look to Jesus. The other option, to believe in no God, and feel to superior or somehow â€˜enlightenedâ€™ because of it, seems to require more faith to me than to believe in God.

Susan of Nimbin (07 June at 08:50 AM)

Of all the lame arguments .. this has to be some kind of title contender.

Let me see if I understand you. Because Religion was the early host of scientific advance, it should forever remain hallowed, protected and exempt from attack. China is Worse than Iran! You need to get out a bit more.
I think the editor might be setting you up for the amusement of more learned folks.

Mountjoy of Perth (07 June at 08:51 AM)

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Your question is very complex, but there is a lot of truth and very important messages for civilization in the works of Dawkins, Harris, Onfray, Hitchens etc.

It is true that many, if not most, of the wars over the past 2000 years have been motivated by religious differences between the warring populations. Religious beliefs provide a framework for humans to manipulate other humans thereby gaining power and wealth for the administrators (ie privileged) of those religions. It also enables the faithful to exaggerate differences between those belonging to different religions. Leaders can then use these circumstances to inculcate the notion that those affiliated with other religions are bad, or no good, or dangerous to one own belief etc and hence must be converted or eliminated. Hate is generated and use to justify atrocities. The whole process becomes self-fulfilling.

Hence, it is not religion per se which is the problem but mankinds responses to religion. As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg has said, good men do good things, bad men do bad things, but it takes religion for good men to do bad things.

From a rational viewpoint, most religious beliefs requiring faith are simply silly and the books etc on which these are said to be based have been shown many times to be wrong. In my view it is most important for the future of civilized society that governments be truly secular and that religious beliefs be as personal as possible and not allowed to become national causes. In this context, Islamic countries and America are of greatest concern. As we are now in the preemptive stages of world war III, which this time happens to be a religious war, the problem must be addressed forthwith.

Glenda Ellis (07 June at 08:52 AM)

People like John Heard MUST speak out. The crazy idea that religion is the base of all evil-doing should be squashed quickly. For one thing, it provides most of us with a conscience - something that seems lacking in many of the young in society today. OK, so we might reject a lot of the teachings of religion in later life, but that knowing of what is right and what is wrong will remain with us if we have a faith, and most faith has its roots in religion.
Religion is not the problem - humanityâ€™s rejection,or crazy interpretation of it,is.

Andrea Bailey of Eltham (07 June at 08:53 AM)

All the horrific acts in this world whether it be war or the two towers in New York have been made by man. God is only an excuse for people to have someone to blame for the horrendous egos of mankind.

Dale of Noosa (07 June at 08:55 AM)

… and Christianity is the largest minority in the world.

The theory is simple: If the religious were to keep their religion to themselves, then at the very least, our wars would be fought over real reasons (be it land, resources or inter-country hatred). We wouldnâ€™t all fly under silly â€˜my godâ€™/â€™your godâ€™ monikers.

In order for this to happen, we need to cull recruitment drives and certainly rid the world of religious advertising. No more flier-guys.

Belief is not business - nor should it be.

David G of Melbourne (07 June at 08:56 AM)

Responsibility for mass suffering may well be with the human heart, but no heart is harder than one driven by the certainty that they do Godâ€™s work.

It is also true that Stalin killed far more people that any religious leader, but Stalin was a medieval man with 20th century weapons and resources. What do you think the Inquisition (for example) would have done with the same ?

God is resoponsable for his thugs and Marx for his, just as any other crime boss is responsable.

Burn them all and let God sort out the innocent!

Iain of Melbourne (07 June at 08:57 AM)

So, when religious people do good things (printing presses, universities), it is because of their religion, but when they do bad things, it is because of their wicked human nature. I suppose that makes sense for theists.

Anyway, I agree that religion does not always encourage people to be evil. But it does excuse (in fact, actively advocate) irrationality and the rejection of reason, which allows irrational hatreds and prejudices (to which humanity is rather prone) to flourish where they should not.

As for gods existence, I conclude that he does not exist because there is no evidence for his existence, not because of mass suffering, warfare or violence (although those things do suggest that if he (and of course, he is always a he) does exists, he isnâ€™t very nice.

Davo of melbourne (07 June at 08:57 AM)

I wouldnâ€™t normally writeto a blog but as a science teacher I really canâ€™t stand by and not protest. You do much more harm than good by your article and I find your logic to be much less than satisfactory. Any thinking person with a modicum of practical intellect can see past such weak analogies.

The Enlightened One of Palm Cove QLD (07 June at 08:58 AM)

“What is the meaning of life?â€ Unfortunately, the answer to that fundamental question provided by any organised religion tends to conform to that insightful comment by Malcolm Forbes: â€œThe answer to 99.9 per cent of all questions is money.â€ Religions are all about money, control and power. Always have been, always will be. All religions are human constructs, appealing to both the noble and gullible aspects of the human mind. The philosophy of the religion appeals to the noble side, whereas the â€œstoryâ€ which authenticates the divine origin of the pronouncements of the â€œEnlightened Oneâ€ requires a suspension of logical thought processes, known as â€œFaith.â€ The big winners today are Christianity and Islam: the true believers attracted by both major brands give me the creeps. As for the more easygoing believers in fairies in the garden: I donâ€™t mind, as long as they donâ€™t try and control me. To each his own.

Mazmur Daud of Werribee (07 June at 08:58 AM)

Totally and historically, there were manifold more people died because of non-religious wars than religious war in this world. Christianity has greatly contributed to the world civilizations for the betterment of mankind.

Rob of Melbourne (07 June at 08:59 AM)

Of course God is not responsible, God doesnâ€™t exist

Reptile of Sydney (07 June at 09:00 AM)

Yes, I agree completely. Science tells us, mammals have a reptilian ancestry - evidence of this, in humans; the remains of a tail, the legs, the tongue, etc. This ancestry explains, to me, our reptilian behaviour.

Brett G of Buderim, QLD. (07 June at 09:01 AM)

Religion, in my view, is about control: organised religion, in particular, is very much about the control of human beingsâ€”their thoughts, their actions, their speech, and, most importantly, their beliefs on topics ranging from abortion through to politics.

The volume of conflicts that have been fought in the name of religious belief is countless. The indigenous cultural systems broken down by imperialist religious expansion is an irrefutable blight on religion, and, just as importantly, those world faiths who perpetrated such wanton expansion.

No, I disagree with you entirely: the sooner evolution and religion-free reason are our major tenets for humanity, the better!

UnFaithful of Brisbane (07 June at 09:02 AM)

What a load of tripe. Basically the author is trying to say that the bad things that happen are human failings, but the good things arenâ€™t down to human achievement, religion can take the credit for those. And religion developed the philosophy now used to attack it, so what? Truth is truth, as you should know, and that is no reason to keep a false idea. What religion actually does is give its adherents a false view on how the world actually works. This inevitably leads to trouble. Things that are associated atheism is may not be perfect, but they are human. Why not devote more time to what makes humans tick, what they really want and and need and how best to achieve this instead of worrying about what some fairytale master wants.

The Enlightened One of Palm Cove QLD (07 June at 09:02 AM)

An afterthought. If God created all things, then who created God?

OhGodNotAgain of Sydney (07 June at 09:10 AM)

Yes the responsibility for mass suffering, for warfare and violence DEFINITELY rests within.

So does the ability to make dramatic improvements to the world like changing the major cause of adult death 200 years ago (that was murder) like reducing not only the percentage of the worlds people that starve each year but also the absolute number.

I am sick of these religious people who keep coming around and telling me that the world is going to pot and we need to believe in their mystical god to make improvements.

The world is improving in all ways (baring a possible threat of global warming).
All our improvements have come from science not from a belief in a fairytale supreme being or beings. It is those that believe in those superstitions of god and gods that have always tried to hold back science and the inherent good in men.

Morality does not need belief in fairytale beings like god.

Look at yesterdays example ; the head of Christian Catholic church in Australia tried to use his influence of his (aptly described) flock to again stop scientific progress. Fortunately there are enough people that have inteligence enough to not be indoctrinated and to continue to push for improvements in this world.

Fundamentalist believers exist because of moderate believers. When we eventually stop the indoctrination of children and support our sciences we will see even more dramatic improvements in our lives and the lives of all people on the earth.

Indo Surf of Noosa Heads (07 June at 09:11 AM)

John Heard is sadly wrong. Well intentioned, but wrong. The inspiring comments by readers of The Australian in the â€œAtheism shall make you freeâ€ Blog are so more balanced and considered regarding this topic.

John says â€œReligion doesnâ€™t kill people, people kill peopleâ€ but unfortunately millions of people have killed for religion over the millenia. And will continue to do so, and this is the most important point, unless religions change their intolerance of other religions. So long as any religion claims â€œall other religions are wrongâ€ then people will continue killing in religionâ€™s name.

Henry the 8th killed his wives â€œin religionâ€™s nameâ€ and so founded the Church of England. SBSâ€™s â€œDangerous Liasions - Infamous Mistressesâ€ last week chronicled a Popeâ€™s adultery, decades of debauched orgies in the Vatican, and wars against his brothers. The Pope who followed him started The Inquisitionâ€¦

Do we have to go on? That is the question!

Savanah of Earth (07 June at 09:12 AM)

If God is anything, it/she/he is beyond our limited understanding. Itâ€™s humanityâ€™s ultimate excuse: blame your actions on the unknown, and that way you wont be held responsible. Why do you think Bush invokes his god so much?

Delphic Oracle of Melbourne (07 June at 09:13 AM)

It is unbelievable that the worldâ€™s Abrahamic religions follow a bloke who was ready to kill his own son because some one told him he should! Abe was either on magic mushrooms or was in desperate need of a shrink, as do all the hysterical martyrs and god is great followers who invoke war which kills so many innocents. Perhaps the world could create an area where War Games could be fought and where no civilians would be hurt - then each side could fight to the death.

Laz of Brisbane (07 June at 09:16 AM)

To Geoff of Brisbane.
It is an essential part of the Christan faith to spread the word. Very simple really. Part of Christian doctrine. Atheists are spreading their views, and have every right to do so.

Andâ€¦ by the wayâ€¦ there is an enormous resurgence on the way in China….not sure what it has to do with businessmen who arenâ€™t there to spread the word. The government in China do not like it because it is a threat to them.

vhugo (07 June at 09:18 AM)

What tosh!

1. There is no world but this one. Those who say so hate our only life.

2. What puts the brakes on atrocity is the point where the destruction becomes
unacceptable and the human need for justice is re-established.

3. Violence and War are encouraged buy fantasies of a utopian future which
is impeded by others who do not share these imaginings.

4. Totalitarianism is religious, not political in nature; itâ€™s use of non-rational forms such as saviour iconography is one indicator. Facism evolved out of a Catholic Italian society.

5. As the educational standard of a society climbs and social justice advances, religious belief declines. Religions exist continue because most people in the world still canâ€™t read.

Danielle of Vic (07 June at 09:20 AM)

And here we finally get to the crux of the problem. Religion and God are two separate things. Religion is the catalyst for many actions, both good and bad. God - whoever he/she/it is - unfortunately influences far fewer people. I say unfortunately because if people were to really sit and think about it, they would realise that He/She/It probably does not wish for others to be killed in his name, nor does he want half the population caged, beaten or killed, nor does he want people to blandly follow a â€˜ruleâ€™ (for example, no divorce) without taking into account the repurcussions and weighing up consequences.

God gave us a brain and I am sure he/she/it intended us to use it.

Those committing acts of atrocity are, in simplistic terms, bad people seeking justification for their badness.

Michael Bernard of Sydney (07 June at 09:24 AM)

Ok, I get it now. Letâ€™s abolish God and make faith (especially Christianity - especially Catholicism) illegal. Persecute, gaol and execute any believer who dares to question the current Voltairian/John Lennon/Che Guevara/60s revolution. Once the believers are out of the way, then paradise on earth can be realised. We will have as our first World President the glorious and immortal Gough Whitlam (who, sadly, has to renounce his divinity status as we are all atheists now!) with Pixie Rudd and Foolia Gilliard as his ever faithful Consuls. Then, because of embryonic stem-cell research, the atheist elite will be able to live forever. Meanwhile, all history books will be rewritten to blame all the atrocities of the atheist regimes of the 20th century on Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Pell. Perhaps this can be a Dawkins/Hitchings joint effort.

The atheists never learn from history. The best way to enliven and strengthen Christianity is to persecute it. Diocletian Dawkins and nero Hitchings are, therefore, doing us a favour.

Sophie (07 June at 09:33 AM)

“It is also true that no religious nation on earth, not even theocratic Shiâ€™ite Iran, offends against basic human rights on the scale of officially atheist China.â€

Really, Iâ€™d like to see a bit more of proof of this bald statement. What exactly are you comparing, and is it truly comparable?

Anyone can say anything is true to â€œproveâ€ their argument. Care to back your single declamatory statement up with consensus and facts from independent analyses?

Chris of Randwick of Randwick (07 June at 09:35 AM)

I just amazed how any rational and thinking person can actually believe there is something like a god without the slightest shred of evidence.

Accept that there is no god, get over your infantile world views and strive to enjoy the one chance at life that you have - life is valuable and worthy of protection for this reason alone and you are lucky to be here. Religion devalues this one and only life by pretending there is something else after it.

Even my 4 year old daughter understands whatâ€™s going on. Told in preschool that she will go to heaven when she dies, she replied:â€ What a load of rubbish. When you die there will be nothing, just like before you were born. You have to enjoy life now. Only if you are very lucky will you end up in as skeleton in a museum !â€ Good on her !

I am fully with Richard Dawkins: The world would be much better off without religion the like superstitions.

gug of sydney (07 June at 09:39 AM)

You know what. Religions of uncountable variety have been invoked (probably for as long as humans have walked the Earth) for whatever reasons needed by a given society. In its name, atrocities of untold horror have been committed, and continue to be today.

If, after ALL this time, a few atheists would like to give THEIR opinion, and point out some of the worthless dross that religion inflicts upon the hapless inhabitants of the planet, then good on them.

Iâ€™d much rather read the informed, intelligent, cogent opinion of someone who has faced the knowledge of their own mortality, and become the stronger for it, then to immerse myself in the ignorant, often contradictory, and usually xenophobic drivel that is spoon fed to the mass of humanity which as never taken the time to think about life for themselves.

Kerry of Gippsland (07 June at 09:39 AM)

I donâ€™t mind a decent argument for the existence of god, but I do mind rewriting history to do so.

For instance, Hitler was born and bred a Catholic. He grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the â€œLordâ€™s work.â€

The earliest dated printed book known is the â€œDiamond Sutraâ€, printed in China in 868 CE. However, it is suspected that book printing may have occurred long before this date. In 1041, movable clay type was first invented in China.

Atheists and anti-theists are not an homogenous bunch just as god-botherers are not.

But in the end though, god is not responsible for mankindâ€™s crimes against itself. It is my belief that something that doesnâ€™t exist cannot be responsible for anything. Funny about that.

Ozidestrier of Angeles City, Philippines (07 June at 09:41 AM)

Religion, the opiate of the ignorant masses, has done as much good as it has harm. Originally introduced by some smart thinkers in days gone by, it has served to bring order, and thus civilisation, to societies in many diferent forms, all over the world. I live in one of the most religious societies in the world and am never ceased to be amazed by the genuine kindness and hospitality of the Filipino people. Their lack access to education is also stunning.
As to the perverted, ignorant, power seekers who run those religions, one can only express total disgust and loathing. They will, and do, go to any lengths to maintain the ignorance, and thus the support of their â€œFlockâ€, a term relating to sheep, (”animals of very little brainâ€ as Pooh would say).
Godbothering seems to be a worldwide pasttime practiced by most human civilisations in past milleniums and serves three puposes:
1. It provides a raison d,etre, thus promising a â€œfutureâ€ after death;
2 It all allows individuals to avoid reponsibility for their own actionsâ€™ and
3 It provides many insidious individuals with power over their â€œflocksâ€, giving
those individuals unprecedent influence and control over their actions.
Believe if you must, but donâ€™t expect those who decry the proponents of your beliefs, to have either sympathy or respect for yor ignorance.

mat of sydney (07 June at 09:43 AM)

A very interesting issue turned into a poorly written, cliche ridden article.

â€œAnd it was a Christian, Pope Gregory XIII, who divided time into units - days, months and years - to tell monks and priests when to pray and atheists when to launch their books.â€
A Christian invented days?

â€œOn the contrary, the gifts of Christianity alone to culture, Islam to early medicine, Roman Stoicism to philosophy and Judaism to the legal order are pricelessâ€
How many deaths equal one gift to culture? Whatâ€™s the equation? The arguement is if religion is still relevant.

â€œReligion doesnâ€™t kill people, people kill people.â€
Need anything be said?

Grow up.

paul of canberra (07 June at 09:43 AM)

George Pell would like to go to war on some nsw parliamentarians!

Stephen Rogers of Tarrawanna NSW (07 June at 09:46 AM)

If, according to the Bible, God created us â€œin His/Her/Its imageâ€, then He/Her/It must accept full responsibility for His/Her/Its actions. Or is He/Her/It a flawed entity and we humans are carrying a defective gene somewhere in our DNA? If that is the case, then all the more reason for Death Knell Pell to support stem cell research.

Fangit of Fremantle (07 June at 09:48 AM)

Of course God is not responsible, but religion is. If we all believed in the one true God we would have far less conflict and wars. But the problem is when men come along and claim to know God and his rules and start a religion. There are thousands of such religions which are nothing less than man-made cults. That fact that there are so many religions claiming to be the only â€œtrueâ€ religion ought to make us understand that they are all wrong. If God exists, he or it is much more fantastic and complex than our pathetic ideas of Gods. If we all realized that the real God is unknowable, the world would be a much better place.

Zenman of Hervey Bay (07 June at 09:49 AM)

From the crusades to the Inquisition to all of our current worldly woes, there can be NO doubt that most historical destruction has been wrought in the name of religion.

I have NO doubt that the issue lies with the church hierarchies and their obvious and hungry pursuit of power, wealth, dominance and growth. It is their teachings and direction that lead the believers in ultimately inhumane pursuits.

A â€œround table summitâ€ of all religious leaders agreeing to a common basis of â€œbelief in one Godâ€…. and fostering a â€œwe are all brothersâ€ approach to church direction would solve all our warring woes? Then sell off all the churchesâ€¦ share 1 common place of worship in each locationâ€¦ distribute the resultant proceeds to the needy to elimanate povertyâ€¦ and we have a world of peace and prosperityâ€¦

Isnâ€™t that what religion is all about??

Rob of South coogee (07 June at 09:49 AM)

Well chosen paraphrase â€œreligion doesnâ€™t kill people, people kill peopleâ€. If your readers recall the original source is the national Rifle Association (USA):

â€œGunâ€™s donâ€™t kill people, people kill people.â€

It is almost too easy debating such a stupid position. Opening move: People USE GUNS to kill people, and sometimes people do stupid things WITH GUNS that end up killing people. Now, substitute RELIGION for GUNS.

From where I sit, it is so hard to see how anybody with an IQ over 50 could swallow the NRA argument, but millions of Americans are in itâ€™s thrall. Fortunately in Australia we have a more informed electorate who recognize the crucial part guns play in people killing people. Similarly, free thinkers worldwide are at least seriously considering and weighing up the proposition that religion plays a crucial role in people killing/oppressing/subjugating people.

justin of maroubra (07 June at 09:56 AM)

Most,if not all,religions tell us of the ineffability,unknowable God,then proceed to tell us Godsâ€™ plan
.
The Jesuits say to have control of a child untill the age of seven gives you the man.I almost agree with them.It has taken me most of my 62 years to rid my mind of so much religous rubbish and dont feel free of that brainwashing still.

Religions tell us of the love God has for us.I couldnâ€™t imagine what state we would be in if he hated us.

Rimo of North Ryde (07 June at 10:00 AM)

Can anti-theists tell me what â€˜goodâ€™ means? Why should they be so outraged when someone commits an â€˜injusticeâ€™ or an â€˜evilâ€™? What do â€˜injusticeâ€™ or â€˜evilâ€™ mean? In an anti-theistic worldview everything can be permitted: killing others, murder, torture, rape, human mutilation and cannibalism may be seen as â€˜goodâ€™ to some people. Who are atheists to tell them what is good or evil? Without God theyâ€™re all free to decide.

The truth of the matter is (and letâ€™s not forget, the anti-theist must prove with all of his might that truth does not exist otherwise he is stuck in a suicidal contradiction) that if there is no God, then everything will be meaningless and anyone can have their own law and their own way. Anti-theists are actually borrowing from Judeo-Christianity when they hark back to â€˜justiceâ€™ or â€˜goodâ€™. Without God, justice is only what Pol Pot or Hitler wanted â€“ torture and murder of thousands of innocents.

And I tell you about another truth which is hard to swallow for the atheists (a truly â€˜evilâ€™: the murderous exploits of atheists have dwarfed that of any religious people: during the 20th century alone, nice atheists such as Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin were responsible for the brutal murder of at least 100,000,000 human beings - a truly â€œevilâ€ accomplishment by your fellow atheists (and this is a conservative estimate - take a look at R. Rummel, â€œStatistics of Democide”).

So Mr. Anti-theist, youâ€™re borrowing from our Judeo-Christian culture and our Judeo-Christian civilisation when you lay claim to â€˜justiceâ€™. Why donâ€™t you go away and get your own civilisation started without our morality, and weâ€™ll see far youâ€™ll get.

andrew of brisbane (07 June at 10:06 AM)

Athiests yearn for rationality over religious mumbo jumbo, oppression, and superstition, not to mention mindless adoration. Your piece indicates that you are quite religious John. Religion has always tried to misrepresent the real world, suppress science and to stop people thinking for themselves (particularly women). Rational behaviour is much more likely to save the human race from itself than worship of any of the imaginary and conflicting gods which humans have invented over the ages. A close reading of the bible and the koran indicates that god and hell are inherently evil. Religion arises from the same mentality which allows evil humans such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc to come to power. Athiests reject gods in the same way as we reject human dictators.

Michael of Sydney (07 June at 10:07 AM)

Humans are basically good because they are the only ones who can define good
Humans are predators and must be treated with respect as per Lions, Tigers etc.
These are the basis of my beliefs (which go on to explain altruism, societal constructs etc etc. There are many books on the subject of our perception of reality from a scientific point of view) BUT FUNDAMENTALLY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE AS I PLEASE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS COUNTRIES LEGAL SYSTEM and to respond to anyone that offends me by saying stupid things like :- â€œthat man, left to his own devices, is a fairly despicable creatureâ€. I can only assume that you are part of this MINORITY and you are speaking about your family and friends. Mine are just fine thank you. Keep your delusions to yourself and seek medical help.

sceptic of sydney (07 June at 10:07 AM)

If one were to read the major religious texts, the overwhelming message that can be derived from them is one of good deed, humane relationships between people, peace, love etc. There are however a few, very few, texts which offer a contradictory view. Why? I donâ€™t know and I think countless religious scholars have tried to come to grips with them with, in my view, no success.

It is of course exceedingly simple to focus on the negative texts and hold them up as the core teachings of a religion. It is the same facile view as saying that since some Australians are murderers, ipso facto all Australians are.

There is of course another, more important, dimension to the problem. To commit a crime usually requires a reason, unless one were insane. However, I donâ€™t see how anyone is likely to claim that he/she would wish to blow up JFK airport because,…. well …., they just donâ€™t like or even hate Americans, Europeans, or whatever other group one wishes to name. The cause must be far deeper than that and a simple crutch is to use religion. If you think about it, using religion makes it easy to justify just about anything. â€œI hit Johnny because I donâ€™t like himâ€ is difficult to justify; â€œthe devil made me do itâ€ is far more palatable to the perpetrator. Of course that argument does not wash, netiher does the argument that religion is the cause of negative human behaviour. To claim religious grounds for a crime is to take the cowardâ€™s way and refuse to accept responsibility for oneâ€™s actions.

Lyn of Rockhampton (07 June at 10:08 AM)

The evils of murder and oppression are man made, to evaluate God, look at what He has said and done. To blame God for the failures of man does not make sense. He encourages love and patience and honesty and forgiveness, not too many people out there willing or able to do that, no wonder people donâ€™t like God, his standards are high and people donâ€™t like to be told they donâ€™t measure up. Religious zealots who murder and oppress cannot be doing things in a way that God wants, they are just doing things their way, they need to look to God as much as anyone and realise that evil done in Godâ€™s name is still evil.

Rob of Oxley (07 June at 10:09 AM)

Itâ€™s funny, but most responses here by atheists are spiteful and even hateful. Yet they are claiming to have reason and love on their side. Are they really as rational and well-mannered as they say? Arenâ€™t they just like us â€˜religious bigotsâ€™?

Ivan of Adelaide (07 June at 10:13 AM)

“the responsibility for mass suffering, for warfare and violence, the secret to the strife humanity has always endured appears to rest within, God help us, the human heart.â€

Then I say blame the person who created the human heart.

Kookaburra of Blackwood SA (07 June at 10:17 AM)

God is responsible!

Heâ€™s responsible for everything. Absolutely everything. Because He has created the moral law of the universe, unavoidable as gravity, that rebellion against Him has certain consequences. What we see every day on every hand, and within ourselves too, are the dreadful consequences. And everyone, absolutely everyone, is implicated. And receiving the appropriate wages. But there is a way out! Romans 6:23

Just suppose for a moment that the atheists are right. How is all the evil to be explained? Why would anyone commit an evil act? Everyone would be neutral, so to speak, wouldnâ€™t they? Like rocks and trees. Atheists cannot explain the evil in the world or in themselves â€“ yes, in themselves. Donâ€™t try to kid me, Mr Atheist, that youâ€™re morally upright and beyond reproach. Youâ€™re no better than Stalin.

David of Athelstone (07 June at 10:18 AM)

Iâ€™m not sure how an atheist (like myself) can be accused of blaming God for all the troubles of the world. I, at least, blame the people who believe in gods - not for all the problems, certainly, but for a fair chunk of them.

DD (07 June at 10:20 AM)

Youâ€™re right. God isnâ€™t responsible…peopleâ€™s insecurities and the shortcomings that lead them to create and zealously follow such an idea is. Iâ€™ve never met any so judgmental/exclusionary as Christians, so donâ€™t talk to me about God-bashers please

jc of melbourne (07 June at 10:21 AM)

Look if you want to believe in the deity fairytales by all means do so, but stop preaching to the world about the invisible god, who means nothing in reality. The deity fanatics use their deity/s as an excuse to torture, kill, maim and destroy others. They have done for centuries. I agree itâ€™s not your godâ€™s fault as your god like all the other deities doesnâ€™t exist except in your fantasies, the blame is with those who use the fantasy as deluded truth as an excuse for their crimes.

Andrew (07 June at 10:21 AM)

Face up to it, you have to be foolish to believe in a god! A remnant of our ignorant past continues to influence the population, putting reason out the window. The mention of Chinaâ€™s human rights, well, could you imagine what would be the situation now if their population wasnâ€™t left in check?

whitey (07 June at 10:25 AM)

The truth shall set you free

Mike of Belrose (07 June at 10:28 AM)

John misses the point. Religion may or may not ignite conflict, but it always ends up acting an accelerant rather than a retardant.

The big picture danger of religion is that it works to dumb-down by discouraging reason. Regardless of what some religious apologists may argue, religion and the scientific method are diametrically opposed. Very few things are black and white, but this is one of them.

And in the end, no good comes to a population believing in a falsehood regardless of what some may believe are good intentions. Reminds me of the road to hellâ€¦

stevo of brisbane (07 June at 10:28 AM)

So when the phrase â€œgod is greatâ€ is shouted as the denotation device is pressed, what or who is to blame?

Dennis of Bendigo (07 June at 10:34 AM)

Have you ever heard the old saying â€œIt was an act of Godâ€. I have all of this religious rubbish worked out since I was a kid. Having been taken off to a cold dim smelly cathedral by an old aunt I turned off. Her attempt to have me indoctrinated failed. I much rather played out in the sun (or the rain). Of course I put all of this down to an act of God. God let me use my Sundays in a much more enjoyable way.

But seriously I have come to the conclusion that God was an invention of the kings. Being responsible when the good things happen in life, good harvests, the winning of a war etc, made them popular and they continued to rule. But what of the bad times? The lost war, the famine, or the earthquake? If the king was â€œresponsibleâ€ for things good then he was just as responsible for bad events. An easy way out. God did it. It was not my fault. It was an act of God!

Not St Thomas of of Aquinas (07 June at 10:35 AM)

So John seems to be saying that everything that is bad is the result of the human heart and everything that is good comes from God/religion?

If religion says that it has the answer to human suffering and that answer is God, then the believers must take responsibility for the bad that happens in Godâ€™s name as well as the good. If religion truly believed in its message it would be free and open to criticism and accept the mistakes of the past while being open to new ideas that further the cause of humanity. Instead it bunkers down with a medieval mentality that refuses to change and adapt, while thriving on human needs for comfort and stability in order to sustain a system based on belief and not reason.

The recent spate of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray, Dennett et al are criticising religion and not God, and seek to understand the need for religion in the human mind and how we use religion to further human needs and goals. Dawkins and Hitchens particularly say that the reason they wrote their books was to counter the rise of religious fundamentalism as evidenced by the Christian right in America and Al Qaeda in the Middle East. The use of religion to further political and social goals in human society is the real enemy for our time.

Trev of Melbourne (07 June at 10:37 AM)

Dear god,
Hope you got the letter,
And I pray you can make it better down here.
I dont mean a big reduction in the price of beer,
But all the people that you made in your image,
See them starving on their feet,
cause they dont get enough to eat

From god,
I cant believe in you.

Dear god,
Sorry to disturb you,
But I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears,
And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
cause they cant make opinions meet,
About god,
I cant believe in you.

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!

Dear god,
Dont know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look,
And all the people that you made in your image,
Still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it aint and so do you,
Dear god,
I cant believe in,
I dont believe in,

I wont believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners,
No devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
Youre always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And its the same the whole world round.
The hurt I see helps to compound,
That the father, son and holy ghost,
Is just somebodys unholy hoax,
And if youre up there youll perceive,
That my hearts here upon my sleeve.
If theres one thing I dont believe inâ€¦

Its you,
Dear god.

Lyrics by Andy Partridge/XTC.

GraemeF of Sydney (07 June at 10:39 AM)

Why did a supposedly all powerful god only appear in the middle east and hope that his followers were powerful enough to take the message to the rest of the world? Wouldnâ€™t it have been simpler for him to tell the whole planet of his existence right from the start instead of relying on missionaries? Maybe this was to teach us that outsourcing is inefficient in a lot of cases.

wayneiz of Brisbane (07 June at 10:39 AM)

Why is it always GODs fault when WE do bad things? God does love us .. but he also gives us the power of choice. And WE have to take responsibility for the inevitable consequences of those choices.

Gods works WITH us and not FOR us. I for one am happy to take responsibility for my own life and therefore the responsibility for the results of my own choices in life .. who I marry, where I live and my career choices. And in those choices God GUIDES me not DIRECTS me.

If your not sure what to do wwith your life .. read the bible. Its a great life instruction manual and we would all be better off if we learned from its examples and lived by its ideals!!

Fred of Sydney (07 June at 10:40 AM)

John Heard you seem to miss the point about atheistsâ€™ critique of religion. No one is saying that religion is the cause of everything bad in the world. Clearly humans are going to be cruel and violent no matter what. However religion has clearly had no impact on curtailing the worst excesses, and is often an excuse used by those who wish to kill and hate. However in the end, whether one can find positives within religion or not is irrelevant. God does not exist and it can be proven he/she/it does not exist. Itâ€™s like arguing that we should believe in Santa Claus because itâ€™s a nice idea or because it encourages people to give each other presents. That me be so, but it doesnâ€™t make Santa Claus real. There are many people who hang on to the notion of God because it is a nice notion to have (well for some people it is). However wanting something to be true, like fairies in your garden, or the tooth fairy, does not make it true or real.

President
Freedom From Religion Party Australia
http://www.freedomparty.org.au

Damon22 of Allenstown Qld (07 June at 10:49 AM)

So the proposition is that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and is the creator of everythingâ€”but God is not responsible? Bit of cognitive dissonance here then.
â€œThe only excuse God has got is that He doesnâ€™t existâ€.

vianndra of Brisbane (07 June at 10:58 AM)

The fact that a lot of wars have been fought in the name of God by people who call themselves Christians does not mean they are followers of Christ! Jesus NEVER advocated war but peace, love and even turning the other cheek. So people who war in the name of God are surely not followers of Christ.

Kevin of Sydney (07 June at 10:59 AM)

Well, to me itâ€™s the simple fact that not all religions are same, there may not be a perfect religion but certainly by comparison there are better ones and worse ones, like Buddhism and Islam. As we all know the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists but almost all terrorists are Muslims. That must tell you something about Islam, which I regard as an evil cult instead of the so called â€œreligion of Peace”â€¦

Nigel jay of melbourne (07 June at 10:59 AM)

Mark Twain was right when he said man was the only animal that can blush .In his blushing he blames God for all the miseries.Well done John .God even loves these atheists .Our prayer should be the same as that of Our Saviour on the Cross â€œFather Forgive Them For They Do Not Know What They Are Doing â€œ

les of Darlinghurst (07 June at 11:07 AM)

I had a friend many years ago that mentioned one day that the TV people were talking to him, 3 days later he started lighting fires.

I made the very hard decision of taking him to hospital where he was committed. In making my decision I had to way up the consequences of the danger he posed to himself and others, we lived on campus.

Funny enough itâ€™s considered sane and rational to believe in religion.

Chez of Hong Kong (07 June at 11:08 AM)

Antitheists (atheists) always harp on about how they donâ€™t go door-knocking to shove their religion down other peopleâ€™s throats. They say we should all be like them and keep our beliefs to ourselves. Yet in the next breath, they are telling us exactly what we should believe - nothing. And they donâ€™t just suggest it in passing, but publish books about the fact that they are the new light of the world, and that we should all believe what they do.How is this any less religious than the traditional religions?

For some reason, atheists think that they have the moral highground on this issue - they are allowed to dish out the word â€œhipocriteâ€ left, right and centre, yet somehow remain immune to it themselves. What they donâ€™t realise is that the Great Nothing has become their god, and they are just as militant about their god as any Christian or Muslim.

Iâ€™m just not sure why atheists seem to think that their arguments are all so consistent and logical. They writeoff any logical, consistent and intelligent case for a theistic world-view because it is theistic. They should do themselves a favour and drop the pretense that they are open-minded. If you truly were, you would read some solid philosophical cases for theism from a neutral position (e.g. â€œTo Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldviewâ€, Beckwith, F.J., Craig, W. L. & Moreland, J. P. (eds.)). I have had to sit through four years of secular indoctrination at university, maybe a few hours getting to know your enemy might do you some good.

Karl of Tamworth NSW (07 June at 11:10 AM)

It is our infantile and primitive animal fear that seeks security beyond existing moment, and to do so created beliefs, images of Gods and and other ideological structures in â€œcyberspaceâ€ and then, speculating how those images will react if we do this or that contrary to our imaginary God.

A vicious circle was created and any attempt to get out of the â€œGodly circleâ€ was labeled as a â€œsinâ€. When this kind of propaganda is fed 2000 yeas or so into human mind it has become an â€œextra genetic factorâ€ and cannot be eliminated
by any counter-belief, no matter how intelligently structured and as we do know, whether we are Christians or Muslims, we are ready to die for the God we created. As fear is the foundation stone of all religions we are readily manipulated to do just about anything our â€œGodâ€ demands and dying is the â€œhighest priceâ€ we possibly can offer.

The most horrenduos murders are done in name of God and justified within
the doctrine of that particular belief, so that no man could not be accused for
the murder, unless you happened to be on the loosing side. Man created the third party called God to be able to practise his never ending greed without
being challanged by his little â€œ inner voice.â€

Bill Bloggs of USA (07 June at 11:11 AM)

Those that believe in God will suffer they taunts of this world.
Those that blame religion and ignore the acts of Mao, Stalin and Hitler suffer from ignorance.
Those that dont believe in God, and still blame him, suffer from schizoprenia.
And those that do or donâ€™t believe in God and ignore him will suffer his judgement.

paulm of adelaide (07 June at 11:12 AM)

Yep, your right. Stalin & Mao Tse Tung were both socialiast anti-religion and are right up there with the worst killers in history. End of debate.
Any human organisational system, religous or otherwise is entirely open to use for good or bad, and it comes down to the people populating the system.
The biggest tradegy is that religions have been perverted into political structures and then used by bad people to commit all sorts of evil acts that are in direct opposition of the religions core principles.

Mark of Brisbane (07 June at 11:13 AM)

Absolutely right! Sin, manâ€™s rebellion against God, is the problem in every heart - religious our irreligious. Mao, Stalin & Hitler are perfect testimony to this, as are all the quasi followers of religion who justify murder or hatred for any reason: The Creator commands â€˜You shall not murderâ€™ (Exod 20)!

In addressing this commandment, Jesus authoritively taught that it was binding on ALL and also that those who hated others were guilty of breaking the commandmentâ€™s essential thrust and thus worthy of its penalty! (Matt 5).

Jesusâ€™ system of ethics, and His personal remedy for a divine Law broken by sinners, remain the highest form of revelation ever known to humanity, bar none.

Big H of Mount Martha, Victoria (07 June at 11:14 AM)

There are 10 commandments, all of which are phrased in the negative. Donâ€™t do this - donâ€™t do that. As a dedicated and committed atheist I have only one commandment. It is phrased in the positive. If it was adhered to by everyone the world would be a better place. Three little words.

â€œLeave people alone!â€

wazneb of alfredton (07 June at 11:17 AM)

Pascalâ€™s wager suggests that it may be better to believe in a God that does not exist just on the off chance that he/she or whoever may. Be that as it may why can I not approach or believe in that God in whatever way shape or form I see fit so long as it does not interfere with other people? Why must I then pander to the whims of some autocratic organisation that claims to be the only authentic intermediary between God and me? There are two problems with religion. One is that it became mixed up with people. Yeah youâ€™re right. Guns….sorry religion…doesnâ€™t kill people ; people kill people. Always have, always will. But religion provides the motive and the alibi.

Two; religion has outlived its usefulness. It was a stage in the development of the human psyche, intellect, call it what you will. It is now an irrelevant superstition. If it gets you through the night that is your right, but please the world has move on from this superseded paradigm. Itâ€™s time the people who inhabit the world did the same while they still have one. It does not make sense.

Dan (07 June at 11:17 AM)

in response to cck how can the violence of the world be blamed on God when humans like you do not believe in him and still expect him to act in every situation. God gives us a chance to believe and if we do, all things are done for the good of us. What can you expect from a God you ignore! Additionally you are blaming religion for violence when all but the most rare religious ppl never commit these acts of violence. Yet you cannot accept the acts of violence committed by mao, pol pot, the nazis and scores of others hiding behind norway ad sweden. You are drowning in a sea of hypocrisy.

IK of Melbourne (07 June at 11:18 AM)

Your argument indicates a failure to grasp the fundamental point of Dawkins, etc criticism of religion. It is not religion, per se, which has caused vast atrocities throughout history, but peoplesâ€™ use of religion, coupled with their blind (irrational) faith, to justify their horrendous actions.
Religion is the cause of much evil because it enables e.g. Islamic militants to justify killing people with different beliefs. Then again, perhaps â€˜justifyâ€™ is the wrong word. It implies a conscious acknowledgment of the misuse of religion. What Islamic militants show is that religion has blinded them to reality, to the fact that a different opinion should never be the basis for murder.
As an atheist, I am all for other people believing in whatever they want to believe in. Just donâ€™t start killing other who donâ€™t share the same believes, and then justify that killing on the basis of God whose existence is incapable of scientific proof.

BillK of WA (07 June at 11:19 AM)

People like Richard Dawkins refuse to look at the evil in their own heart. If there was not a devil why do we murder millions of innocent babies each year just for convenience sake. Oh thats right Dawkinâ€™s form of science renames a baby an embryo. That certainly eases the conscience. Every time some raises a moral arguement it is pointless without the author of morality.

Yususf Sayeed Mohammed of Coburg (07 June at 11:24 AM)

Iâ€™ve tired of the stuipidity: Guns donâ€™t kill people. Bullets kill people.

And just as an aside: there is no god. weâ€™re all monkeys. sorry.

Nils Ross of Perth (07 June at 11:28 AM)

If the premise that â€˜Godâ€™ - whoever that may be - is responsible for the creation and ordering of the universe, then presumably itâ€™s not too much of a stretch to assign him/her/it responsibility for the emergent properties of that universe. In the same way that we hold a car manufacturer responsible for the correct functioning of a car, can we not hold God responsible for the correct functioning of his universe?

Ah! But, of course, one can claim that violence, misery, poverty and so on go hand in hand with science, the arts, happiness, and plenty, and that this IS the correct function of the universe.

To which I would say to God: build a better universe or get out of the universe game.

The fact is, if God made it, he/she/it is responsible for it. Period. We CAN blame him/her/it as an individual, should he/she/it actually exist.

Of course, as atheists, we donâ€™t believe God exists. And we therefore donâ€™t blame God. Instead, we place the blame squarely and correctly on the shoulders of the people that do.

So thanks for the science, the universities, the social order, and so on, but keep your manias, your ideological straight jackets; you may want the world to be governed by a bunch of old men dead for thousands of years but we donâ€™t. By all means have your religion, but keep it out of secular matters.

UnbelieverSydney of Sydney (07 June at 11:29 AM)

Not sure if I can agree with your premise on this onje - in fact it kinda scares me a little. If religions donâ€™t kill people, and the murderous Islamic terrorists are not doing it for their 72 virgins (or just the money), why are they doing it?

If we truly believe religion is not the cause (even though of course they constantly claim this as their own justification) then what is? Can we blame Arabic culture? What about Pakistan, or Somalia, or the homegrown plots in Europe? As it seems that hatred of the West and Isreal, based on the teachings of their faith is the only common thread here how can we possibly claim this is not a causal factor? I am not aware of other religions in this day and age that promulgate such acts on such a scale, so what else is there? If it isnâ€™t religion, then surely we are only left with (sound of can of worms being opened here) that fact that these people lack any moral compass, or decidely sub human, and rather imbecilic to boot.

Now, for homework, have a good long think about who benefits most from religion. Who benefits most from teaching us that we all live in a â€œdegraded stateâ€? It is within human hearts that have been welded since childhood to the multi-layered delusions that religions use to propogae heir interests that the responsibility for most of the worldâ€™s ills lie.

Now stop living in the 14th Century and live up to your potential as a human being.

Oliver of Adelaide (07 June at 09:55 AM)

Beleive what you wish. People kill people. Itâ€™s just easier to blame it on someone or something else.

RHW of Sydney (07 June at 09:56 AM)

OTOH, as the Dawkins rightly says, a personal (or any god) is vanishingly improbable, so â€˜blaming godâ€™ doesnâ€™t come into it. Those who Dawkins and others are blaming are the loony followers of imaginary human constructs, otherwise known as â€˜godsâ€™.

Archie of Sydney (07 June at 11:30 AM)

â€™religious believers invented the intellectual disciplinesâ€™.

I think you will find throughout most of the last 2000, that the ruling religious class would not allow anyone to learn to read, own books, or study them. If they were not a part of the ruling religious class.

And if found to be doing so, were politely â€˜put to the questionâ€™, or accused and burnt at the stake.

I do believe people are ultimately responsible for their own actions, at all times. But the control, that dogmatic ideals (encluding communism) will always lead people to act without consequence, and in a state of fear.

Canâ€™t we learn from history ever?

Trish of Sydney (07 June at 11:31 AM)

I agree with John Heard. In any case, if religion were the cause of all wars as they claim, both Dawkins and Hitchens fail to explain how Adolf Hitler fitted into the picture. Sadly, both men have their enormous pride to blame for their straight-jacketed thinking.

Oscar of Perth (07 June at 11:36 AM)

Nice try John, but you cant get away from the fact that the premise of â€˜my religion is truer than your religionâ€™ is the prime cause of most major conflict, the exception being African tribes slaughtering each other for tribal domination reasoning. As other contributers to this blog have offered, the christian faith, specifically the early Catholic doctrines, has been as cruel and hateful as any of the current worldwide conflict participants, as it is said in modern speak, I cant see where there is any value adding to following a religious path.

jim of of Darlington (07 June at 11:40 AM)

Rob of Oxley, we are all things things that you relious people are, the difference is, we take responsibility for our shortcomings. Its a very long time since I went knocking on doors trying to justify/convert people to my beliefs. It is also a long time since I was anything other than civil with the door knockers who seem to think I need to believe what they believe. (white shirted young Americansâ€™ excepted)

asianplumb of melbourne (07 June at 11:43 AM)

Power hungry greedy people kill weaker people to steal their oil land opium crops mineral rights ect.. The religious spin is to attempt to sanitise the mass murders of the locals in Iraq, Palestine, Mindanao-Philippines, and Afghanistan as the â€œstandard red herring and smoke screen â€œ There is no god or George Tony Johnny and Gloria would be beamed up, or down in their case.

WE Love Ha Ha of Melb (07 June at 11:52 AM)

Here is a funny one, I am an atheist who believes religion can be quite a good thing.

I was brough up a Catholic but as I grew to understand the world I came to realise that Religion is an option that some people use to allow them to deal with a world and universe they just plain cannot understand, a survival mechanism.

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, whatever help.

The problem seems to have arisen because some very smart people have discovered that they can take those beliefs in God and using advanced techniques and technologies use them and your upbringing to maniulate you into their way of thinking.

It is Sad really that something so beautiful and presious can be turned into fanatisism and hatred.

The question to me seems to be why so many good men and women of Religion stand idly by while henious crimes are committed in their name and in the name of their God?

Solution: Teach your children to keep an open mind, but not so open as their brain falls out and always alwyas question the source of information and their motives then make up your own mind for better or worse.

Plough your own furrow in life, do not be a sheep.

Philip of Victor Harbor SA (07 June at 11:54 AM)

Extremism and fanaticism are the real poisons. Religion per se is not an evil trait in humans. However some religions seem to generate extremism and fanaticism, probably precisely because blind faith is required, rather than reason.

The argument that the excesses of Nazism and communism are examples of excesses by atheists loses weight when one considers that in many respects Hitlerâ€™s Germany, Stalinâ€™s Russia and Maoâ€™s China elevated their warped ideologies to the status of religions - if you were not a believer, watch out! The Nazi view of the world was filled with Wagnerian mysticism about the destiny of the chosen Aryan race, while the Cultural Revolution in China saw the Red Guards chanting and reciting mindlessly the words and slogans of Mao with very religious fervour while they wreaked their havoc!

It is beyond dispute that some of the worst crimes in history have been perpetrated by extreme fanatics in the names of various religions, and this continues today. Today the worst culprits are the extremist fanatical muslims who are killing thousands of their own people in Iraq. Who will it be tomorrow? The religious right in America?

Extremists and fanatics everywhere seem compelled to make everyone else comply with their views. That is the nature of them - after all, if they didnâ€™t feel so compelled, then they wouldnâ€™t be extremists and fanatics.

Reg the Reader of Perth (07 June at 11:59 AM)

The argument that religion doesnâ€™t kill people, people kill people, is as logical as that of the US gun lobbyâ€™s, â€œguns donâ€™t kill people, people kill peopleâ€.
One difference is that generally people donâ€™t kill people in the name of guns, but they do kill people in the name of religion.
One is entitled to oneâ€™s own spirituality. This does not need an organised religion with an intermediary between oneself and oneâ€™s God. It is not God (if there is one) that is the problem, it is organised religion.
Dawkins quote of Steven Weinberg was the most descriptive I have heard â€œ Religion is an insult to the dignity of man. Without religion we would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things, but for good people to do evil things there must be religionâ€. Says it all.

Alex of NSW Central Coast (07 June at 12:01 PM)

God is not responsible? No. Neither are any supersentient beings at the other end of the Universe likely to be. If there is a God and we are his creation in his image, surely he would by now despair and classify us as a badly failed experiment, No need to send us down the chute because we are just about ready to self-destruct anyway. The root cause is only partially the various selfappointed powerhungry earthly agents of God. The root cause is the blind poisioning of the minds of the newborn babies, inflicted on them by every parent generation through the millennia. The true inherited sin. Most new generation humans are scared shitless and mindtwisted by the time they get to their teens, and so in turn carry on the poison to their children. What a terrible waste of potential. Instead of arguing superficially and endlessly, let us try to find a way of breaking the chain. And then perhaps we will ultimately find God by direct communication wiith no need for any dangerous go-betweens.

Dan of Oakleigh (07 June at 12:04 PM)

I understand what the writer is saying and want to agree in part with them - but too many of the arguments put are a tad sloppy.

For a start do we really need to bean count on whether China or Iran are more abuseive of human rights? They are both pretty nasty. And just because religions have fostered the development of writing and recorded history does not instantly make them good. I think VW beetles are cute but that does not make Hitler a good thing. We have to move on from â€œI did this so you have to be eternally grateful for thatâ€. Which brings us to Godâ€¦

Whether there is a Divine is a matter for endless and likely futile debate. In the sphere of international relations we can rely in the end on only ourselves and if we are hopelessly flawed then we will just have to cope with that as best we can.

Religions may not be the root cause of violence but they are frequently a very powerful excuse and that makes them part of the problem. It is beholden on the moderates among all religions to help do something about the extremists in their midst.

Keith of Walliston of walliston (07 June at 12:05 PM)

Whether God exists or not, there is one undisputed fact,
All religion is dominated by men. All the â€œrules â€œ are set by men.
It is only in countries that have a strong Christian influence that
women are beginning to gain some equality and respect.

Dave of Kwinana (07 June at 12:18 PM)

Of course god is not responsible as he does not exist. Those resonsible are religious fanatics who claim that even if I live a decent, honest life I am still going to rot in hell because I do not believe in their concepts. Those same fanatics have often gone to the length of mass killing to â€œcleanseâ€ people of their non-belief.

jb (07 June at 12:23 PM)

Bob of Waverton, how I have to say how right you are. Just look at all these terrorists these days commiting crimes and then filming it and putting it on the internet and the sept 11 perpertrators. If these people were really so religious and targetting the â€˜westâ€™ (or christianity or perceived lack of) then why are they are using the very tools that they claim are the work of â€˜infidelsâ€™ ie technology the internet especially (but anything from a modern society - including airplanes can come into this category) if they really believe this is the stuff that sinners are made out of and that they have been granted some holy right to rid the earth of. Sounds very hypocritical to me. You hit the nail on the head when you said it was for attention - these people are seeking martyrdom - nothing else!

Graham of Denmark (07 June at 12:26 PM)

Christianity is not the problem. Churchianity is a problem.

John G of Spokane (07 June at 12:29 PM)

Good article, God gave man free will. We can either accept His authority and rules or create our own. But donâ€™t think that the 3 main religions are the only ones. An increasing force is satanism. I have been shocked recently as to the things that go on in this â€˜religionâ€™. â€œDo what thou wiltâ€ is their mission. I heard recently of this woman who was heavily involved in satanic worship. She had witnessed a human sacrifice..can you believe it. A hitchhiker was caught and crucified on a satanic holy day. Makes you wonder where some of the missiong persons get to..and there was also other hideous things that she was invloved with. She barely escaped with her life, and had demons attacking her. The only way she stopped the demonic attacks was to surrender to Jesus Christ.

There are really only 2 ways; Godâ€™s or satanâ€™s. The whole world is under the sway of satan. Islam, satanism, buddism etc all belong to satan and new religions keep being created. But all will be revealed shortly.

Jesus proved He was God by rising from the dead. He said, I AM the way, the truth and the life.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but itâ€™s way leads to destruction.

Maffee of Brisbane (07 June at 12:34 PM)

Iâ€™m not a religion basher or anti-Christian, but as a student of classical history, I have to take issue with the claim that the resurrection of Jesus is â€œrelatively well-documentedâ€. While Jesus himself is well-attested in classical sources, for example by the Jewish partisan turned Roman lackey Josephus, the only sources written within a century of the Crucifixion recording his resurrection are the Gospels themselves. Jesus himself certainly existed, but there is no independent historical record of his resurrection, so it must remain a matter of faith only.

Jessie (07 June at 12:39 PM)

cck, itâ€™s funny that you should bring up Lotâ€™s wife as an example of why God doesnâ€™t exist. Iâ€™ve been thinking for a while now that just like in the Tower of Babel story weâ€™ve come to speak in tongues. Maybe itâ€™s a sign of times to come. We call terrorists: activists, militants, freedom fighters, suicide bombersâ€¦ even the term terrorist is a euphemism for mass murderer. We blame the US for the daily carnage coordinated by suicide-terrorists who arenâ€™t very fussy about whether who they decapitate or blow to bits. Weâ€™re say weâ€™re peace activists yet nobody is willing to challenge Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Speaking of Ahmadinejad, how does that song and prophecy go? â€œGod gave Noah the rainbow sign wonâ€™t be water but fire next time, pharaohâ€™s armys are drownded, oh, Mary donâ€™t you weep.â€

T. Roth of Danbury, Connecticut, USA (07 June at 12:42 PM)

Eew. Finding out that I share atheism with this â€œMarilynâ€ person makes me want to take up a religion…any religion…quickly.

There are a lot of idiotic arguments here by people who hate the religious (correction: only CERTAIN religious) with such venom that building a sound foundation under their hatred isnâ€™t even occurring to them, nor that by their very hatred and prejudice, they are proving Heardâ€™s opinion piece correct. (They have essentially formed an â€œintolerant religionâ€ of their own, havenâ€™t they, and are attacking others for disagreeing with them? Theyâ€™re making Heardâ€™s point for him, all in a petri dish.)

What the blog is trying to point out, I believe, is that humans will always find justification for human evil in something…it need not be religion. Often, it is tribalism. Or race. Or gender. Or sexual orientation. Or groups that carry a common hatred of â€œthe otherâ€ as their unifying principle (i.e., the KKK). Itâ€™s not religion in and of itself, but the cover of belonging to a certain group and feeling righteous while simultaneously identifying some other group as unworthy to live.

Del of Adelaide (07 June at 12:45 PM)

The phrase â€˜guns donâ€™t kill people, people kill peopleâ€™ is a phony argument. â€˜People with guns kill peopleâ€™ is a stark truth.

â€˜People with religion kill peopleâ€™ is a tragic truth in too much of the world.

Mathew of Ballarat (07 June at 12:45 PM)

You seem to base a lot of todayâ€™s problems on how inherently wicked man is. Is that really the world view you want people to believe?
Look at your history buddy, the Naziâ€™s under the leadership of Hitler were religious people and committed the Holocaust because they believed they had a divine right.
Religious people are always quick to point out Naziâ€™s as an example of atheistic killers, when if they even bothered to look it up, they might be surprised to learn how atheists were rounded up and sent to the gas chambers.
If your too blind to see the damage religion does, and too ready to blame it on mans own failings, then I donâ€™t see how you can claim to have any form of rational mind.

Nicko of Newcastle (07 June at 12:55 PM)

I am a Christian, indeed a Roman Catholic. I love all people as a first principle, be they of Faith, Agnostic or Atheist. I do not trust the religious right emanating from the US. I do not adhere to evangelism. I believe the practise of Faith is essential and unique to humans, although obviously not all people make the leap. What I do not understand is why some militant Atheists believe that worship is wrong. Human beings commit sin. Some of this sin is evident when man makes war. War is a sin. Killing is a sin. Killing in the name of God/Allah/Yaweh is a sin. Humans fail the test frequently. Does this mean the test should no longer be applied? The problem is not the Religions. The problem is that weak humans fail to live up to their standards.

Luke of Frankston (07 June at 12:57 PM)

A good sobering article. Regardless of how much squawking Dawkinites can produce, the truth will stand. Atheistic intolerants seem unable to recognize Christianityâ€™s contribution to Western society. It is helpful to discern between that which is cultural and that which is theological, instead of blind rejection.

It is also distasteful that many atheists only trade in snide remarks. Useful dialogue is difficult when this is the case.

Jaime (07 June at 01:00 PM)

People with guns kill people, people with bombs kill people. If you can convince those gun and bomb killing people that thereâ€™s a relgious justification for it then all the better. to quote John Heard - â€˜man, left to his own devices, is a fairly despicable creatureâ€™ and the letter writers whoâ€™d rather blame todayâ€™s death and destruction on God than on suicide bombers give despicable a bad name.

Darth Mofo of Planet Earth (07 June at 01:07 PM)

talk about the blind leading the blind!

I feel sorry for all of you.

Peter of Sydney (07 June at 01:10 PM)

Must be the most stupit article I ever read. I am 85 years old, and did a lot of reading !!

Raoul of Brisbane (07 June at 01:12 PM)

Tired of liberal sophistry,

When will a liberal or post-liberal apologist actually address the core arguments raised by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchins, Harris and the like? None of them ever say that a world without religion will be a world without violence. Their key claim is that a world with â€˜faithâ€™ is inherently more dangerous than a world with reason. Why? Because â€˜faithâ€™ is a euphemism for â€˜Iâ€™m too lazy to change my attributions in light of new evidence and experienceâ€™. So, when one faith meets another as they inevitably do - they fight for lack of common ground.

As one who has studied religious deconversion empirically for the last five years I submit that religious liberalism is a stage of transition that lacks the intense honesty of fundamentalism and the intellectual integrity of atheism.

Liberals should stop whinging; thank Dawkins and co. for having the guts to challenge fundamentalists where liberals were too afraid; and put forward their evidence to discount the theory that their clingings to religion are born of anything more than a social-emotional commitment to a past theory.

marty of Adelaide (07 June at 01:12 PM)

Your article is a mish-mash of apologetics and is unreasoned and obtuse. The title alone is in error: atheists do not blame God for anything. How could we? We also donâ€™t blame the tooth fairy, santa claus or any other myth.

matt of gold coast (07 June at 01:13 PM)

must have been a slow news day todayâ€¦

never fails to draw in the hicks hill billies and haters - a God discussion.

Ronda of Brisbane (07 June at 01:15 PM)

This argument has gone on a long time, and wonâ€™t be stopping anytime soon. How about a little comic relief?

The Skeptics among you will enjoy this series of sketches by â€œMr Deityâ€ on youtube (an ex religionist himself).

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=mr+deity&search=Search

Chez of Hong Kong (07 June at 01:20 PM)

Michael Bernard of Sydney, you are a legend. Sounds similar to a Huxley novel. Even Huxly had the sense (and he didnâ€™t have too much left after one too many bad trips) to see just how glorious scientific ant-theism will truly beâ€¦

michael of .au (07 June at 01:25 PM)

If there is a god, at least Science will be able to prove it. The bigger issue with religion is that it purports to explain the nature of reality, when really its just a tool for social cohesion (or control). Building a society of good, helpful, focused, happy, healthy, intelligent, loving, educated people should be the natural progression of our evolution and to an extent the teachings of religion provide this - but lets not bury ourselves in the security blanket of faith and say â€œthis is all there isâ€. The universe, its mechanics and its creator should be given far more respect than the spilling of blood in the name of some abstract concept moulded by the politics of a few thousand years ago.

boo radley (07 June at 01:27 PM)

Footnotes / references ???? At least Richard Dawkins was kind enough to provide references to his statements of fact, something John Heard has failed to do. I would actually be fascinated to know what they are, because there are some big bold statements in there.

In particular, I love the statement that there is proof that religious affiliation does not alter anyoneâ€™s behaviour! Really??? If so, Iâ€™ve never seen a stronger statement in favour of atheism. What is the point of religion, if all that effort (and money) doesnâ€™t make people treat eachother any better???? Why do Christians deserve to go to Heaven while atheists rot in hell, if they all act the same way???

Graeme of Melbourne (07 June at 01:27 PM)

OK: hereâ€™s my two centâ€™s worth. God and religion are not synonomous. It is possible to believe in God and still not accept any of the religous creeds as coming from this entity.

There is also a difference between religion as a set of personal beliefs, and religion as a social phenomenon. As a set of personal beliefs, there is a remarkable degree of consistency in the core tenets of all major religions. It is also from religion as a set of personal beliefs that most of the great achievements of religion have come.

It is also notable that the founders of the major religions preached their message in terms of personal behaviour and responsibility: love thy neighbour, or submit to the Will of Allah, for example.

It is in the translation of religion from personal to social that things go wrong. The messages of Christ or the Prophet or similar teachers may or may not have come directly from God, but there is no doubt that the development of religions as social orders has come from human beings. And if the hearts of human beings are corrupt (as many religious people seem to hold true) then is it not also extremely likely that religions as social orders are corrupt as well?

Elizabeth Fry of Darwin (07 June at 01:28 PM)

Absolute balderdash. If all the worldâ€™s Muslimâ€™s were Buddhists, we would not have had all these suicide bombings. While it is down to human beings, different religious teachings are more or less likely to lead to violence. All of the three main middle eastern religions come from a tribal nomadic culture which was into violent retribution. The arguments about reason and learning do not hold water. The church monopolised knowledge, it did not create it!

The Enlightened One of Palm Cove QLD (07 June at 01:29 PM)

Reading the blogs, it is great to see that there are so many rational thinkers out there. I think that the reason for the interest in this topic is the politicisation of religion: there is a feeling that fundamental Christians are hijacking our political processes, seeking to recover their former stranglehold on the power of the State. It seems to have already happened in the USA. The concurrent threat to intellectual freedom constituted by militant Islam is also obvious. By the way, please donâ€™t refer to us as â€œAtheists.â€ Please refer to us as â€œThe No Longer Silenced Majority.â€ In future, we will be having our say when you try and hijack the moral high ground. I just hope that you arenâ€™t collecting our email addresses for a renewed Inquisition. Please…not the rack! I think I would prefer a quick beheading if the other crowd take over. No doubt you will both come knocking at my door.

DP of campbelltown (07 June at 01:29 PM)

all people have a â€œbeliefâ€ system (even atheists), therefore all people are â€œreligiousâ€ ergo â€œreligionâ€ (including atheism) causes devestation in our world.

Libretto of Canberra (07 June at 01:30 PM)

Why is the majority of the world still suffering the delusion that there is some being looking after them? Most other deities have disappeared into quaint historical reference (so should God, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!)

There is only us. We only have ourselves to blame.

We need to grow up and accept responsibility for our own actions.

People kill people, yes! Claiming they do it in the name of a deity or a fluffy panda on the moon is obscene and should not be tolerated by logical, responsible adults.

Religion should be ridiculed for what it is.

While everybody has a right to their beliefs, that right MUST end when it impacts on the opinions or liberties of others.

Ringo, from WA (07 June at 01:30 PM)

The answer is Arabs and Islam. There is overwhelming proof that Arabs kill more and hate more, and esp. those ones in Iraq, Iran and Palestinian (Iâ€™m like get over it, its not your land and Israel is just using appropriate force when they attack, and anyways, if they were smart they wouldnâ€™t attack a nation thatâ€™s aloud to have nuclear weapons), Like dah, I mean white Anglo Saxonâ€™s only stand for what is good and just, e.g. the USA, (and do say that their recent wars are illegal, who cares itâ€™s for a greater good!, remember?). I think the Jpillars of Islam are just rocket launchers.

David Johnson of Tasmania (07 June at 01:31 PM)

One thing I donâ€™t like is the attempts by guilt-ridden Christians to rewritehistory over Christianity and Nazi Germany. Here is a collection of photos of Christianity in the Third Reich:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm.

Seek forgiveness for past sins by all means, but do not try to rewritehistory with phrases such as â€œChristian-hating Nazi regimeâ€.

Davo of melbourne (07 June at 01:33 PM)

Have you ever been to a religious bookshop? Tens of thousands of books entirely devoted to unproveable dogma. An Empiricistâ€™s nightmare…. By contrast, there are not too many texts aimed at debunking the very same.

SBS screened John Safran Vs God recently. Good viewing if you arent religious.

If you want some humour at the Religionists expense, search Youtube for Mr. Deity.

Sherro of Templestowe (07 June at 01:39 PM)

I have a funny cartoon of Muhammod, will the Australian publish it? If not, why not?

I rest my case.

whitey (07 June at 01:41 PM)

Whatâ€™s the difference between a fundamentalist atheist publishing a nasty, spiteful book where he calls everyone who disagrees with him an idiot, seeking to promulgate his belief system, and some other fundamentalist trying to convert someone to +their+ religion? Sorry for all you materialists out there, but there is none. You canâ€™t use the language or methods of science to explain everything in the world, and if you want to wallow in the mud of logical positivism, be my guest, but I wonâ€™t be joining you. Dawkins is every bit as dangerous as George Bush or bin Laden

Toys Will Get Played of Melb (07 June at 01:41 PM)

One of my main concerns is the importance we place on humans in the greater scheme of things.

I mean based on religious beliefs for the majority of time their so called Gods must have preferrered others such as Dinasours over human beings as reflection of his own likeness here on earth

We are after all a relative newcomer onto the scene in terms of existence on this planet.

How do Religious individuals reconcile all the time prior to the ascent of Humans?

If we are so important to this so called creator, why is the vastness of space devoid of human beings?

I find the majority of religious fanatics quite sad really regardless of which Invisible Friend they try to foist upon others, especially young impressionable children who do not posses the skills to defend themselves against such propoganda and deception.

Why do we allow our childrens minds to be so polluted by such things?

Andy the athiest of Melbourne (07 June at 01:47 PM)

You say the appeal to god moderates nationalism, greed and vengence? So the islamic militants and terrorists are being moderate are they? The call â€œGod is great!â€ is a moderating them. Well, let us hope they dont forsake their faith, heaven forbid.
And let us all thank Christianity for the printing press, which would never have been invented if it wasnâ€™t for religion. And remember, the Sun goes around the earth, and hell is deep underground. God will punish you if you question this.
I dont think we athiests blame religion for ALL the worlds woes. Just the biggest ones. Would the holocaust have happened if there was no religion?
Religion breeds nutters, terrorists and murderers (thats my own quote).
Stop believing in things that dont exist and weâ€™ll all be happier.

cck (07 June at 01:47 PM)

“No, the responsibility for mass suffering, for warfare and violence, the secret to the strife humanity has always endured appears to rest within, God help us, the human heart.â€

Do you mean, there, that God helps the human heart persist continuing the suffering, warfare and violence of the world? Ahh, a sentence I agree with!

Marilyn (07 June at 01:48 PM)

All these people writing about â€œchristsâ€ words amaze me. The old books they rely on were not written by any â€œchristâ€, they were written by men many years or even centuries after the non-event and are nothing more that myths and parables.

Most of the old testament is based on an eye for an eye, death, destruction, smiting ones enemies and so on.

You need to ask this question â€œIf a man with a long beard came from the ME today, stood on the corner and preached love and peace would I

a. send him to Woomera as a queue jumper
b. send him to Glenside as a raving lunatic?

Then letâ€™s test your strange faith.

Sebastion Fotheringham-Smythe of Australia (07 June at 01:49 PM)

The evidence would suggest that God is at most a relatively remote observer on day to day events in this little spec of planet in a minor gallaxy (with a whole universe on his mind, how else could it be?). Religions are either 100% (if nobody is out there) or perhaps (if God exists) 99% the construct of humans.

We canâ€™t blame God either way really for what they produce. But we must instead look pretty closely at the ethics, morals, philosophies and lives led of those who created the religions and who follow them. Religions should be judged by the fruit on the tree. Rotten fruit is not very inspiring and exploding fruit is more than a little disturbing.

Kookaburra of Blackwood SA (07 June at 01:51 PM)

Very intersting to read all the respondents. Everyoneâ€™s got some-one to blame. Itâ€™s them - Islamists, Christians, powerful people, men (yes, some-one said â€œMenâ€ meaning males only), the hypocrites, etc. Hardly a person admitted any fault within. How unreal!

Every human being is capable of the grossest hypocrisy and the vilest sin. Yes, you too! Given all the circumstances and the opportunity and the provocation, you could do the same as Hitler, maybe worse. Me, too. Thatâ€™s the real â€œinconvenient truthâ€!

There is something seriously wrong deep inside. Everyone. Unless you start from that premise, you wonâ€™t get far. Why does pride and selfishness and the like, come so â€œnaturallyâ€ to us all?

Some-one contrasted Buddhism favourably with Islam. Perhaps they should go to live in Sri Lanka or Myanmar or China to experience all the â€œpeace and compassionâ€ of Buddhism. Itâ€™s just an illusion - as they say.

Miriam (07 June at 01:57 PM)

Militancy of any type, religious or atheist, is always dangerous. I grew up in a fundamentalist religious environment and, Iâ€™m sorry to say, itâ€™s usually males who feel very insecure and want everyone to behave in exactly the way that they would behave (or, more often than not, donâ€™t). Not to mention that many of the leaders are just downright charlatans and they always need to create enemies to keep their followers scared and in line.

That said, some of the greatest ideas and principled people have come from a religious background as well. Buddha, Jesus, Hillel, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov etc. I think we are entering dark times in terms of religious sentiment which is being cynically manipulated by those who ought to know better. The truth is, certain powers that be want an oil war in the Middle East (and some other goals) and they will use whatever means they can to hook people in to a mentality of hatred so that they go and fight. You canâ€™t blame G-d for that and I sometimes hope he sends the Messiah soon to whip all their proverbials.

Technorati Tags: god, atheism, religion, heard, john heard, islam, christianity, judaism, australian, dawkins, hitchens

All tip and no iceberg

[matt] — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:46:28 +0000

Why did we vote this man out?

Australian politics has not and will probably never see his brilliance again.

A true visionary sadly misunderstood by the great unwashed.

Throwing faeces?

[matt] — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:39:31 +0000

And in the news of the indescribable, this exceptionally odd case:

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN0337093620070404

TORONTO (Reuters) - A Toronto school principal who pleaded guilty to throwing human excrement at a 12-year-old boy may get her job back, officials said on Tuesday.

“It’s quite possible she’ll end up back in her old position,” said Grant Bowers, a lawyer for the Toronto District School Board.

Maria Pantalone, 49, a sister of Toronto’s deputy mayor, was granted an absolute discharge on assault charges Monday after a judge said she “had already suffered enough,” according to court documents.

The charges stemmed from an incident on July 30, 2006, in which police said Pantalone threw feces at the boy, who was not one of her students, hitting him on the shoulder.

The circumstances of the assault cannot be described due to a court publication ban designed to protect the identity of the victim. The judge in the case, however, said they were unique.

“I couldn’t take it anymore. It was total, total frustration,” Pantalone testified, according to media reports.

She was suspended with pay from her position as an elementary school principal in August 2006.

In his ruling, the judge said Pantalone was “publicly embarrassed, if not humiliated. She has suffered more than most.”

Pantalone is on alternate assignment at school board offices and has no contact with students, Bower said.

Once the school board completes its own investigation, she could return to her previous duties.

“The investigation won’t take long,” Bower said. “The fact that she admitted to the offense is certainly a factor.”

A Toronto school board policy document details rules for the school at which Pantalone was principal that include the need to “show respect for yourself and others,” and “keep hands, feet and objects to yourself.”

Technorati Tags: faeces, feces, teacher, weird, toronto, reuters, scat

For the love of effigies

[matt] — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:37:30 +0000

Those crazy bastards over there in the sub-continent love their effigies don’t they?

It has always amused me the burning of effigies - even more so because it tends to be quite prolific amongst cricket fans. This is as amusing as it is confusing.

The poor old Pakistanis and Indians have suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of Ireland and Bangladesh respectively (I don’t know which would be worse considering Jason Gillespie’s double ton against Bangladesh)

It has gotten even worse though with Indian fans not only drowning pictures of their players:

… but storming and trashing the home of one of them:

What a bunch of fucking muppets!

I wonder what would happen if they were as mad about soccer as they are of cricket…

It is time that we introduced the art of effigy burning to Australia I believe - the Rugby World Cup should give us a great opportunity to hone our skills.

Technorati Tags: Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Ireland, Cricket World Cup, effigy, effigies, funny, muppets