This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

mmurray's Profile

mmurray's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by mmurray

No religion is Australia's second most popular religion - last commented 17 July 2012 02:49 AM

Hitchens on Lateline (ABC Australia) - last commented 17 December 2010 04:13 AM

Short list for Royal Society Prize for Science Books 2010 - last commented 07 September 2010 03:58 AM

More Discussions by mmurray

Latest Comments by mmurray

Go to: The godless guru

mmurray's Avatar Jump to comment 1870 by mmurray

Testing

Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:16:34 UTC | #951438

Go to: Effect of the concept of hell on children

mmurray's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by mmurray

Comment 59 by Furious Duane :

This is why I worry about having children in Australia. Recently there has been talk about pushing religion onto kids in the public schools, while kids not wanting to do this would be segregated and not taught anything let alone biology or evolution. I asked my wife and she agrees even though she is Agnostic this would damage a child beyond belief. I think because of the rise of Atheism, the church is panicking and wants to indoctrinate children as early as possible in order to increase flock numbers and turn them into sheeple.

I know various religious groups have been pushing for more religious instruction but I don't believe students won't be taught biology or evolution. I've not heard of any plans to stop teaching biology or evolution in science classes. I also honestly doubt the religious instruction will have any effect on the vast majority of students particularly those who have atheist parents. My son came home from his first week at school and asked "whose gwod ?". He always was a little hard of hearing.

The main problem I can see is keeping the religious, like the evangelicals who run the chaplaincy programmes, away from the actual teaching. It should be taught as comparative religion with an emphasis on how many different kinds there are.

Michael

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:59:26 UTC | #950354

Go to: Loss within the truth

mmurray's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by mmurray

Recently, however, being a parent to two wonderful kids and married to a beautiful wife it's hit me that beyond this reality I will never see them again. While I've accepted this as fact for some time, it's as if a profound sense of sadness has descended upon me.

This is true. But it is also true that you lose them as they are "now" every day because tomorrow they have changed. One minute your children are babies keeping you sleep deprived and before you know it they are young adults. Make the most of every minute you have with them.

I know the answer is to love and cherish them with all that I am now, and believe I will, but it has made me wish that the fallacy that is religion were true.

To be honest I never really understood how the "happy ever after in heaven" bit was going go to work. It sounds fine until you give it more than 30 seconds thought. I don't miss it because I never thought it solved the problem.

Michael

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:22:45 UTC | #950332

Go to: Against All Gods

mmurray's Avatar Jump to comment 76 by mmurray

Comment 50 by Maariya :

Comment 47 by mmurray I think she's gone. Which gives an opportunity to all break into song ...

I have not yet gone.

Good. Sorry I am late replying but I'm in a different minute time zone to most everyone else.

The things that became common knowledge came through religious teachings so at the beginning these things were not common knowledge. There are also theories in science which cannot be proven to this day. Lets take for example the devastating theory of evolution, thus because of such theories is it wrong to disregard science as a whole?? l

Depending on what you mean by proof you can't usually prove scientific theories. Real proof is something you can only really do in formal systems like mathematics and logic. But what people usually mean by a scientific theory being proved is that they have gathered lots of evidence, tested the theory over and over again against evidence that seems to contradict it and modified and honed it until it passes all the tests they can throw at it. That is what the scientific method does. Tests your ideas against evidence. You have to do it carefully as we humans are very good at ignoring evidence that doesn't support our theories.

And before you judge religious literature you may find it more helpful it you read it fully rather than to listen to it on the news as the things that make the headlines usually are nonsense, thus consider educating yourself before in the religions you claim are not true.

I've read a lot of religious literature. Both before and after I became an atheist in my mid teens. As others have pointed out don't make the mistake of thinking people here don't know about religion. Some (of the lucky ones) have been raised atheists from birth but most of us have fought our way out of religion at some (often great) personal effort and cost.

Michael

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 03:26:49 UTC | #950265

Go to: Against All Gods

mmurray's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by mmurray

Comment 41 by Steve Zara :

Comment 12 by Maariya

If one took something so seriously then they wouldnt attempt to critically examine it, because its religion not science.

Religion isn't science, but believers are people. Science can, and does, study people. The idea that religion is beyond science doesn't work because believers aren't beyond science, and the reasons for beliefs and the very nature of belief itself can be investigated, and they certainly should be because religious belief is an important and interesting aspect of human nature.

I think she's gone. Which gives an opportunity to all break into song ...

Many a thing you know you'd like to tell her
Many a thing she ought to understand
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say

Michael

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:47:26 UTC | #950210

More Comments by mmurray