BREAKING: Israel Folau takes legal action against Rugby Australia

Ah I see. Yes I don't agree with Falou's views at all either. And yes, we must have voices speaking out against such views. I'm only defending his right to express his views of the afterlife without losing his job. It doesn't mean I agree with his views or like to hear them being expressed. Only that we must tolerate such views as the price of freedom.

It's very clear from what I wrote that when I said "And there is your problem right there." that I am referring to the flaw in your argument. If you are suggesting I meant something else then you are being disingenuous. Presumably because you can't refute the point I made.

And yet we do live in that world… a world where people (like you) obsess about fictional creations of human minds… gods of all flavours, evil, sin, heaven, hell and the list goes on. We can, and we do in fact, function and regulate relations with one another without any recourse to a supernatural realm. Squawk all you like about ‘meaningless’ but as I said before, when we behave honourably, truthfully, generously, compassionately then our internal monitor (our conscience) gives ourselves the nod. You know that as well as I do – behave decently and feel good about yourself. And when you misbehave, or behave below our best, then again our internal monitor knows this and we feel bad and self-critical. And apart from natural internal regulation of human behaviour via emotions and conscience, when all else fails you dial the same police I do, and you rely on the legal framework for protection/redress as I do. You won’t be calling a priest or beseeching god – you be relying on the same secular system as the next man. Thanks for the reading tip.

Anyone who denies evil exists is living in a fantasy. If there is no wrong there can be no right. If there is no right then you are meaningless. Policy and philosophy are meaningless and the word advancement doesn't even have a rational basis and any meaning you assign exists only in your imagination. And none of that has anything to do with religion. I suggest you read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Mate ,.. rational people live, breathe and exist (quite happily) in the full knowledge that ‘evil’ is a mere fiction the subject of obsession by certain sections of society. In some Northern European countries about 10% acknowledge ‘evil’ exists… in Australia it’s around 60-70% that would acknowledge evil exists. I really don’t care – if it somehow helps your through to believe evil exist in the world then great. Help yourself. And as for the old morality chestnut. What a surprise. Why oh why do religious believers seem to think that this is to ‘go to’ killer move. Look… every single normal person (I.e not insane, and not a psychopath) carries on day-to-day life with a constant internal dialogue… you do, and I do. And through that internal dialogue we know, and we keep score, as to whether we are honest, compassionate, thoughtful, generous, co-operative etc… we know whether we’ve behaved decently. This internal dialogue is hard wired- it runs all the time whether we like it or not. We certainly don’t need to refer to an any external source (laws, religious texts) to know if we’ve behaved well… when we act well we feel good, and when we transgress (don’t behave honestly, compassionately etc) we know and we feel bad/guilty. We (humans) are a highly sociable species, and by and large we behave socially… of course you can point to exceptions but that’s all they are – exceptions. By and large people are decent and compassionate, and they don’t need supernatural threats or supervision to behave well to one another. We don’t need godly threats which is fortunate becausein any event there’s no workable moral instruction in the various religious texts (and none even pretend to offer practical answers to complex modern questions). The heavy lifting is done by secular philosophy and/or legal/policy advancement. Good luck to you. If you need ‘evil’ and religion in your life then good for you.

Fully agree I have an unexplained constant. I’ve been with you from the get go that the agnostics have the defensible argument. My atheism is a belief, not knowledge. Enjoyed this sharing of thoughts

My point in establishing constants was more to suggest that Theists and Atheists both *have constants. Atheists often mock the idea of a God as a constant without noticing they also have a constant they don't explain. They say, where did God come from? I say she/he was always there because God is not part of the universe and was not created (did not 'come into being' like the universe did). So I don't provide an explanation beyond that. Atheists say matter/energy is the constant and in similar fashion do not have any explanation beyond that (where did it come from). Although, given the nature of the Big Bang I would say that of these two possible constants the one before the Big Bang (something outside of the Big Bang) makes more sense, because Big Bangs are not self causal (by any evidence we have from inside the universe anyhow). 'The strong prey on the weak' seems a fair observational alternative to my 'might makes right'. I certainly agree that is true. I do not argue atheists cannot have morality, that's obviously not true. What they lack is a solid rational explanation as to why their particular morality should take priority over any other morality. To treat others like you would like to be treated is, in my morality, noble and right. But in the atheist doctrine is no more deserving of nobility than a selfish one rooted in the idea of the survival of the fittest. In the bible world view it is 'noble and right' because an outside party, external to the universe, who made the universe (as a moral construct), states this is an immutable moral fact (like gravity) and not open to negotiation. I am not here to condemn anyone, that's not my job. I did volunteer work with ACON for victims of AIDS and employ homosexuals. I really don't see that who you sleep with has much to do with me at all. People are people and the bible has taught me that every heart knows its own pain. Life has shown me that people who sleep with others of the same sex are not excluded from that. Considering the size of the book, the bible has very few words specifically about homosexuality. Because it is not the huge issue for the bible that it has become in our society (for whatever reason). We seem obsessed with something that is quite a small matter to the bible. The bible presents a moral framework. It's a very old and well understood framework (in historic terms anyway) and within that, same sex is called wrong. And inescapably, because free will exists, justice also exists. To bring to account those strong who preyed on the weak. The there is Jesus on top of that, which is another whole jigsaw.

It has only happened because of RA inept handling of the situation.

G'day Ralph, am really appreciating your posts here. Correct, for me matter/energy is the constant and has always existed. If we are arguing that since the universe exists and appears causal that ‘something’ must have always/first existed what attributes can we ascribe to that ‘something’ beyond its existence? I find it a leap to assign that ‘something’ a mind, a will, a morality or any other attributes beyond that very existence. I brought up Hobbes as a selfish motivation for people to abide by an agreed set of rules. It doesn’t argue that might means right, rather that the strong will prey upon the weak. The weak better decide what kind of a world they want to live in and band together to make themselves strong. My moral motivation is to treat others as I wish to be treated. In that context bad or evil is operating in a manner that treats others in a manner in which you would not wish to be treated. Much closer to the new commandment than the original ten. Totry and loop back to the issue at hand, I consider myself lucky that society doesn’t condemn my love of my wife, I get offended by those that condemn my best mate’s love of his husband. I can only imagine how I would feel in his shoes, I think he handles himself much better than I would in his shoes.

As I said, if there is a god perhaps he operates using a level of logic I cannot comprehend. However, based on everything I know, and using nothing but logic as I understand it, I think bone cancer in children, mass starvation, deaths from natural disasters, infanticide and children (and anyone else) being subject to sexual or physical abuse, debilitating diseases or any form of intense suffering is a terrible thing.

I think that's quite a light reply GoGSW. I don't need you to be convinced of anything. People don't believe facts so when it comes to harder concepts my expectations are spectacularly low. Science can tell me what processes cause the kettle to boil on my gas hob, in amazing details across multiple disciplines. But it can never answer the most important question, which is why did Ralph put the jug on? Morality is the most important foundational topic of all. If you cannot state in firm terms what right means you are standing in a swamp sinking slowly. No rational person actually lives and acts as if evil does not exist.

HI Fionn, thanks for this. "God cannot be infinitely powerful and infinitely benevolent, if he was then he wouldn’t allow such terrible things to happen" I will make a couple of observations about Mr Fry's assumptions and then unpack his statement a little. Firstly, Mr Fry is using his free will to make a criticism/reasoning. He doesn't, of course, explain where this free will comes from. You have taken one quote so maybe that's a tough point, but it is important not to assume free will, one has to explain it and think through the consequences of it. Robots can't do evil for example (evil has an element of intent and a machine has no intent). Secondly, he assumes benevolence is a moral (good) thing, but being an Atheist has no solid rational to explain why morality should exist or where it comes from. In a totally random and meaningless universe what does the word love even mean outside of some electro chemical reactions we can observe? If he has no rational basis for morality (please see my reply to Jeznez)), how can he state that "terrible" things happen? Who is he to state what is "terrible" and what is not? Is it terrible the duckling died when it was eaten by the eel, or is the universe just doing its thing and the survival of the fittest is propelling life ever higher? Is Thanos wrong to destroy half the life in the universe? So I am saying there is a problem that his own world view does not explain/support the moral absolutes he is using to make his statement. Now the statement itself. I rearrange it just to break out the logic: Because (a) evil exists THEREFORE any God could not be both (b) powerful and (c) benevolent. Powerful - meaning; has enough power to stop this thing we call evil. Benevolent meaning; wishing to do good, well-disposed, kindly. Firstly, the statement alone is an incomplete argument. He leaves out one of the most important variables, that is that free will must exist. Also, within that quote Mr Fry doesn't detail what the terrible things are, there can be personal evil, group evil etc. So it probably needs a bit more detail. Adding back free will as a variable, one possibility is that if we want to retain free will as a variable in the mix then the only path by which a state can be achieved where free will continues to exist but people do not act on it to do evil is this path we are on. This introduces the idea of 'greater good', or 'tough love'. The biblical God is, at least, a being of two sides; Mercy/Love and Justice. In a world that has free will and therefore evil exists, this character is not a sugar coated soppy Santa sort (which is what the word benevolent conjures up for me. She/he is a more along the lines of a tough love individual and I never forget that - in the end - justice will be done.

Nice post Jeznez. Just a couple of thoughts. The biblical explanation is that the Universe was created. The big bang is that act. God has always been and exists outside it, that's the constant. As I understand it, the Atheist equivalent would that matter is the constant and has always existed (cannot be created or destroyed). Interestingly the bible also allows for non-matter states, opening the possibility of other dimensions. Which I vaguely feel might be what string theory shows (at least the possibility of). Hobbes morality foundation is very very soft to me. You poke around for something firm so invariably end up with some version of 'the majority' argument. The very obvious flaws are: (a) what if the majority decides genocide is 'right' (who are you to judge them wrong), and (b) ultimately why is the majority right? Other than Hobbes deciding that should be the state of affairs, but really he is just making it up. If you think long enough this line of thought must end with 'might makes right' - morality is what I declare it to be simply because my voice is more powerful than yours. Shoot everyone who disagrees with me and suddenly I am 'right'. That state of affairs must end with no firm right or wrong and much questioning as to what those words really mean. Aka, this is "my truth". Real truth does not care what you experience of it. Gravity does not care whether you name it, believe in it or deny it. This is the power of an absolute. As for evil, I think the explanation; 'some are selfish or some are sick' to be insufficient. To say someone is sick implies there must be some state of wellness. But if the universe is totally random and morality is just made up who is to say what well means. Who are you to say I ams sick and you are well? On what rational foundation can you prove I am sick? How can you prove YOU are not the sick one? Again you end up settling somewhere about 'the majority', or 'statistically normal', or some such equivalent arrangement. But that doesn't really square with the enormous range of what human experience has been. Historical normal turns out to be a huge range of what you do and can rationalise. Free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil. As soon as you grant your kids the chance to choose the possibility exists they will make bad choices. Even using the word 'bad' raises the question as to how, in a random meaningless universe, anything can be said to be 'bad'. What does that even mean?

Someone, I think it was Stephen Fry, summed up his thoughts by saying (and I am paraphrasing): 'God cannot be infinitely powerful and infinitely benevolent, if he was then he wouldn't allow such terrible things to happen'. Now, it is possible that Fry is wrong, and such a god operates with logic that is far too complex for us to understand, I admit. I too have some issues with Dawkins, but he is far less antagonistic than someone like Hitchens. At the end of the day I think he is a good, kind man that doesn't actually really mind if people believe in god or religion, as long as they do not let it interfere with their adherence to rationality, logic and kindness. I've not actually found Dawkins to get angry - bewildered or irritated with obtuseness is more accurate. I must say I find the worst attitudes to be from those religious people who take the line of 'atheists cannot have moral values' and trot out Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot as examples. First, because none of them were motivated by atheism and second because there is scholarship in all three cases to at the very least lend some support to the beliefs that they were agnostic or even religious. Of course, this is something that can not ever be known. And I say this as someone who is not an atheist.

This just reveals a serious lack of thought and reflection. I’m sorry to say that. The ONLY rational answer? Really? I think you’ve really signaled something there. Not sure i’ll bother with any more responses to you on this topic.

Of course. I could be wrong. Jesus could materialise at the dinner table tonight. It is possible. Or maybe Zeus. Or Thor. Or Elron Hubbard. Or all of them. Anything is possible.

Mate ...my my you have painted yourself a nice little hermitically sealed position (you think at least). As for your reasons for belief. Great. They’re ver convincing.. TO YOU .. but not to the rest of us. The ‘evidence’ (so called) is either going to elicit belief or not. You find it convincing which is fine. Great. Bully for you. Your four pronged query of atheist position demonstrates either than you have very little engagement with atheists, or that when you do you simply are not genuinely open to their answers. Reality as it is is a deep mystery which is gradually being peeled back later by layer by various scientific disciplines to the extent that our technology and human intellect permit - there may be aspects is reality forever beyond human understanding. Morality is a very large topic - morality in humans (as opposed to other species which also demonstrate emotion and moral behaviour) is the subject of much scientific thought and study - I don’t claim expertise but I do know that that this area is subject to serious scientific study - and the answers lie therein, not in the scribbling of ancient goat herders. Finally, evil is a fiction as is god.

G’day Ralph, good considered post. I'll have a go at addressing some of your points. As an atheist I’ll add that I’m not into Dawkins either, due to his background as an evolutionary biologist he seems to attack mainly from this angle and I don’t find his reasoning convincing. I’ve tried to read his books but put them down due as I don’t buy his arguments, even if I agree with his conclusions. I fully endorse your comment that agnosticism is where true intellectual rigour leads us but like you, having accepted that is the only position I can truly know I couldn’t help picking a side. For me that was a belief is that there is no god. When you ask for an explanation of reality – I look at the argument for God as prime mover and think that merely sidesteps the argument, I just as readily ask why does a God exist? An unthinking universe has just as much basis as a creator when we search for a primal cause. If we accept there must be a ‘first thing’ then I see no compelling reason why it must be an intelligent, caring being and not just the universe itself. An ever expanding, contracting series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches makes more sense to me than saying there must have been a first thing, let’s anthropomorphise it into a supernatural version of ourselves. When it comes to a rational basis of morality, Hobbes makes a good argument for selfish reasons to act in a moral manner. That banding together in the biggest possible group that agrees to abide by a set of rules ensures that the individuals within it are protected from those that will act against their interests. I take a much simpler view that says I will try to treat people as I wish to be treated. I don’t do so for a reward or to avoid punishment, no heaven or hell scenario but because I recognise that everyone is like myself. We are all the stars of our own biopic trying to get by. I’m no more important than anyone else and if all we have is the 70-80 years we average on this floating ball of dirt and water then I’d have to be a monster to impact negatively on that limited opportunity to experience existence that we each get. Some people are selfish, some haven’t thought this through, some people are sick in the head. That is where evil comes from. I find it much harder to accept that a supposedly all-powerful God would allow some of the evil things that take place in this world to happen. If a parent operated with their children the way ‘God’ operates in allowing free will then the state would come and take those kids away. To your point that atheists lack of evidence for there being no God – I also have no evidence for there being no 100 foot tall invisible and untouchable giants cohabiting this planet with us, I don’t believe in them either. But as I said at the start, I agree that my atheism is a belief and I think the only truly defensible position is that of the agnostic with their recognition that anything is possible and we cannot know.

Harris’ position is debated amongst the great minds, and boils down to two possibilities. Could have done differently (CHD), or could not have done differently (CNHD). If you take the CHD position, then our traditional views on punishment remain the same. If you take Harris’ position that we CNHD in any given decision. Then it becomes a complex issue with regard punishment. It would only be used as a deterrent to others, and to isolate an offender to prevent him/her offending again. If you take the CHD case to Folau, then he was warned and chose to repeat. Therefore, deserves what he got, although I would argue a fine and lengthy suspension would have been enough. E.g. missing the RWC If you take the CNHD to Folau, then he had as much choice in his post as a gay does with their sexuality. Punishment serves no purpose other than as a deterrent to others who might make similar posts. People, including myself, mistake conscious free will being off the table, with Fatalism. I often said that if free will was gone, then I could lie on the beach all day and magically become a Doctor. Harris deals with this quite well in his book “free will”. It took me about two years to fully get the difference between no free will and fatalism, but I feel Harris’ quote above is exactly where I’m at right now. That is, feeling freer in my mind then when I thought I had free will. As for the debate on CHD versus CNHD, I’m still confused on that one

Sam – then let that individual take Folau to court. The sooner we get religious & discrimination laws sorted out, sensibly & logically, the better. Too much to expect humanity to be either sensible or logical, let alone both, but we live in hope. However, I can express an opinion, which The Roar provides. Although, if it continues to be infiltrated continually by too many lefties, we all know they disapprove of & will shout down any opinion different from theirs. Lighten up…..