Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

This morning during a radio interview on 774 ABC Melbourne, the new Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard was asked point blank:

“Do you believe in God?”

Her reply:

“No I don’t, John”

Julia went on to say she was raised in a Baptist household and attended church regularly, but decided to “pursue a different path in her adult life“. The Prime Minister believes people can be decent, moral, upstanding citizens without pretending to believe in a deity to attract the religious voters.  What is more important to her is the welfare of the Australian people – regardless of their religious convictions.

It is hugely refreshing to hear a politician talk so openly and honestly about their faith, or lack thereof.  I am unaware of any other current major political leader who has openly admitted their disbelief (according to the comments, there are plenty).  Julia’s credibility just jumped a few notches in my books.

Update 1: Thank you to PZ Myers for linking this short article on his fantastic blog.  Welcome all pharyngulites.

Update 2: Jason Ball (and others) from The Young Australian Skeptics were interviewed on Australia’s TripleJ radio station on this issue.

Posted June 29, 2010
Tagged with , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Godless Business – Julia Gillard confirmed atheist -- Topsy.com

  • Pingback: Australia is led by an atheist « For the Sake of Science

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1735511620 Jessamine Gibb

    Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!! Ok, like her slightly more now :-)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      Hi Jessamine, I kind of mentioned you in our latest podcast. Hope you don't mind.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1735511620 Jessamine Gibb

        Wow, really! Listening to the AronRa one right now, will get to that one next! Been distracted by craziness lately so catching up on the podcast :-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1735511620 Jessamine Gibb

        Ok, I'm confused, a female scientist got a mention and as much as I wish that was me it isn't. My partner has been yelling at his business partner all day via skype while designing a game so I may have missed it. Any idea around what time in the podcast my mention occurs?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

          Just after Ollie talks about her (name eludes me for now) I made a passing reference to bumping into a fan, but I did not mention you by name. I will make it up to you next time.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1735511620 Jessamine Gibb

            Ahhh, it was just after that that things got noisy my end, I'll go back and listen again. You don't have to give me a shout out LOL

    • camille

      she actially looked better back then

  • Jake Farr-Wharton

    This is big! Well done for picking it up. (and in case you don't know) PZ Meyers has listed this page as his source in his latest article – http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/the_sh….

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      Yes, noticed that. I am keeping an eye on the server to see what effect PZ has. So far, so good.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/godfailblog godfailblog

      As a followup to this comment, PZ Meyers has published a new post which identifies a few more polls which people may want to check out. The new post can be be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/julia_

  • Danny

    I am impressed with how direct she was when answering the question, a lesser person would not have been so direct. She has sealed my vote.

  • Lawson Regan

    Cool, posting on facebook :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

    It's refreshing Gillard is frank and honest about her position without portraying the beliefs of others in a patronising tone (something I stuggle with ;P).

    I honestly don't think it should matter what a politician's personal beliefs on the existence of a god are – as long as they represent the whole country, their whole electorate and do so within the spirit and confines of the law. I'm all for keeping religion out of politics compeltely, call it a hardline secularist approach if you wish. The problem arises when someone, say Rudd, steps in and uses his power to overturn, deny or promote a viewpoint which is oppressive or unrepresentative of the diverse nation we have (eg denying homosexuals the right to marry, denying people the right to a dignified exit from this world, promoting Christianity with public funds in public schools, etc).

    Actually I might write about this for my blog, too many thoughts…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      I agree with you 110%, David.

      The personal beliefs and superstitions of a politician should not matter in the slightest. It is only when their weird theologies infringe on public policy that my concerns are raised. Australia is a secular society and must be run as such. No groups particular set of beliefs regarding walking dead, flying horses, aliens, spirits, ghosts, or gods should triumph over all others.

  • Jim

    It was very much on the cards as I noticed when she was sworn in, she took an affirmation. Good to get it confirmed though!

  • Just Visiting

    Nick Clegg (now deputy PM in the UK) mentioned his atheism during the election campaign and it seemed to do him no harm at all.

  • Pingback: Female Gay Atheist Prime Ministers « Just a Little Common Sense

  • kibbl

    Nick Clegg is leader of the third party in the UK, and is now deputy PM as part of a coalition. He is openly atheist (although his wife is raising their kids Catholic) and was so before the election in May – didn't get a great share of votes, but public opinion in the run-up (especially after TV debates with the other leaders) rated him incredibly highly.
    It wasn't seen as a massive deal in Britain, but I wonder whether it would affect the approval of the other parties more – Lib Dem voters tend to be young, liberal and educated, it might be less successful for the Conservative Party, who are more 'traditional' and have an older, conservative base.

    • Bob Trunkhouse

      Britain has many people who call themselves religious, but don't believe in any God. It's just that they were brought up that way. I view us as a pretty much secular nation, although of course we're not at all. Still, I'd say (based on no statistics) that no one in Britain cares about the religious convictions of our politicians (unless they're total crackpots) and if anything people would rather a politician were atheist than religious. Ironically it seems we keep religion and the state more separate than a number of younger nations. We're generally pretty liberal.

  • Rosita

    Thank goodness! It's wonderful to have the major representative of my country assert that it is possible to be good without believing in the existence of gods.

    The next step would be for her to restrict the teaching of ethics to the nation's school children, including the "ethics" in state-provided religious instruction classes, to those who test out on Kohlberg's moral maturity scale at Level 6 (top), or at least Level 5. These teachers should be as appropriately qualified as those who teach other subjects. The problem with the ethics taught by Australia's conservative religious groups, aka the ones who insert themselves into the public school systems, is that the morality they teach is stuck at Level Four or lower: morality by appeal to external authority. Australian children need to learn a more mature approach; this will best be done by teachers who can model it for them.

  • Erin

    Nick Clegg deputy Prime Minister of Britain http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/ar

  • grapho

    Refreshing.
    When PM Gillard mentioned her Baptist childhood she ironically invoked 1Corinthians 13 ….
    "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became adult, I put childish ways behind me"

    • Roobs

      Quoted out of context, ask for help with that before you quote scripture.

    • Lorysky

      Grapho..your scripture verse is somewhat out of context here. Paul was talking about that when one becomes mature then we tend to outgrow our childishness. So it says that we then become mature in Christ, who is our Savious and Lord, we can then live a full life doing good things and obeying Jesus who is God,
      not doing our own thing or whatever we want to do.

      Please don't desecrate the Holy Scriptures.
      Thank you.

  • Pingback: “Não acredito”

  • Pingback: Australia’s Heathen Prime Minister | Godless Blogger

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/phillydrifter phillydrifter

    FTFA: "I am unaware of any other current major political leader who has openly admitted their disbelief (are there any?)."

    There's a State Rep. in the US who's an atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/jmacg John MacGibbon

      I don't think New Zealand's current leader, John Key is a believer. His predecessor, Helen Clark, was openly atheist.

  • Titus

    Unfortunately she does not get my vote. As much as I believe that Julia is a decent person, this country needs Godly people to lead us in the right direction. People who are inspired by God and led by God with his wisdom.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      Inspired by god? LikePope Innocent the Third's cathartic actions against the heretics during the Spanish Inquisition perhaps?

      Given there are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone expressing wide ranging differences in theology, belief, and understanding, you will need to be very specific about how to identify god's inspiration and wisdom, and the methodology employed.

      Perhaps god, in his wisdom, has placed an atheist in charge of the country?

    • Joel

      like sarah palin who says we need "mass prayer" to fix the spill in the gulf? one day america will vote for an atheist president… that will be a good day.

    • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

      Titus, can I emplore you to make your vote on the basis of the policies and past records of the candidates in your electorate?

      Just because someone expresses a belief in a similar god as you does not automatically mean they share your values and desires for the future directions of your community and the country at large. I find a person's personal convictions about a god (or lackthereof) as irrelevant to the position, someone doesn't need to believe in god to protect the rights of the god-fearing and vice versa – their record is all you can operate with to judge their future behaviours and decisions.

      I find atheists saying, 'I'll vote for Julie because she is an atheist' as irresponsible as someone who says 'I'll vote for Abbott because he is a Christian'. I'm no fan of Labor and many of their policies but consider Abbott's past record (and current policy positions) in relation to the modern message Christianity promotes around social justice (eg assylum seekers). Furthermore, the majority of Labor politicians are still self-described Christians and do so while courting Christian voting blocks and lobby groups (such as the ACL). This has resulted in the extension of the School Chaplaincy program, the proposed internet filter and potentially influenced their inaction of a Human Rights Act.

      You would be making a big mistake if you were to assume one side of Australian politics is godless while the other is god-fearing.

      • Simon Njoo

        Good points well put. If only we were all able to reason through the fog of partisa politics & the myopia of religious dogma as you seem able to.

    • Tess

      Absolutely!! I 100% agree!!!!

    • Liz

      You know what I hate? Theists who think that if someone is an atheist then they have no moral values. Like because you don't believe in a magic invisible man in the sky who lives in an invisible magic kingdom, then you must like to kill babies and eat puppies in your spare time. Sorry that I don't believe in what some bronze-age, obsessive-compulsive schizophrenic living in a cave scribbled onto some papyrus several thousand years ago about the invisible sky-man with M-A-J-O-R anger/jealousy issues. I'll follow my own moral compass, thank you, and I'm sure so will Julia Gillard. I'm not Australian but if I was then I would be glad to be run by an atheist–provided I agreed with said individual's political platform.

      PS–You know what I also hate? Theists who search for atheist blogs, read atheist blogs, and then post "scathing" comments (which usually just turn out to be kind of funny) about how evil atheists are. Like, REALLY? Just WHO do you think is going to take you seriously, aside from other theists? I don't get it, and frankly it tends to turn the comments section into a giant flamewar, which isn't constructive at all.

    • diabz

      you're an idiot.

    • MMCG

      It's the one's who think that God is telling them to things that I worry about!

    • AveyOwyns

      I totlally agree…

  • Belle

    It is just incredible – Australia having a PM who does not believe in God. Where did she come from? The Apes? Can we trust our country and its policies to someone who will not make Godly choices?. I hope every person who believes in God will make a wise choice and make a Godly decision about choosing the next Prime Minister at the next Election because we have to know and be prepared that the Living God Most High is not going to bless the works of anyone who does not believe in Him! I call out to all Muslims, Christians, Hindus and every other person who believes in God to decide for yourself – will you vote for a woman who does not believe in God?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      Muslims, Jews, and Christians might believe in the same god, but in very different ways. Add in the thousands of denominations and you have an incredible array of tenants, rituals, beliefs, and theologies to try and reconcile. Each claims to be “the one true faith”, but how can you really tell?

      Hindus do not believe in the same god. Indeed they have many gods. Which one should they be taking advice from and why?

      According to your twisted and perverted world view, believing in ANY god is better than rejecting them due to the amazing lack of evidence they left behind to demonstrate their existence. Gods are man made. Figments of your vivid imagination.

    • Bellesadickhead

      I honestly thought this was a joke until halfway through reading the comment. Does Australia really have this many lunatics? I thought religious fanaticism in the developed worlds was limited to the USA. And maybe parts of Eastern Europe.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

        We have our fair share of whack-a-loons here in Australia, although it's sometimes hard to tell where these commentators live.

    • diabz

      you're an idiot too.

    • Jim

      I would rather be ruled by someone who bases their choices on reason, not someone who hears voices or talks to angels. Religion should stay well away from politics.

  • Trudy

    I would be very afraid to say "I do not believe in God!" These words when said are before the Most High who is Almighty God – lest we forget!

    He can bring each of us to our knees in our jiff and prove He is the Lord God. For all those who still stand against Him, let us be ready for Him to face us! I wouldn't want to be in their shoes!

    Remember King Nebuchanezer? He was standing on his balcony one day full of pride and said something like "All this is mine". Suddenly he was brought down and became both like a bird and beast and wandered in the forest for 7 yrs till he repented and subjected himself to God.

    Time will tell… the clock is ticking…. tick tock tick tock….

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      Any god that wishes you to live your life on your knees in servitude and worship does not deserve either. Thankfully there is no evidence any gods exist.

    • http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

      If I meet your God when I die, I'll be sure to ask him why he seems more like a petty, insecure iron age dictator than the all knowing, all powerful, all good, perfect creator of the universe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

      "He can bring each of us to our knees in our jiff and prove He is the Lord God"

      But he doesn't and this should be damning to the existence of such a being. God being omniscient, omnipotent and concerned about the welfare of our eternal souls (courtesy of having created heaven and hell) would not let atheism exist. 1 Tim 2:4 says says God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" and there are other passages which affirm faith is required for salvation (good works are not sufficient). Yet there are people like me (and millions of others) who do not know the truth, we view the claim to his existence as false. We look at the universe around us and with current scientific knowledge and philosophical thought find no need to think God exists. If your god existed, there wouldn't be any atheists because, caring about what happens to our souls, he would provide us with the evidence required to believe he exists. (Don't shout 'free will' back at me, since when has the provision of knowledge restricted free will? Your own scripture includes stories of people who knew of God's existence by direct contact and still disobeyed his orders and commands)

      The only clock we know is ticking is your own life. Who knows when it will end, but should it end soon I'd hope you didn't waste too much of it on your knees. I'm not inclined to say there is no god (mostly because sometimes people define 'god' out of relevance and knowledge, so for epistomological reasons I refuse to affirm contrary belief), but I am inclined to say there is no such being as the Christian God and your threaten us with a figment of your imagination.

    • Mick

      Trudy, you said:
      "Remember King Nebuchanezer? He was standing on his balcony one day full of pride and said something like "All this is mine". Suddenly he was brought down and became both like a bird and beast and wandered in the forest for 7 yrs till he repented and subjected himself to God.".

      Well let me ask you something… Why hasn't anything like that happened in our lifetime? Why did this type of magic only happen back when the Earth was flat?

      Here are some facts for ya:

      The Earth is round.

      King Nebuchanezer didn't turn into some sort of animal hybrid.

      The Easter bunny doesn't actually exist.

      Sorry…

      • Jamie Michelle

        Hey Mick, Gods Word says the world is a circle Isaiah 40:22 not flat. Alec King Nebuchanezer is a fact in recorded history bibical and secular. He was a very powerful King of Babylon reigning from 605-562 BC. Many of KN architectural feats have been excavated and the hanging gardens of Babylon have been partially restored. And yes the Easter bunny doesn't actually exist…kind regards x

    • diabz

      and you're straight up an even bigger idiot.

    • Alec

      King Nebuchanezer is a myth. He never existed.

    • Richard

      there is a difference between claiming yourself god and not believing in a god. When you take religion out of the equation facts surface much quicker. Also not believing in a God doesn't mean you are a righteous and upstanding person.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=695368200 Yared S. Afework

    I'm sure there are several atheist Swedish politicians.

  • mary r gillam

    Firstly the bible says God will not be mocked!! Secondly all these people that carry on about religion,have you read what Jesus thought about religion,He called them snakes ,hypocryte and vipers,all clean and shiny on the outside and filthy inside.Do you also realize they were the people who put Jesus on the cross.There is a vaste difference in religion and believing and having faith in God. I feel so sad to have a leader that doesn,t believe in God as they must be totally full of themselves,we,ll DO IT MY WAY!!!!Religion is man made and God hates it.I believe Australia will get what they deserve especially after what the faceless crew did to Kevin Rudd poor bloke really unaustralian. Pride came before his fall so goodness knows what will happen now.Time for Believers to rise up and pray like never before as it has more power than anything else.

    • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

      You say the bible says God will not be mocked… do you mean it is impossible for him to be mocked or that he won't tolerate it? I mock him and his very existence, if God exists as described in the bible he is immature, petty and quite honestly a pathetic excuse for a perfect creator (I can imagine a more perfect creator so therefore it must exist, lol). The bible is a litany of failures from a being who is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and perfect but can't even create a infinitely simpler being without screwing things up royally, time and time again.

      I'm more than familiar with the Jesus story and I think you're talking about what Jesus said of the traders and lenders in the temple (not the priests themselves, remember he was found talking with priests and theologians while 'going about his father's business' as a child when Mary and Joseph lost him for a few days, mwahah dumbasses). Honestly, the bible really could have done with an editor to smooth out the immense number of crappy plot lines, contradictions, under-developed characters, etc. Then again, if the bible was written today no one would publish it and the authors would be wheeled away to a padded room. Sorry, can't help but mock – it all seems so silly from my position sometimes and I really can't bring myself to take you (or your god) too seriously.

      There is a difference between religion and a belief in god – primarily that a religion is some form of organisation of ritual and authority based on a common belief in God. But just because someone believes in god they aren't necessarily going to belong to a particular religious organisation but they may identify with a particular theology (such as Christian theology).

      I'm curious why you think there is some humilty in decrying an atheist (because they must be arrogant to find the evidence for god's existence unconvincing) but you also seem to claim to know god's mind, will and desires. I can't honestly think of a more arrogant thought – that I know what god wants. Also, just because someone is an atheist it doesn't mean they will just do things their way and damn the consequences. In fact, one of the reasons Rudd (the god-fearing man) was booted was because, well, he did things his way and was not consultative enough.

      The faceless men of Labor are not faceless, anyone with half a brain in Australia should know Labor is built around unions who do in fact hold influence and power over how the party operates. However, ultimately the decision on who to lead the party is made by the caucus except no decision was required because Rudd didn't contend Gillard (he knew he'd lose).

      I fully support you and the rest of Australia's believers to pray, pray harder than ever. Do it until you can't pray no more, eat and sleep a little and start praying again. Meanwhile, the atheists of Australia will go about running and improving the country by actually doing things.

      Haha, god won't be mocked? If he won't tolerate being mocked he is doing an awfully good job of turning the other cheek, so good no one is even seeing him do it!

    • Bob Punkhouse

      I prayed for a toy car when I was little. Just one toy car. I never got it. Praying doesn't work. It has one huge flaw in it and that is that nobody is listening. You might as well try phoning God. Actually, you probably have tried that.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

        Steal it and ask for forgiveness. God works in mysterious ways.

      • http://www.facebook.com/NRParsons Nathan Parsons

        Do you happen to have God's phone number? It would go some way to establishing the existence of a being for which there is only REALLY shaky evidence for.

    • Mary Contrary

      SHUT THE FUCK UP.

      • Nathan Parsons

        That's not exactly a mature response. Perhaps you should try forming an actual argument instead of just swearing and offering nothing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/godlesspaladin godlesspaladin

    That's awesome! I just hope the US media is too busy talking about Hollywood to notice, or else Glenn Beck will be crying for an end to US/Australia relations. <facepalm>

    • Lorysky

      Well..i happen to like Glenn Beck very much and he's got lots of guts to say the truth. I wish people in Oz would listen to him about the history of the Socialist, Marxist, Communist parties way back then and how they
      have crept into our governments…like the tentacles of an octopus. Atheists, Socialists,Marxists,Communists,
      that sounds familiar of today's environment.

  • Katydid1957

    It sure doesn't take long for the religious right to weigh in with "thou must believe as I do". It is time for the atheists to come out of the closets- what are we afraid of? Oh, yes, the nut cases….

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/justmeint justmeint

    We have problems in Australia with those currently in power – those who share power and those who want to hold the power:

    The arrogant person ‘knows’ they are correct; ‘knows’ their opinions and views are the truth. They need no assistance from others; it is the other who needs assistance and direction from them.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/justmeint justmeint

    Those to whom much has been given sometimes suffer from arrogance; or rather the people around them suffer.

    Arrogance is doubly a pity, because the talents of the arrogant serve primarily themselves. The arrogant assumes their views and opinions are The Truth. In arrogance, natural confidence goes sadly awry.

    For a ruling political leader to declare publicly, that whilst they greatly respect other people’s religious views, they do not believe in God – even though “I grew up in the Christian church, a Christian background. I won prizes for catechism, for being able to remember Bible verses. I am steeped in that tradition, but I’ve made decisions in my adult life about my own views”, seems terribly arrogant indeed.

    Terribly arrogant and sad of Miss Gillard (Australia’s first female Prime Minister) to openly declare that she knows God – but she doesn’t need Him. But then again it begs asking if The Prime Minister personally KNOWS GOD or just knows ‘about’ Him’?
    http://www.successandfailure.net/blog/2010/07/02/

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      No. What is arrogant is claiming to know a god exists. A particular god. Claiming to know his mind, desires, and intentions. Claiming to know what is best for all people because an invisible sky daddy telepathically communicates to you when you eat his flesh and drink his blood. Ignoring all over points of view in this multicultural and secular society comprising people with extraordinary wide range of supernatural beliefs, or none at all. What's extraordinary is you think all of this is normal, and you have the right to impose your voodoo witchcraft on the rest of us.

      You want to believe in virgin births, mundane miracles, vicarious sacrifices, and telepathic cosmic zombie – be my guest. Just don't expect anyone else to, and certainly don't expect sane rational people to sit on the sidelines and keep their mouths shut any longer.

    • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

      "Terribly arrogant and sad of Miss Gillard (Australia’s first female Prime Minister) to openly declare that she knows God – but she doesn’t need Him. But then again it begs asking if The Prime Minister personally KNOWS GOD or just knows ‘about’ Him’? "

      I'm willing to bet she doesn't 'know' god (biblically or otherwise) and thus she doesn't believe he/she/it exists. Saying you don't believe in a deity isn't equal to saying you believe a particular deity doesn't exist. You need to learn to equivocate and not to extend an individual's position beyond the language and terms they have used.

      What I read into Gillard's language is that when she came of age she decided the reasons and evidence people propose for believing in god are not sufficient for her to feel confident in deciding to follow suit. I see this as a humble position, not just because it is one I share, but because in doing so she places herself at the mercy of logic and evidence and her own personal burden of proof.

      I find the claims people make on behalf of their god extremely arrogant. Imagine if your child was handling all of your affairs and relationships with others (shall we wait an see until someone claims one's Dad can beat up the others?). Except it is worse, because the god is generally defined as being all-knowing and all-powerful, imagine if a being of infinitely smaller capacity to know, learn, understand and foresee the consequences of their actions was pointing to it and saying 'I speak for him and I know what is right for everyone else'. Fantastically arrogant! In fact, I don't think a more arrogant claim can be made by a human. I don't care how humble the language religious leaders use – their very position exists out of an immense arrogance and certitude about the nature of reality, especially a nature of reality seemingly undetectable by our best tools for understanding reality.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/justmeint justmeint

    If you deny me in front of men…. I will deny you to my Father…….

    Julia needs to go back to her roots….

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      Way to avoid ALL of the points I raised. You have nothing, and are not worth wasting anymore time on.

    • fffff

      Just because you believe what you believe doesn't mean other people have to.

  • Pingback: Godless Business – 2.4 – Under the knife

  • diabz

    I came to this site to be amused, and boy I found it from the bible-bashing narrow-minded morons here. Much love for everyone who raised a point about the inadequacies of religion- let the reality revolution begin!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      If you had any powers of observation you would notice we do not just bash the bible – any stupidity is a valid target. There are articles and discussions here on Islam, Scientology, homeopathy, and other woowoo voodoo nonsense. Unless you can demonstrate Jebus is really “the son of god”, then why should anyone believe your fairy tales?

      • diabz

        Perhaps you should read this page before you criticise my powers of observation – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_thumper

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

          Gah! In my defense , it was 5am here when I read that. My brain must not have been working properly.

  • Pingback: Austrailia’s new PM is an atheist « Dating Jesus

  • jamie michelle

    I use to believe that God exists… now I know God exists!!! and it is a beautiful thing :) John 3:16

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

      I used to believe that Santa exists… now I know Santa exists, and it is a beautiful thing. See how absurd that is?

      How do you "know" that God exists? Can you provide irrefutable evidence?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      Killing your son is NOT an act of love. If your god did exist he would be a total dick.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/ollieography ollieography

    What is it with stupid, moronic, arrogant and utterly annoying religious trolls that like to come here and just talk utter crap? Have you really got time to do these things when you are usually down on your knees praying for eternal happiness from your imaginary friend in the sky?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      Shhhh – it's good for traffic.

  • Jamie Michelle

    Hey Nathan, had to smile when i read your reply…the postings remind me of high school debating assessment ha! The only thing that is absurd is inserting Santa into my admission of faith. I can ask how do you "know" that God dose not exist?? Can you provide irrefutable evidence?? (inquired with care & respect). I would love to encourage you with my thoughts, experiences and beliefs. Take from it what you will :).

    I have been a Christian for nearly six years and i can honestly say out of my heart of hearts, it has been the best decision I've made although it has not been easy at times. So that means in my life there was a period of time i was not Christian…so I've been on both sides of the coin so to speak.

    I have always naturally believed in God but it wasn't until i got born again that i have had a few spiritual encounters with the Lord that are undeniable (came as a total surprise!). Because of that i know Jesus is risen and Gods Word is truth. To be continued in following post…

  • Jamie Michelle

    Being born again simply means being born of the spirit of God which comes to take up residence inside of us (infusion of Gods spirit & ours, 2 Corinthians 5:17) when we accept/ask Jesus as Lord and Savior believing he died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected three days later.

    There is so much historical evidence secular and biblical for Jesus. He completely changed history like no other, so much so that human history date/time is divided because of his recorded birth and death BC/AD…such epic significance!

    The down side to following Jesus is you soon find out there is opposition. You may have guessed it…Satan and his cohorts trying to deceive and bring down humanity. I know this to be true not only from the Bible Ephesians 6:12 but from yet again personal experience. To be continued in following post…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

      BC/AD is sometimes not used, in fact BCE/CE is often used due to the secular, non-religious nature of it.

      Am I to believe that God exists because a Monk decided that in 525CE he'd used "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini"? Of course BC and AD are commonly used, Christians took over the world and used that notation, but increasingly, BCE and CE are used. I would consider it rather arbitrary that that year divide was chosen, if a different religion had had power, the date system would be different.

      Take for instance UNIX time; it counts the number of seconds since the start of 1970, and can be taken in a negative sense in which it reaches into the past. If you were to ignore the standard of it being a 32-bit binary value, and use instead a 64-bit binary string you could represent all of time (some 580 billion years is rather sufficient). My point is that an epoch is rather arbitrary and dependent on the views of the people at the time.

      The down side to following Jesus is you soon find out there is opposition. You may have guessed it…Satan and his cohorts trying to deceive and bring down humanity. I know this to be true not only from the Bible Ephesians 6:12 but from yet again personal experience.

      How do you know that Satan exists? What personal experience? Should other people really trust the personal experiences of others? People claim to have seen Big Foot, or the Loch Ness Monster, these people have had personal experiences , would you believe them without actual evidence? Could you be mistaken about this experience as you could have been about the ones mentioned earlier?

      • Jamie Michelle

        Hey Nathan, again we can pick apart the surface issues, but that is evading the core issue. The core issue is that something profoundly powerful happened that shook the whole wide world and still just as strongly reaches down through the halls of time to today and beyond. What, why, how, who and where is the question?? not whether or not you like it or agree with it…they are "choices".

        It is irrefutable fact that Jesus was a real person in time and space like you and me (historically recorded in my texts & many eye witnesses etc). If you were to insist that Jesus was not real then you would be saying also that Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate and Herod among others never lived. This is on the same level as some saying the Holocaust did not happen…out right wilful denial.

        Therefore that being established it all comes down to whether or not you believe Jesus claims about himself and God. That's the real root of the issue hey mate!!

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

          It is irrefutable fact that Jesus was a real person in time and space like you and me (historically recorded in [many] texts & many eye witnesses etc). If you were to insist that Jesus was not real then you would be saying also that Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate and Herod among others never lived. This is on the same level as some saying the Holocaust did not happen…out right wilful denial.

          Is it really irrefutable? The eye-witnesses would have died years before their account were written down, there are no Roman records of the existence of Jesus that I'm aware of, and what are these books you speak of? Are those books just the books of the Bible, and other bits of Biblical scripture?

          Why would not accepting the existence of Jesus mean that I would also reject the existence of Julius Caesar? How are the two connected? There is loads of evidence, from multiple sources, which attest to the existence of Julius Caesar; this evidence comes from the time when he was alive, from true eye-witness accounts, and as far as I am aware is not refuted by anyone. These is FAR more evidence for the existence of Caesar than for that of Jesus.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

            Is it really irrefutable?

            I wouldn't say irrefutable, but virtually no serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus – and for very good reason. In fact the synoptic accounts do fall within the first generation, and eye-witnesses would still have been alive. The earliest extant reference comes from only 20years later, and is almost certainly a creed that dates from earlier, probably from 35AD. That's all perfectly acceptable, if not early, in ancient terms. There's also Josephus, though one of his references has almost certainly been tampered with (the general consensus is that he said something about Jesus, and certainly about his brother James). Tacitus corroborates that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, and then there's the Jewish Talmud. Not to mention the fact that the very existence of the church is virtually inexplicable apart from an historic Jesus.

            Unfortunately I have to agree that Julius Caesar is not a comparable case – we have extant copies of his own diaries (though the number and dates of the manuscripts for these are far inferior to the NT manuscripts). Julius Caesar is very well attested, but there are many historical figures for whom no such strictly contemporary attestation exists – indeed, for whom lesser and later attestation exists than for Jesus. Were he secular, there would be no doubt – which indicates some obvious goal-shifting.

            That the NT documents were later collated into a volume we call 'The Bible' and that is revered as a sacred text is basically irrelevant to the issue of the historicity of Jesus – we ought to simply treat them as we would any other ancient document, and apply the same standards of multiple, independent attestation, embarrassing testimony and lack of competing account. F.F. Bruce argues that reliability is a state of mind, so if a writer is reliable in the details we can check then it is very likely they are also reliable in the details we cannot check – someone like Luke, for example has been shown in such checkable details to be reliable.
            As it stands, we have multiple, independent, early, attestation for Jesus from both canonical and non-canonical sources within the minimum two-generations it takes for an historical hard-core to be wiped out by legendary tendencies (such as we see in the later gnostics). Further, there is embarrassing detail and there is no competing account (when there were those trying to quell the movement, the easiest way would be to point out non-existence were it the case). Indeed, the extant reference to hostile polemic (from the Jewish leaders) only serves to corroborate the empty tomb!

            There really is no good reason to doubt the existence of Jesus, whatever else you might discount about the accounts and claims. It is very telling indeed that the only people to do so are those who have some kind of ant-theist prejudice and agenda (the agenda is obvious when one proceeds to discount so much textual attestation). It's almost as if they think that by denying his existence it saves the trouble of having to deal with his claims… could there be any truth in that?

      • Jamie Michelle

        Nathan i stuffed up in my previous post…I meant – historically recorded in many texts ok ha! ;)

        How do you know that Satan does not exist?? provide evidence please. Should people really trust the personal experiences of others you ask??…well that is a hard one because people do one of three things…lie, tell the truth or tell half truths. So with that in mind you can only treat my encounters as a testimony with one of the three in appliance. As a Christian i am charged to not lie/ bare false witness for that is wilfully engaging in sin.

        There is no mistake to what it was!! When you are in the presence of a malevolent manifestation you know/feel it's intentions are evil. Most of the time it radiates hostility, produces fear and has an encroaching eeriness about it (Christians have authority over such harassment 1 John 4:4 – greater is he that is in you) Definitely not a pleasant experience!!

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

          How do you know that Satan does not exist?? provide evidence please.

          I do not know that Satan does not exist, I do not believe in Satan because there is no evidence for his existence. I do not need to provide evidence against the existence of a being. Stop trying to shift the burden of evidence. You make a claim, you provide the evidence, otherwise, I will not accept that claim.

          It occurs to me that you are just avoiding giving any evidence; you do not have any evidence to support your claim, so you just say "well can you DISPROVE it?". It is not for me to disprove it, it is for YOU to prove it.

          Should people really trust the personal experiences of others you ask??…well that is a hard one because people do one of three things…lie, tell the truth or tell half truths. So with that in mind you can only treat my encounters as a testimony with one of the three in appliance. As a Christian i am charged to not lie/ bare false witness for that is wilfully engaging in sin.

          People can also say things which are neither true, nor lies. People can say something which they believe to be the case, despite the fact that it is in fact incorrect. You are clearly claiming not to be lying, I do not for a moment suggest that you are lying, but what I do suggest is that you are misinformed. I suggest that you had an experience which you perceived to have been supernatural because it fitted with your own world view. Until you can provide evidence, I shall maintain the belief that your experiences, and your conclusions, can be explained simply by natural phenomena and misinterpretation. The human mind is easily confused, and likes to find patterns, even where there are none.

          There is no mistake to what it was!! When you are in the presence of a malevolent manifestation you know/feel it's intentions are evil. Most of the time it radiates hostility, produces fear and has an encroaching eeriness about it (Christians have authority over such harassment 1 John 4:4 – greater is he that is in you) Definitely not a pleasant experience!!

          Again, misinterpreting events. You perceived them to be supernatural because it fit with your world view. Prove that it what you perceived and how you explained it was correct, or it's meaningless.

      • Jamie Michelle

        The devil + minions especially like to give Christians a hard time because they stand in truth and that is a threat. These principalities/hosts of wickedness love to fly under the radar in life, so behind to scenes they can run a muck. You know that saying – the devil's greatest trick is to have humanity believe there is no such thing…on par with the invisible pink unicorn, santa, tooth fairy, easter bunny etc ha ha ha…;)

        You know you could investigate this by tagging along on a mission trip deep into the Amazon with some missionaries. You'll experience some crazy spiritual stuff go on there with it's natives (said with all due respect to those amazing people groups).

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

          The devil + minions especially like to give Christians a hard time because they stand in truth and that is a threat. These principalities/hosts of wickedness love to fly under the radar in life, so behind to scenes they can run a muck.

          I'm basically going to sum up my response to this whole bit like so: prove it. Prove it all. Prove that the devil exists, prove that Christians are right.

          You know that saying – the devil's greatest trick is to have humanity believe there is no such thing…on par with the invisible pink unicorn, santa, tooth fairy, easter bunny etc ha ha ha…;)

          Are you saying that the IPU, Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, FSM, and every other being ever conceived of, exist?

          You know you could investigate this by tagging along on a mission trip deep into the Amazon with some missionaries. You'll experience some crazy spiritual stuff go on there with it's natives (said with all due respect to those amazing people groups).

          No, I would experience the use of hallucinogenic compounds, combined with chanting, dancing, and the experiences understood by the people in the predefined context of their culture.

  • Jamie Michelle

    Before i was a Christian and also when i was a new believer i witnessed some demonic manifestations occurring at night. No doubt to what it was. The spirit realm is very real and there is a kingdom of darkness and a kingdom of light.

    You see this activity prevalent in developing countries etc Africa & South America. The witch drs/shamans invoke these apparitions subjecting them selves/villagers mostly out of ignorance to spiritual oppression & bondage. God warns us strictly for our own good to stay away from any occult dabbling as it opens up spiritual doors Deuteronomy 18: 10-12. I guess what i am saying here is what is written in the Scriptures when you investigate is reflected in reality.

    God is spirit John 4:24 therefor you can not see him yet but the creator is evident in the beauty and complexity of his creation Romans 1:18-21. There are so many clues pointing to the Most High and for me the relationship has brought the sweetest peace, hope, joy, strength and anticipation for the future regardless of what happens in life. Faith is definitely a shield from the storm! To be continued in following post…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

      Before i was a Christian and also when i was a new believer i witnessed some demonic manifestations occurring at night. No doubt to what it was. The spirit realm is very real and there is a kingdom of darkness and a kingdom of light.

      How can you be sure that they were demonic manifestations? Do you have any evidence? Can you demonstrate that the spirit realm is real? Again, any evidence?

      From what I understand of shamanism it can be explained by hallucinations and expectations leading to placebo effects and misinterpretations. People can easily be convinced of things that they want to believe.

      I don't see any reason for the existence of God based on the complexity of life. The world that I live in requires no creator to explain it's existence, nor the contents of it. Why do you consider it evident? Why must it be the creator that you believe in? Why the Christian God?

      I see none of these clues of which you speak. Vague texts written decades (even centuries) after the fact and translated dozens of times? Natural phenomena that can be explained quite elegantly with scientific reasoning?

      • Jamie Michelle

        If i were to demonstrate that would mean i have omnipotent authority. Being able to snap my fingers and make them/it appear at my command being subjected to my wishes…that would make me God. Keep searching the truth is out there my friend.

        Again you are "choosing" not to see any reason for the existence of God based on the complexity of life. Knowledge in support of the existence of God has increased in recent years. According to atheists science is supposed to get rid of the gaps, so there is no longer any room for a "God of the gaps". With saying that…science is just the exploration of Gods work anyway.

        Evident because something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing and also be very orderly (low entropy) without independent cause/intention. The complexity is pervaded with design and purpose…

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

          If i were to demonstrate that would mean i have omnipotent authority. Being able to snap my fingers and make them/it appear at my command being subjected to my wishes…that would make me God. Keep searching the truth is out there my friend.

          I take it that you have no evidence then. How can you make a claim based on no evidence? Your whole concept of a spirit realm seems based on nothing.

          Again you are "choosing" not to see any reason for the existence of God based on the complexity of life.

          Again, you are "choosing" to see a reason for the existence of God. Your theory requires the existence of an apparently non-existent supernatural entity, mine requires natural, documented phenomena. Which seems more likely?

          Knowledge in support of the existence of God has increased in recent years.

          Has it? I'm yet to see any evidence in support of the existence of God.

          According to atheists science is supposed to get rid of the gaps, so there is no longer any room for a "God of the gaps". With saying that…science is just the exploration of Gods work anyway.

          Science is the study of nature, of reality. Science searches for the answers to questions, find a phenomenon, hypothesises, tests, retests, and then comes to conclusions. The gaps are the gaps in our knowledge. The "God of the gaps" is the theists attempt to argue that what we don't know, we can't know. God is thrust into the gaps of our knowledge by theists, who just say that something is as it is because that's how God made it and that's how God wants it. The God of the gaps is based on a lack of knowledge, science is the pursuit of knowledge, and fills the gaps in our knowledge with knowledge and not wild, unsupported claims.

          Evident because something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing and also be very orderly (low entropy) without independent cause/intention. The complexity is pervaded with design and purpose…

          There are many theories regarding the origins of our universe, but we simply do not know what the answer is. Science does not make claims without evidence, and we are still searching for this evidence. Science therefore makes no claim to have the entire truth on the matter, unlike religion, which claims, without evidence, to have all of the answers.

          There is a high level of entropy in the universe, and it is always increasing (second law of thermodynamics), and it has been increasing for the 13 billion years since the beginning of this universe.

          As for everything from nothing, science does not claim that everything came from nothing, religion however, does. If God made everything, what did he make it from? For there to be something now, all that is required is that there was something before; it has even been suggested that energy can be borrowed from the future, and formed into particles. There have been experiments which show that particles are constantly created within a vacuum and are annihilated. Because energy is released when they annihilate, the energy is there to be borrowed, even if we do not know how this can happen. I am not claiming that this is how it happened, but it is possible. Another theory has membranes which collide, and a "big bang" occurs during the collision and a universe is spawned. Basically, we do not know, but just because science does not know, and religion claims to know, it does not mean that religion is right.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

            Science is the study of nature, of reality.

            Yes, science is the study of the natural, material universe, but it is begging the question to suggest that this is the totality of reality (that would the philosophical position of Scientism).

      • Jamie Michelle

        Hey Nathan, why the Christian God?? The worlds major religions agree about some of there surface teachings but get to the core and they are radically contradictory.
        Buddhism – Buddha was agnostic. A major strain of Buddhism does not believe that anything exists much less God.
        Hinduism – say there are millions of Gods.
        Islam – say there is one God and it is evil to believe that God is trinity and Jesus was the Son of God.
        Judaism – say Jesus is not the Messiah and they are eagerly awaiting the Messiah to this day.
        Christianity – say Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. It is the most important claim.

      • Jamie Michelle

        With the differences on display you can conclude that they all can't be right…but they could all be wrong because they contradict one another? right? The nature of truth is exclusive not inclusive…under no circumstances can they all be right. The way to any truth is narrow and often specific.

        So with that said the reason i "choose" to place my trust in Jesus apart from the spiritual experiences is because Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life…no one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6 along with others. No one else in history has claimed to be the Son of God (God incarnate) and done & said what he did. He was either proclaiming the truth or deliberately deceiving people or a mad man.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

          Ok, so Jesus made some claims, you choose to believe them, consequently you use your experiences to support your idea. Mohammed made some claims too. All religions make claims. Why don't you believe those claims, but believe the claims of Christianity? What about your experiences actually supports your belief in Christianity?

      • Jamie Michelle

        You are "choosing" not to see/acknowledge the clues. You make reference to vague texts written decades (even centuries – i think that is false) after the fact and translated dozens of times. You are "choosing" to minimise it, trivialize it…trying to down play the validity. The Bible names people, places and dates in remarkable detail. If you were to interview lots of qualified historians which don't have religious bias, they will inform you that the Bible is a most reliable text.

        Human minds are finite, flawed and not omniscient therefore scientific reasoning can be flawed. How many times has science concluded something and then in twenty or so years time it is revised as wrong/theory changed?? Knowledge and understanding is increasing at an enormous rate hey!

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

          How many times has science concluded something and then in twenty or so years time it is revised as wrong/theory changed?? Knowledge and understanding is increasing at an enormous rate hey!

          Many, and that is the point of science, it is the search for knowledge, and fallible humans will inevitably form incorrect theories. The main concepts however, do not change. The orbits of planets still obey the laws of Newton and Kepler, and also of Einstein. Relativity is demonstrated time and time again. Darwinian evolution is fundamentally the same as it was 150 years ago. The main elements rarely change, but sometimes evidence is found which does not fit with current theory, and so theories are either modified or rewritten to incorporate this new evidence. New predictions are made and tested, and the theory becomes accepted only if it stands up to tests.

          In stark contrast, religion has barely changed, not through lack of contradictory evidence, but rather because of the arrogant view that religion is correct, and can never be wrong. Religion does not evolve, it does not change, and it is not reconciled with evidence. Religion is not based upon evidence, so how good of a claim is it? Would you accept a scientific theory not based on evidence but rather the whimsically utterances of a man?

    • Jamie Michelle

      Nathan i try to convey truth in love, caring about others feelings. I have to be honest and say that i find the atheist world view to be void of meaning (said with respect). Humanity is to significant!! Unbelief has nothing to offer because if there is no God then we are all trapped in a world filled with senseless and irredeemable suffering with absolutely no hope of deliverance from evil. For the Christian there is hope and meaning for the future because life doesn't end in the grave.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

        Does one require an external meaning to one's life for it to be meaningful? I have but a few decades on this Earth in which to accomplish what I choose to accomplish; I decide what I do, and that is reason enough. I have my own ambitions, and those are my reasons to live.

        Humanity is insignificant. When you consider the scale of the universe, we are totally insignificant. We occupy a negligible space for a negligible length of time.

        For the Christian there is hope and meaning for the future because life doesn't end in the grave.

        I disagree with you there, even assuming the existence of Heaven, what meaning is there? What hope is there?

  • Jamie Michelle

    Ok if you disregard or mock all that i have typed, know this…God loves you (and everyone that has posted there two cents worth) so deeply and profoundly, you the apple of his eye, the crown of his creation, the desire of his heart/being and he longs for you to come home and be safe with him in abundance and spectacular glory Prodigal Son Luke 15: 11-32.

    God knows all your hurts, disappointments, stresses, struggles, fears and frustrations in this world…he loves you, he cares! He cares so much that the God of creation came and laid his life down for you. Jesus endured mocking, false accusations, harassment, rejection, hatred, public humiliation, spat on, physical abuse, betrayal, desertion, flogged to the brink, tortured with the crown of thorns pushed on his head and finally died a cruel death on the cross.

    All because you are precious and worth it (think LÓreal ad ha!) to him and the Lord would give up anything to get his wayward family back. How great is Gods love!!! Sorry for the length, hope this has given some clarity and insight, kind regards x

    • Nathan_Parsons

      God loves you

      First, prove that God exists. Second, prove that he loves me. Until you can do those two things, your statement is meaningless.

      You make a lot of claims, none of which can be backed up with hard evidence. The last three paragraphs of your comment are utterly meaningless unless you can prove the existence of God, and then that the attributes and motivations which you apply to this God are accurate.

      I could tell you that the Invisible Pink Unicorn loves you, does that mean anything? Is it likely to be an accurate representation of the feelings of a being for which there is no real evidence?

      • Jamie Michelle

        Hey Nathan here we are again :) ;) :)…I can say the same to you first prove God does not exist and that he does not love you. Until you can do those things, your statement that it is meaningless is by "choice" alone. Those are not my claims but God's relayed in my words (great news hey!), of which you can not back with hard evidence for them not being true. Again you are "choosing" for them to be utterly meaningless. The attributes and motivations are accurate of God…invest time in your Bible.

        You say – I could tell you that the invisible pink unicorn loves you, does that mean anything?? Ok did the invisible pink unicorn, Santa, tooth fairy, Easter bunny etc exist in real space and time impacting society, seen by heaps of eye witnesses over his 33 year physical life, have his life & death recorded, cause a revolution, bring moral upgrade, have apostles 11 out 12 were martyred while spreading message to the four corners and wrote epistles, proclaimed he died for our sins, ushered in a new covenant between God and humanity etc among other things??

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

          You cannot say the same to me. The burden of proof lies with you. You claim that God exists, prove it. You claim that God loves me, prove it. I do not accept your claims due to a lack of evidence; my position does not require evidence which disproves your claim, only a lack of evidence for your claim.

          There is an invisible dragon which lives in my garage. The dragon is undetectable to science and cannot be detected using the scientific method, and only I know that it is there. I have seen it, and I have spoken to it, and it told me everything that I know about it.

          Who should prove such a claim as I have just create above? Should I prove it because I am making the claim? Should you accept it merely because you cannot disprove my claim? My hypothetical claim is ridiculous, but no different to any theological claim. I could even go as far as to say that the dragon has certain powers, and that it created the universe. I could write a book and claim that the dragon wrote it through me. I could make all manner of claims for which there is no evidence, and yet my claim would be just as valid as any other claim for the existence of a deity.

          You say – I could tell you that the invisible pink unicorn loves you, does that mean anything?? Ok did the invisible pink unicorn, Santa, tooth fairy, Easter bunny etc exist in real space and time impacting society, seen by heaps of eye witnesses over his 33 year physical life, have his life & death recorded, cause a revolution, bring moral upgrade, have apostles 11 out 12 were martyred while spreading message to the four corners and wrote epistles, proclaimed he died for our sins, ushered in a new covenant between God and humanity etc among other things??

          Did God? What of Mohammed? What of the myriad other theological claims?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

            My hypothetical claim is ridiculous, but no different to any theological claim. I could even go as far as to say that the dragon has certain powers, and that it created the universe.

            Well, not quite. Your invisible dragon is, according to your story, in existence within the universe – which makes one wonder how it could create the universe it resides in.. self-lifting bootstraps anyone? The classical understanding of God, however, is that he exists outside of the universe (which is why science can have nothing to say about his existence in that sense, btw.).

            I do agree, however, that asking to prove God doesn't exist is invalid – you can only prove a negative when you have complete access to the scope of the claim (e.g. I can prove that there is no money in my wallet) but without having knowledge of the whole universe, let alone, of outside the universe, it is virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist there.

          • http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

            Do you also believe God is omnipresent?

          • AndrewFinden

            Yes, but that doesn't mean God is physically present – I should perhaps have been more clear (but thanks for picking me up on that!): God's existence is not in the physical universe. As one commentator says about omnipresence: "This is not to say that God's form is spread out so that parts of Him exist in every location. God is spirit; He has no physical form. " I suppose Nathan might suggest that his dragon has no physical form (in which sense is he a dragon then?), though that does lead us to ask how he could see it.
            You would have as much trouble scientifically locating my spirit which is within the universe (but not physically) because science, by definition, deals with the physical universe – to see such a limit is no insult to it. But it is also no reason to think that only what science can measure is reality – that would be somewhat circular.
            If you want to suggest that there's no such thing as 'spirit', well, that's a philosophical assumption you're welcome to have, but that I'm not forced to share.

    • Jamie Michelle

      If you subscribe to honesty you know the answer is NO! :) So this comparison although funny is not on the same level and has no merit what so ever…Much love to you for making me laugh and trying to come up with a valid point :)

      You and me were meant to be walking free in harmony and one fine day it's going to happen so lets hold out for something sweeter John 10:10 cheers! with love xx

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

        If you subscribe to honesty you know the answer is NO! :) So this comparison although funny is not on the same level and has no merit what so ever…Much love to you for making me laugh and trying to come up with a valid point :)

        I have a valid point. The level of evidence is the same, and yet I cannot make such a claim in any serious sense. That is my point.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

    I do not know, and nor do I claim, that no supernatural being or beings exist. I do not BELIEVE in God. I take the position of an agnostic atheist. I see no real evidence for the existence of any supernatural being and as such I reject claims of their existence pending irrefutable, or at the very least tentative, evidence, although the latter would not make me believe.

    i have had a few spiritual encounters with the Lord that are undeniable

    Can you prove that this is the case? Are they truly undeniable, or do you just accept them with the Christian explanation? Could they be explained by other hypotheses? Please feel free to provide details of these supposed encounters.

    • Jamie Michelle

      Hey Nathan and hello to all atheistic lovelies :) Nathan you say i see no real evidence of the existence of any supernatural being and as such you reject claims of their existence pending irrefutable. Well…again prove that there is no real evidence to me. You can not prove that there is neither God nor no real evidence.

      So an accurate discernment of your statement is…you "choose"not to believe. Therefore it is just as bigger leap of faith (i believe more) not to believe as it is to believe. I will address the real underlying issue people "choose" not to believe for all types of reasons. Human beings love there sin to much (we all struggle) so they raise there objections because they don't want to be confronted and change.

      So it is convenient to say "i don't believe" and ignore/negate God and his protective boundaries. I know this is ringing true! A lot of sin is pleasurable/addictive for a while but as time passes the damage to your life shows up. Eg doing drugs.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

        Well…again prove that there is no real evidence to me. You can not prove that there is neither God nor no real evidence.

        Prove that there is no evidence for the existence of the dragon which lives in my garage. If I were to claim that there is a dragon in my garage, I would have to prove it, I would have to provide evidence, I would have to demonstrate it to be a truth that the dragon exists, and that it lives in my garage. The burden of proof in the case of the dragon lies with me, but in the case of God, it lies with you.

        I cannot prove the non-existence of anything. Can you?

        So an accurate discernment of your statement is…you "choose"not to believe. Therefore it is just as bigger leap of faith (i believe more) not to believe as it is to believe. I will address the real underlying issue people "choose" not to believe for all types of reasons. Human beings love there sin to much (we all struggle) so they raise there objections because they don't want to be confronted and change.

        I am an agnostic atheist. My position requires no faith. I see no evidence for the claims, ergo I do not believe them. There is little choice about it; I cannot believe in anything without evidence, it would be an arrogant thing to do. My lack of belief in God is based solely on a lack of evidence, not upon any wish to "sin".

        So it is convenient to say "i don't believe" and ignore/negate God and his protective boundaries. I know this is ringing true! A lot of sin is pleasurable/addictive for a while but as time passes the damage to your life shows up. Eg doing drugs.

        Do you consider atheists to be amoral? Do you seriously consider us to reject the idea of God, not for lack of evidence, but so that we can sin?

    • Jamie Michelle

      There are good and bad consequences to choices, words and actions. This is one of Gods irrevocable principles at work here eg reap what you sow. I believe people know the truth when they hear it!! They "choose" to turn away. This is having God on our terms not on his terms. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink hey. The test of time will tell. If you don't stand for something you will fall for everything.

      My spiritual encounters with the Lord – can you prove that this is not the case?? Yes they are truly undeniable, transformation and your faith goes to all new levels!! They come into aliment with the Christian world view because that is the truth of the matter. Explained by other hypotheses you ask – No, that would be entering into error :).

      Would love to share details of encounters, there's a lot to tell. Because it would take up heaps of space here, i have condensed it to spiritual encounters. You have only got my word…willful deception is a reprehensible thing to do…take it into account or leave it :).

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

        I believe people know the truth when they hear it!! They "choose" to turn away. This is having God on our terms not on his terms. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink hey. The test of time will tell. If you don't stand for something you will fall for everything.

        Well, I only believe things when there is evidence for them. If it is a truthful claim based upon knowledge, there should be evidence for it.

        My spiritual encounters with the Lord – can you prove that this is not the case?? Yes they are truly undeniable, transformation and your faith goes to all new levels!! They come into aliment with the Christian world view because that is the truth of the matter. Explained by other hypotheses you ask – No, that would be entering into error :).

        If they are truly undeniable, prove it. Why would it be wrong to explain them via other hypotheses? I suggest that it is because you need evidence to support your claim, and however tenuous the evidence may be, you choose to accept it and make it fit with your world view to support a claim which you choose to believe despite a great lack of evidence.

        Would love to share details of encounters, there's a lot to tell. Because it would take up heaps of space here, i have condensed it to spiritual encounters.

        A few examples would be enough; it would be far better to have details of even one such experience that to merely group the whole lot into two words.

        You have only got my word…willful deception is a reprehensible thing to do…take it into account or leave it :).

        You needn't be lying to be wrong. I cannot simply accept someone's word that they have had what they perceive to have been "spiritual encounters" as any kind of evidence of the super natural, without great detail. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; simply saying it is so is meaningless.

    • Jamie Michelle

      Ask yourself this question – why would i "choose" to be Christian when i did not come from a Christ centred family. I could have gone down a lot of other paths and i did for a while…So something profound must of happened to inspire me to follow Jesus. People do not change with out strong reasons to convict and motivate them.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

        Ask yourself this question – why would i "choose" to be Christian when i did not come from a Christ centred family. I could have gone down a lot of other paths and i did for a while…So something profound must of happened to inspire me to follow Jesus. People do not change with out strong reasons to convict and motivate them.

        You had what you perceived to be spiritual encounters, you then applied the religion most well known to you in order to explain them. Why are you not a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Pagan? Why did you not attribute these experiences to the power of Thor, Zeus, Vishnu, or any of the myriad Gods of the myriad religions of this world?

        Ask any child of a Western family whether or not Santa exists. The answer that you will receive is that he does. These children could no convince an adult of the existence of Santa simply by saying that because they believe, so should the adult. Just because one person is convinced of something, it does not mean that anyone else should consider their claim to be correct without significant evidence.

        I put it to you that you believe because you WANT to believe. You want to believe God, in the Christian God in particular, and so you take tenuous evidence and make it fit with what you want to believe.

  • Jamie Michelle

    Hey Nathen, great questions…from them i know you are searching as you throw out the challenge to believers. A person who is rock solid and secure in there belief that there is no God is indifferent/apathy…he/she dose not care or waste time thinking/debating it…it's a non event. They rather fill there day/life with everything else but God :). Apathy – the worst state, Questions – your half way there, Faith – surrender/relationship/come into the possession of the knowledge of God.

    The best way to address all of this is to go back to basics. By this i mean have you read the Bible completely from start to finish not missing a word?? honestly! If not you are coming from a position of ignorance (no offence or disrespect intended ok said in love) It's a long stretch of reading but worth it.

    The best way to read it is to start with the NT first and then the OT. From that point you are in an informed position to confidently receive it or reject it or realize your not shore yet…pending – more investigation and soul searching needed. To be continued in following post…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      A person who is rock solid and secure in there belief that there is no God is indifferent/apathy

      I don't think you find anyone here you is "rock solid and secure in their unbelief". The vast majority of atheists are open to evidence and reason, but see no reason to adopt your ideas given the lack of either.

      The Bible has many fantastic stories, but that is all they are without evidence to back them. You seem to be basing your life on a book of fables.

  • Jamie Michelle

    I understand your position as an agnostic atheist being you do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because you do not claim to know that a deity does not exist. So in order to understand where I'm coming from, you'll have to read the Bible in it's entirety.

    Also please look up Scripture quotes in my statements so you can make the connection. I will get to your queries raised in the previous posts very soon OK. I enjoy your openness, honesty and heart felt enthusiasm for this very important topic…and always kind regards x

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nathan_Parsons Nathan_Parsons

      Questions – your half way there, Faith – surrender/relationship/come into the possession of the knowledge of God.

      Half way to what exactly?

      The best way to address all of this is to go back to basics. By this i mean have you read the Bible completely from start to finish not missing a word?? honestly! If not you are coming from a position of ignorance (no offence or disrespect intended ok said in love) It's a long stretch of reading but worth it.

      I have actually read parts of the Bible and the parts that I read gave me no inclination to read the rest. Without evidence for the existence of God, and the Christian God in particular, the Bible is merely an incoherent, inconsistent piece of fiction.

      I understand your position as an agnostic atheist being you do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because you do not claim to know that a deity does not exist. So in order to understand where I'm coming from, you'll have to read the Bible in it's entirety.

      You seem to take a position of gnostic theism; you have a belief in a deity and you claim this belief to be correct. Your position is impossible to defend without evidence. I look forward to seeing the evidence.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      So in order to understand where I'm coming from, you'll have to read the Bible in it's entirety.

      I have read the Bible from cover to cover. It's one of the things that made me lose my faith. What now?

    • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

      I read the bible (I did skip the begats, wtf is with them?) and I fail to see how this illuminates your position.

      If your intention is to point to the bible in order to justify your belief in the Christian God then you need to justify the bible's authority and it better not involve appealing to the existence of the god in question.

      But I will let you do so by appealing to the existence of some other god – that would be amusing ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=711876528 Simon Walkden

    The current prime minister of New Zealand, John Key; along with the former prime minister, Helen Clark, are both open about their atheism

  • Nathan Parsons

    @AndrewFinden
    My mobile won’t let of reply to the actual comment, so I will have to post this as a new reply.

    It it simple to solve: the dragon is only appearing in this universe. Why can you have Jesus in the universe, and I not the dragon?

    Actually, why must my dragon be limited by what you say that God can and can’t do?

    • Jamie Michelle

      Hey Nathan, you can add your dragon to the list that i asked you in this question previously…

      You say – I could tell you that the invisible pink unicorn loves you, does that mean anything? And I replied ok did the invisible pink unicorn, Santa, tooth fairy, Easter bunny etc exist in real space and time impacting society, seen by heaps of eye witnesses over his 33 year physical life, have his life & death recorded, cause a revolution, bring moral upgrade, have apostles 11 out of 12 were martyred while spreading message to the four corners and wrote epistles, proclaimed he died for our sins, ushered in a new covenant between God and humanity etc among other things??

      For your dragon to be competing in the same league you need to explain all of the above away :)…kind regards xx

      • Nathan Parsons

        My hypothetical claim was that I had personally seen the dragon and spoken with it. My account is first hand, and not written down decades later in a form likely not to have been identical to the original events. Further, you claim to have had experiences with God and felt his presence, surely seeing something and talking to it is better than just a feeling?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

          Presumably you're implying the Humist idea that it's more reasonable to assume that you're either lying or confused?
          The problem with weighing up evidence in hypotheticals is that the evidence is almost always stacked and changed on a whim ;)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

      Why can you have Jesus in the universe, and I not the dragon?

      Well you weren't comparing the dragon to Jesus – let alone specifically to his physical incarnation.

      why must my dragon be limited by what you say that God can and can't do?

      I never said it was – but you were making an analogous comparison, were you not? If you want to suggest that your invisble dragon can create the universe whilst residing entirely within a very small part of that universe, go ahead.. doesn't make any sense..feel free to suggest self-lifting bootstraps while you're at it (though in fairness, some naturalist physicists do try that, so you wouldn't be the first ;P )

      • Nathan Parsons

        I see your point and I feel that fatigue may have led me away from the point of my analogy. However, I actually said nothing as to whether or not the dragon actually lived outside of the universe, or his nature inside of the universe, but I shall except that I failed to mention it and that I probably should have.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AndrewFinden AndrewFinden

    No worries.. though I am intrigued: I suppose it could be that your garage is not in this universe, which would only lead me to ask what kind of ride you have! ;)

  • Jamie Michelle

    Hey Nathan, got to wonder why in your analogy the invisible dragon has only revealed himself to you and not gone public?? what's the pay off in that?? ta! xx

    • Nathan_Parsons

      I feel that you are missing the point of the analogy quite considerably. Why can you make claims such as this and expect people to accept it, whilst yourself not accepting my claim?

  • Billy

    Mark Twain said once ' to believe in God is the question!
    I would rather believe and if I am wrong I have lost nothing. than not believe and be wrong and lose everything including my soul'
    interesting thought
    Billy

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

      It's also called "Pascal's wager" and it's the worst argument for believing in a god ever devised.

      • Nathan_Parsons

        I thought that the Creation Museum owned that title?

    • Jamie Michelle

      Hey askegg, "it's the worst argument for believing in a God ever devised" is of course a stacked opinion…Why is it when unbelievers are young they are so defiant and as they grow old having gone through many trails/losses/life lessons and the reality of suffering in this fallen world that they finally come to God?? Why is it that you see unbelievers suddenly jump ship near the end of their life or death bed?? Also why is it that believers don't suddenly jump ship to atheism at deaths door?? Perhaps repentance and faith covers the bases (insurance). Everyone knows they have done things wrong in this life and God is faithful to forgive when we come to Him sincerely 1 John 1:9. The thief on the cross jumped ship at the end of his physical life. God is waiting with arms wide open!! Cheers xx ;)

      • http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

        Do they jump ship? Do you have any statistics or studies to show that a significant portion of non-theists convert later in life as opposed to theists deconverting? If so, what is the reason for the conversion? Is it a sincere change, or are they just cowardly hedging their bets?

        Or is it just anecdotes and wishful thinking on your part?

        Pascal's Wager makes a number of mistakes. It assumes that people can choose what their beliefs are. They can't. People's beliefs are based on what they are convinced of. The will has nothing to do with it.

        Which god or gods do I choose? There are thousands to choose from. If I pick Christianity, which denomination? There are about 38,000 denominations in the world, with a wide variety of theologies and plans for salvation. Pascal was a Catholic. Many Protestants think Catholics go to hell. Some Christians think hell doesn't exist. Some Christians think people of other religious faiths and atheists can go to heaven if they are good people.

        If an all-good, all-knowing god exists, he will know who I am better than I do. He will know why I don't believe. He will know that I tried to live a good life; that I did what i could to leave the world a better place. If he is just, I have nothing to worry about.

        A god who demands worship over works, and punishes those who do not worship him with eternal torment is a tyrant the likes of which Kim Jong Il cannot even imagine is his wet dreams. I am a finite, imperfect being. A "perfect" being who punishes his imperfect creation for not being perfect and not worshiping him is absurd. I can't take your God seriously. If he is real, I weep for humanity.

    • http://twitter.com/WatcherMastema @WatcherMastema

      He also had this to say on the matter:

      "I believe in God the Almighty.

      I do not believe He has ever sent a message to man by anybody, or delivered one to him by word of mouth, or made Himself visible to mortal eyes at any time in any place.

      I believe that the Old and New Testaments were imagined and written by man, and that no line in them was authorized by God, much less inspired by Him.

      I think the goodness, the justice, and the mercy of God are manifested in His works: I perceive that they are manifested toward me in this life; the logical conclusion is that they will be manifested toward me in the life to come, if there should be one."

      It will be interesting to see what comes out in his full auto-biography, as he kept some of his opinions on this subject (among others) private. He most certainly was not a Christian, so according to some Christians, I'll get to meet him in hell. Hell will have much more interesting people in it. I'll take Mark Twain and John Lennon over Jeffrey Dahmer and George W Bush any day.

  • Pingback: August 12th, 2010 « The Valentine Yeti

  • John Butler

    I expect only Americans will care whether Julia Gillard's an atheist, and (I hope) their opinion doesn't matter in Australia. Neither does mine, as an Englishman living in Canada, but I'm delighted that Australians were mature enough to have a candidate who was unmarried and not "God-fearing." I wish I could have voted for someone like that in either of the two countries of which I am a citizen. Note that Bush/ Blair, who gave us the Iraq quagmire, were both very religious men. Could be no connection, but there you are.

  • masealake

    Will Julia Gillard’s re-elected Labor Party government fixed voters voices, pains and crying?

    The historical hung parliament demonstrated deep in voter’s heart a fixed must to carry on in vision and action immediately:

    Voters’ voices do not hear?
    Voters’ pains do not ease?
    Voters’ cries do not care?

    1.Poverty will not be phase out if no fairer resources to share;
    2.Illness will not be reducing if no preventive measurement in real action;
    3.Agriculture will not be revitalize if urbanization continuing its path;
    4.Housing affordability will not be reach for young generation if government continues cashing from young generation debt by eating out the whole cake of education export revenue without plough back;
    5.Manufacture industry will shrink smaller and smaller if no new elements there to power up to survive;
    6.Employability will not in the sustainable mode for so long as manufacture and agriculture not going to boost.

    Ma kee wai
    (Member of Inventor Association Queensland since 1993)

  • masealake

    Who must learn from Australia election 2010?

    The Australia historical hung parliament demonstrated the big gap of inequality society between the small educated elite groups who get highest pay by talk feast used mouth work controlling live essential resources of the country in every social platforms against the biggest less educated groups who get lowest pay by hands work squeezed by discriminative policies that sucking live blood from poor/less wealth off?

    Voters’ voices do not hear?
    Voters’ pains do not ease?
    Voters’ cries do not care?

    Ma kee wai
    (Member of Inventor Association Queensland since 1993)

  • Davester

    If she don't believe in god, then what she believe in? Satan? World goverment? Black alliance?

    • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

      What do you believe in if you do not believe in Vishnu, Shiva, Zeus, Apollo, or Thor?

      There is no requirement to believe in anything else.

      • http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

        Invisible Pink Unicorns FTW!

      • Blessed

        God created all things good, and gave mankind free will…a choice to LOVE and worship Him.  We abused this freedom, and the consequence of our sin is our current fallen world.  We all deserve eternal separation from Him, yet His love is so awesome that He humbled himself by entering this fallen world in human form to show us perfect love and to provide the only way for our reconciliation to Him.  We ALL have a void inside us that only He can fill.  Some search for an answer to the emptiness in religion, but religious acts and rituals are never adequate.  Others attempt to fill the void with alcohol, money, power, drugs, work.  We all worship someone or something-even if it is ourselves.  These things will never fill us!  Only when we realize that we are broken and cry out to our Creator, admit our brokenness, and accept His gift of a Savior-Jesus-will we ever be whole.  I pray that you realize His great love for YOU.        

        • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

          If god created mankind, then he also created evil.  In fact, according to the myth, he sent down the original sinner as a serpent into paradise to tempt his innocent and ignorant creations.  Then he damns the talking snake to a) walk on his belly, or b) into Hell (can’t be sure which, maybe both), AND curses all humanity for the rest of time.  He also throw you into Hell if you don’t believe this fantasy. Seems like a reasonable deity to worship, don’t you think?

  • Ted Radford

    Christians in politics is Blasphemy. If you call yourself a true Christian you should have nothing at all to do with politics. A true Christian has Jesus as their King. To vote in earthly elections and to get involved in politics is actually treason against your King. You will all be judged and your true faith tested. So glad I'm not a believer.

    • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

      "A true Christian has Jesus as their King."

      That is correct. God is a totalitarian dictator, who does not rule because his creations desire, but because he demands eternal worship.

      • http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

        And the great wonder of Christ's rule is that it actually brings joy, peace and freedom. God demands from us what is ultimately the best thing for us. But he does also give rebels over to their rebellion, and exclude them from his Kingdom as they ask for.

        • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

          "Christ's rule is that it actually brings joy, peace and freedom…"

          LIke when Jesus/God/Ghost condemned all humanity because we ate fruit? I know you will probably say that is symbolic (or something), the "fact" remains – your god created something which later displeased him, so he cursed us into a fallen world. Or at least that's how the myth goes.

          • http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

            yeah.. not one to let detailed analysis get in the way, are you ;)

    • http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

      Obviously you missed the bit where God is said to establish earthly rulers. Obviously you missed the bit where Jesus said to 'give to Caesar what is his, and to God what is his'.
      Or maybe you think voting in local council elections is an act of treason against the Federal government?

  • Pingback: President Obama: "I'm a Christian by choice." - Page 3 - Christian Forums

  • mitch

    Surely Gillard is in a bid for self righteousness, thats all she cares about. I dont doubt that one can live a morally good life without being a Christian but having a faith in God gives one direction, a framework and a sense that the self is not always first that a leader should have at the forefront. Something to think about maybe

    • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

      "…. having faith in God gives one direction"?

      How so? How could the belief in something for which there is no evidence, who resides outside the physical universe, and which we are told is beyond mere human comprehension or understanding, actually help guide you in any meaningful way?

      Sure , it may make you feel all warm a fuzzy inside, but so does a good scotch.

  • Pingback: Godless Business – Gillard told to get biblical

  • http://Shitdisturber41.blogspot.com Jean-Paul Gosselin

    I take my hat off for the lady and congratulate her on her frankness and honesty. An honest politician? Wow! What's next?

  • Nick

    It is very unfortunate that Australia has the worst Primeminister and Government in its history and most Australians can not see it . Before she is voted out and she surely will be , she will cost this country an absolute fortune, already for the mistakes she has made and for the ones she will cause in the future. The very God she rejects and hates will not do her any favours and this country will get what it deserves along with her.

  • Francis Weir

    I can sense a change coming, a hint of revolution in the winds.

    As more and more people become brave enough to admit their atheism we will see the power of the religious start to falter and, given time, fade.

    Tax exemption? Sure.

    Avoidance of criminal prosecution for abhorrent acts? No problem.

    What a horrendous waste of time, money, and life it is.

  • Anna

    hmmm. Wonder why you are having biblical floods??? You better get on your knees & start praying..

    • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

      Biblical flood cover the entire Earth. The floods in Australia covered part of Brisbane. Is God off his game?

      • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

        The 'known world' at the time was presumably not that much bigger than the 75% of QLD that has been flooded…

        Is God off his game?

        Aren't you forgetting the promise not to repeat that kind of flood? ;)

        • http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

          I think Anna forget your all loving God's promise not to drown the entire planet again.

    • http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

      I think Jesus might not agree with your assessment of 'why'. http://st-eutychus.com/2011/danny-naliah-australi

  • cornerstone90

    DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO WONDER AUSTRALIA UNDER GOD’S CURSE!! DISASTER WILL SWEPT AWAY AUSTRALIA…becoz they chose this godless leader!!!

    • Nerdbird

      I am kind of hoping that that comment is sarcasm… God is forgiving (apparently), so why would He curse Australia. Seriously, people cannot go around saying that God is all forgiving etc. and then contradict themselves in saying that He will send all unsures or nonbelievers to hell. Just think about it

      • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

        Don’t try and inject logic here – it’s religious.

        • Logic user

          Lmao! Haha this made my day. Hilarious! Logic bombs everywhere!

  • http://www.yahoo.com/ Viki

    I’m not easily impressed. . . but that’s irmpsseing me! :)

  • Tess

      A Christian or an Atheist?. If she lied about being an Atheist and said she was a Christian, would you have been happier with that. Or would you be happier with her being an honest person. We can all lie, we can all be honest. It comes down to facts: Would you prefer a leader that can be honest about her non-belief or a person who lies about her beliefs. You can’t always trust a person but you can definitely trust good old religious bias to come up with good-old-time bigotry. It just never fails. So stand-up and take a bow to claim your proud award of ‘religious bias’. Well done it just never fails.
    tjarm

  • Jscottupton

    Her honesty does her credit.  But I would never vote for an athiest.

    • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

      That’s just sad.  Why not vote for someone based on their policies, rather than their professed supernatural beliefs?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MHTROJHO3C5B4VHVADDOQJ2NNE Thomas B

    I have the utmost respect for her courage and bravery. I only wish we had the same kind of sensible politicians to choose from in America.

More Articles

Recent Comments

Tags