Nothing supernatural about the western suburbs of Melbourne

[worldslaziestbusker]

So they can be run without Christians. We know this. The difference is we do it where the community at large does not do it. We give you soup kitchens, emergency aid, and other much needed community support programs and missions. If you want to start your own, go right ahead. Begin a non-religious NPO, statistically speaking, most of the people you'll attract to work or volunteer for your NPO will be Christians. We must be doing something right, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it.

You are employing a form of the genetic fallacy. Just because the hospitals were set up at a time that the majority of Australians were Christians does not mean that it is right that they continue to be run by Christians. Put yourself in the shoes of people outside your religion, or better yet, imagine how you might have reservations about living in a nation where the schools and hospitals are run or influenced by Muslims. How does that suit you?

Your comment that the volunteers likely to rally around any NPO also relies on the fact that the majority of the nation are (nominally) Christian. Religious charity is entirely self serving and is therefore oxymoronic. No religious adherent acts entirely out of goodness as the religions that coordinate such works are all promising a stick if you don't toe the line and a carrot if you do. You can claim to act out of love, but with such a punishment/reward system in place it is impossible to disentangle self interest from genuine charitable initiative. That no religion is engaged in sewer maintenance or road building or agricultural research and development, all as much necessary to the functioning of our society as any other facet of community activity, and instead choose to focus on schools, hospitals, shelters and other areas in which vulnerable people can be proselytised to, further suggests to me that the charity you choose to skite about (by the way, nice to see you being proud of how humble you are) is actually motivated by less than laudable ambitions to further their own interests.

I'm not telling you what you think. I'm telling you that AUSTRALIA is happy to receive what we give, if I was writing in a more expressive language I would have used the non-personal "you" pronoun (if it existed) it wasn't meant to mean you as a personal entity.

Again, you speak on the behalf of people who are not you. In writing about Australia being collectively happy to accept your "charity" you draw on no data, but rely on the fact that the needs are being met at the tax payers' expense by organisations that do not have to show their books to anyone. If you don't want to do the charity unless people are grateful and lick your boots, is it really charity? If you would stop doing it if the government funding dried up, is it still charity. I would be happier if the taxes you should rightfully be paying were coughed up and the government paid for the services you provide through the private sector. I have no data (because your books are closed) but I am confident, based on my experience of working with church based charities, that concussed kittens could manage their finances better and run their operations more efficiently. The majority of Australians are Christian, so perhaps you are right that they are happy about it, but as they are split into denominations with mutually exclusive doctrines, are they universally happy about all church based efforts? I'm definitely not happy, so until you have some data on how happy people are and about what, perhaps you should leave the sweeping generalisations alone. As with your claims about your deity and about requests made to your church for help, it's evidence or tough biscuit for your opinions.

I think you should leave people outside your religion alone and let them get on with their lives. Is that statement of what I actually think clear enough for you, or do we need to discuss this further?

So we shouldn't help those struggling to make ends meet and the homeless and the others in need in our society??

You can help them all you want, but if all you are chasing is an opportunity to make converts, or if you require people pray with you or acknowledge the sins of their ancestors before you give them any help, you aren't really being charitable, you're being manipulative.
Build a sewerage plant on your church dollar and I'll give you some kudos for charity. In the mean time, keep your god out of the state schools and out of the legislative process and we'll get along fine.

---

Been a while, KichigaiNeko. Not seen much of the Badger since we asked challenging questions at Australian Christian Forums together.

Hello mate, yes, we did have fun with the christians on ACF didn't we.

Hello ZB.
Satisfying, perhaps.
Educational, definitely.
Fun, not so much.
I look forward to a day when I don't have to have these arguments. It might not happen in my life time, but when theists leave me alone and stop pinching my taxes and no longer kill people through their doctrine and its application, the word atheist will no longer have utility as a label for me and I will be able to devote my time to surfing and playing guitar again.
I don't enjoy this. I do it because I feel I have to.

Having said that, I wish the ACF hadn't had its plug pulled by its administrators. The examples of Christian lies and harm on display, voluntarily, by a broad cross section of the Australian Christian community could have been a valuable resource for those who seek a more secular society. I can understand why they pull the plug from a PR point of view, but think it was highly unethical to want to hide so much evidence of Christians being assholes.

---

They dont have free speech at that place.

I disagree. You can say what you like, but you are compelled by the rules of that forum to deal with the consequences of what you say. You didn't do that very well and ended up banned because you wanted your cake and everyone else's cake too. You didn't deal with the consequences of what you wrote and, in accordance with the rules of the forum, you were banned.

... even goading the moderators to ban you....

Thats not true. I did NOT want to get banned and have asked many times to be allowed back.

Manipulative little feline that you are, you've even tried to twist my arm into asking to get you reinstated there. Should I provide the links, or will you?

... How does this compare with my treatment at Reasonable Faith Forums...

The same. Your ban from Reasonable Faith was unfair and unjustified

You are incorrect. Your ban at AFA was fair and justified. Should I provide the links or will you?

and I offered to take the matter up on your behalf IF YOU HAD WANTED ME TO.
Be honest please. Do you remember telling me that you did NOT want me to do that and that you did NOT want to go back there.

The day I need someone of your calibre to advocate on my behalf is... Nope, can't think of the circumstances that would fit that scenario. I didn't want to go back because it is the sort of place that can't abide free speech from people who do not toe the line. This is distinct from the AFA forum where you are not expected to toe a line, but to defend your ideas with coherent arguments and to answer the questions asked of you. I did both of these things at RFF and was banned, so the situations are not equivalent. I am being honest. If I had wanted to go back, I would not have asked you for help.

...What you think is a good forum and what I think is a good forum are clearly very different...

Strangely enough we keep bumping into each other.

[/quote]

The Greeks kept running into the Persians. What is your point?

...That you have not yet been banned here for evading questions and passive aggressive sledging suggests either that this forum is a poor match for my needs or that you have changed your posting ways considerably.[quote]

Hey, I'm grateful to be here and I certainly havent changed my ''ways''. I hope this forum meets your needs but did the thought ever occur to you that Atheist Mods/Admin vary from one forum to the next?

No, I've noticed. There are several atheists forums I don't frequent because the locals tolerate bullying and high level hypocrisy. Your presence here is not an ultimage litmus test, but it does mean either that people are not held to similar standards of behaviour as at the forums I am most at home in, or that you have been learning from your past mistakes. I am open minded enough to take evidence for the latter on its merits, but not optimistic that you are capable of change.

Doesnt the fact that you are looking for another atheist forum which meets your needs indicate that your false dichotomy - either Lion must have changed or this forum must be no good for letting him stay - is misplaced?

My need is not, in this case, a refuge from religious interference, but contact with other Melbourne based atheists to join in some initiatives I am keen to start. I am still happily contributing to AFA forums. Things change there and some people I like have moved on, others that I like have turned up. Others I don't like have turned up. It's a lot like life in that sense, but the rules and the locals' will to see them respected have not changed.

...Free speech allows you to say what you like, but the price of free speech is dealing with the consequences of saying what you like. In my experience you are good at the first part but have trouble with the second part.

WUT? I have no ''trouble'' with it.

You do not answer the questions asked of you. Should I provide the links or will you?

I like free speech precisely BECAUSE it DOES produce consequences. The public square needs democratic and fair freedom of speech.
Bans and censorship cause ''trouble'' for those who do the banning and censorship. Lets start a thead about this.

We already did. How about we just answer the questions that each of us ask and never shy away from the awkward ethical corners that either or us might occasionally paint ourselves into, like the Crocodilemma.

...Ignoring something is a form of failure. Ignoring a problem doesn't deal with it or make it go away. Dealing with it or making it go away deals with it or makes it go away...

Yup. And Protium would be better to have let me stay and allowed people (like you) to use your brilliant counter-apologetics to publically demolish my hopeless theist woo in front of the whole AFA world.

You were already demolished, you just didn't realise it. Demolishing your apologetics is no challenge and can only remain of interest for as long as it takes for you to repeat yourself. Get over yourself, LionIRC. You aren't very good at argument and just spouting words is neither educational nor dignified. Perhaps you feel that by carrying on you are gaining god points, but until you demonstrate that your deity exists, that doesn't get you any respect from me.

Then, you wouldnt need to ban me because, in shame and embarrassment I would have fled the scene of my public humiliation never to return. And the AFA crowd would have been chasing after me saying...dont leave, come back Lion IRC pleeeeese!

I don't think this is true. I've seen you whip a dead argument ad-nauseum. Because you aren't good at arguing, you don't recognise when you are on a hiding to nothing and you just become a broken record. You don't seem to have any sense of shame, so you have nothing to lose in being humiliated.