Had to? Who’s forcing you, greenjacket?

Hope you’re not the PM. What’s the matter? Didn’t you realise the Easter break was in mid-April this year? Was it all a big surprise?

Sounds more like the PM didn’t know what they were doing. Suggest you get a new one.

Hey Scott – I don’t respect your religion OK – mainly because you are stopping me from enjoying my normal life. I had to stand in a friggin long que in a supermaket this evening stocking up on milk and bread and nappies for my family because I can’t go out for shopping. So screw your religion. You talk about “tolerant and enlightened” – I’m the one whose freedom is being denied by your religious observance!

How would you feel if there was an atheist holiday in which you had to take two days off work in the middle of an important project due, and you weren’t allowed to shop and most of the things that keep the kids busy are closed. You’d be pretty friggin pissed off, wouldn’t you?

“So you are free to do pretty much what you like.”

No – that’s the whole point. I can’t work, I can’t shop for things like nappies and cleaners, I can’t go to the hardware store so I can do work on the house, and I can’t take my kids to the zoo or wherever. You support a law that infringes upon my freedom.

“You may not believe it but I appeal to your much vaunted liberal tolerance to respect it.”

So let’s get this right: you support a law that infringes on my freedom – and then you demand that I respect your religion?
mmmm Let me see – NO.

Nah, the explanatory stuff is “god of the gaps” stuff that finds itself beating its head against the wall of concrete science.

Religion and science aren’t in opposition, they are perfectly compatible.

Those who argue they are in opposition often have a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction, in the outcome. (And it’s hardly ever a material vested interest, it’s usually a subjective vested interest that features in these debates.)

If you want some additional angle then look at what scientists who believe in God, say about the subject. (I recommend the latter link’s article on creationism vs age of the Earth, for example).

If you want to understand this subject then I don’t recommend you read books by religious people who then try to lay out scientific arguments, because it’s simply not their field. Such authors use theological structures to present a scientific argument because that’s what they’re trained to do, and consequently many people think what they say is bollocks.

I agree with that assessment, based on my readings thus far. However, I’ve found the authors that use scientific structures to present a theological argument, to be far more illuminating.

I mean, look at the rituals present in all major religions. They express politeness: please, sorry, thank you.

Praying for things that are outside of your control: please.
Confessing/asking for forgiveness when there’s no one you can apologise to: sorry.
Celebratory festivals, appreciating things that are outside of our control: thank you.

All the big religions have these things. They express something common to most people.

Saying things like God is Dead and Man trumps God etc. is all very nice and powerfully poetic, but it’s also ridiculously confrontational. Regardless of the validity of the Other’s (the philosophical Other (as opposed to the Self)) ideas one should strive to maintain civility and open debate. This is an area Mr Dawkins sometimes strays too far away from.

If one doesn’t follow this path of civility there is no hope of change, only hurt and movement to the extremes.

Yes, any person’s beliefs deserve some respect, because if nothing else it is rude to ridicule someone’s sincerely held beliefs to their face. It feels easier to do it on the internet, but you wouldn’t do it to their face – anyone would feel rude doing that.

That is different from forcing other people to observe their beliefs. I entirely agree that we shouldn’t force any Christian to work on their holy days. I also think that we shouldn’t force other people with strongly held beliefs to work on their holy days – within limits (so I probably shouldn’t create a religion that believes in only working 2 days a year, and expect that to be respected). But we shouldn’t force, for example, Buddhists to observe Christian holidays if they don’t want to.

That is the gap that people seem to be missing. This isn’t a debate about whether people should have the right to not work at Easter. People should have that right.

This is a debate about whether people have a right to choose to work at Easter if they want to. Perhaps because they aren’t Christians, perhaps because they would rather have triple time for working on that day, perhaps because they want that holiday at a different time in the year.

We should only use the coercive power of the state where there is clear justification to do so. It isn’t clear to me that there is some clear harm that would come if someone chooses to work at Easter. As such I don’t understand why the government would exercise coercive powers to stop someone working. To exercise that coercive power I would want to see harm to individual, harm to others, or harm to society at large. Taking each in turn:
– harm to individual. I don’t see that we could really claim that someone working at Easter would be harm to that person. If they are a Buddhist, and choosing to have a holiday at some other time of the year, then I simply don’t see any harm in them working – in fact, it is probably benefit
– harm to others. Some people might be offended, but that is all I can see. That isn’t real harm in my book, at least not harm that justifies the coercive powers of the state
– harm to society at large. This is probably the only halfway decent argument, and then only if you accept that NZ should be aspiring to be some sort of 50s utopia where mum stays at home and minds the kids, and dad goes off to work. And at Easter we all go to church and then play cricket in the streets. I just don’t think that is a reflection of where we are as a society, and to my mind, even somewhere that we want to be as a country.

In short, I haven’t seen a coherent argument that justifies the existence of these laws.

Could easily be restated as there is no easter bunny, there is no requirement for there to be an easter bunny – I have made a concrete and specific decision and there happens to be a term that describes it.

except, what is the term for someone who doesn’t believe in the easter bunny? Or Santa? Or fairies?

Just as maori actually had no word “maori” until the arrival of whitemen, there was no need for the word atheist until the religious discovered a need for it.

slijmbal, when you say “I am an atheist…” you are allowing yourself to be identified by the religious in their terms

No I don’t. I define myself in those terms – there is no god, there is no 1st cause, there is no requirement for the universe to be created – I have made a concrete and specific decision and there happens to be a term that describes it.

I have significant problems with religions some examples of which you stated earlier eg there is no justification for their tax free status.

What is clear is that you don’t understand the difference between being insulting and debate – but you are a troll. You now join greenfly as someone to whom I will no longer respond to you directly as it will only encourage you.

byeeee.

Why, with Murray and now you, I feel all overcome.

Perhaps these are the people whose growth and education has been most stunted by religion. Perhaps it is why the illeducated Musselmen respond so violently to any perceived slight to their religion. But that is the problem of the religion and its followers; it is not a reason why i should not continue to ridicule Islam, or any other religion.

It is if the following things are true.

1. You don’t believe they enjoy being offended.
2. You don’t want to cause suffering without some more constructive purpose.
3. There are more constructive alternatives to mockery, ridicule and offence in opening people’s minds.
4. You consider opening people’s minds a constructive purpose.

And you seem to have claimed something approximating all four of these, though I could be mistaken.

Eventually one gets the feeling that appealing to your nature is a waste of time, one also gets the feeling that reasoned arguments wash over you such is your desperate desire to control others.

So I will not waste any more words on you when it comes to respect for other peoples beliefs other than to tell you that you have proven yourself to be a small minded bigot.

Perhaps these are the people whose growth and education has been most stunted by religion. Perhaps it is why the illeducated Musselmen respond so violently to any perceived slight to their religion. But that is the problem of the religion and its followers; it is not a reason why i should not continue to ridicule Islam, or any other religion.

I am most assuredly NOT an atheist. I will not allow myself to be defined in religious terms.

Yes, there is, but why should religion (or anything) be open to one but not the other? Sometimes the best critique IS ridicule. And yes Ryan, it may be offensive to some, but that is their issue. It is your choice to be offended or not.

Some people don’t realise that it’s their choice whether or not to be offended, and by not realising, it’s not their choice.

And sometimes people can try to justify attempts to cause suffering with noble causes of ridicule being the best critique.

I happen to like the idea of a family with a mother, father and however many children, I even was part of one myself.

If a poofter wants to have sex with another poofter, that’s OK by me, as long as they keep it in house and don’t scare the horses. If they want to live together and share everything, that’s OK by me. If they want to get married, well I don’t agree with that. There’s two of your bubbles burst for you.

Again, i have no problem with people following some idiotic idea like religion, but if they wish to bring it in to the public sphere then they must be prepared for ridicule and they must learn to deal with that.

religions get far more than respect, far more than they deserve. They run businesses, but don’t pay tax. Are you OK with tha? I’m not. They are parastites, using the facilities taxes provide, but refusing to contribute. They expect exemptions from laws, simply because they are a “religion”. Why can’t a football club get the same exemptions?

So big bruv, stop making excuses for religion and the religious, have the courage of your convictions and confront these bludgers and parasites at every opportunity.