continued

There is a “resurrection shaped dent in history”, as one historian puts it. The facts are very difficult to account for unless you entertain the possibility of divine intervention

The denial of Jesus existence is historically equivalent to a scientist arguing that the world is 6000 years old. It requires a selective reading and twisting of most of the body of evidence we do have, complete ignorance of some of the rest, and a wild imagination. This, of course, is quite ironic in light of people like the aforementioned Richard Dawkins who take great pleasure in ridiculing young earth creationists, but then go and show sympathy towards this idea that Jesus probably never existed!

For more on this topic I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Five-Views/dp/0830838686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268694053&sr=8-

[Now governments are too scared to do anything about it because they fear retribution from the religious voter but not the Atheist voter.]

Give me a break.

You think the government is scared of retribution from the 15 or 20% of the population who take their religion seriously enough to let it inform their voting, a 15 or 20% who is incredibly diverse in their political views- and so, impossible to please- anyway?

There’s a strong case to be made that it’s the atheists who get too much attention in our society. They just held a convention and got attention in the Herald Sun, The Age, and several programs on the ABC. This was billed as the “biggest atheist event in the world!” and hyped up to no end. It was “sold out months ago!” Umm, yes...it was quite “big” wasn’t it. Yes, they did sell it out months ago. With what....a couple of thousand people attending? Lol

Trav... "You think the government is scared of retribution from the 15 or 20% of the population who take their religion seriously enough to let it inform their voting, a 15 or 20% who is incredibly diverse in their political views- and so, impossible to please- anyway?"

This tax/council rates/legislation free status is worth billions per year.

It's worth more per year than Rudd doles out in the GFC spendathon, but do we hear any caution from 'the usual quarters' on this fiscal fantasy?

And don't forget, most of our politicians are inside-the-tent in the first place, so will never go against their own 'faith' beliefs.

So, we are stuck with paying for this nonsense, whether we like it or not.

Thanks Grey. I had a look at the article and it does seem to show an empirical case that religious people per se, not just Christians, are more likely to give to charity, at least in the US. It also shows that substantial percentages of secularists do as well, but doesn't appear to have any figures on atheists as a group on their own.

Which then leads to questions of why this might be the case. Could be that religion is transformative and that the secularist position is the default position for people without religion? Or it might be that people who believe you should give are more likely to be religious?

Or at least more likely to attend church, because the statistics examine behaviour, not belief.

And then there is the issue as to whether these stats hold outside the US.

BTW, Celivia. Not one of those quotes you attribute to Jesus are actually his, apart from the one that has nothing to do with slaves. Some are Paul's words and some come from one of the oldest books in the Old Testament written long before Jesus time. I think we can discard the Exodus quote, which leaves the Pauline ones. I don't think you can take these quotes outside their context at the time. Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman Empire, which Paul was accepting and giving advice to the slaves (not the masters) about how to behave.

...continued

[But people believe in astrology too and psychics don’t get tax breaks.]

Why should they? Astrologists and psychics charge their clients a dollar rate per hour- (either over the phone or in person)- and have the express purpose of profiting from their activities. Religious organisations do not exist with a profit making intention, they exist primarily for the benefit of their members and the public. And contrary to many atheist whingers, rich ministers of religion are about as rare as rich dole bludgers. They very rarely get paid a decent salary at all.

[Did I mention emotions?]

You did. Several times in fact. But you made very few arguments at all. It was mostly just assertions, mixed with talk of death being a “Universal fear”. Well if the evidence so strongly supports atheism and naturalism as many suggest, why would one be scared of death anyway? Unless, of course, it doesn’t.

It’s an interesting tactic, I’ll give you that. Forget about all the bright minds who make reasonable arguments for belief in God. It’s all about emotion!

[That sounds to me like you’re trying to argue that no sane person is going to want to believe in something that’s going to make them feel accountable for their wrongs, so they must be basing their belief on something that they have evidence for.]

I’m arguing that the accountability factor is a strong psychological reason to avoid believing in God or any religion. Whether you believe in a naturalistic conception of man or a theistic one, you should recognise that humans are innately selfish. Who wants to be given a moral code to live by? Who wants to believe that there’s a God looking over your shoulder? If it was purely down to moral considerations, one would be crazy to even consider religion. So this is a strong psychological reason to avoid belief, just as fear of death is a strong psychological reason to have belief

More quotes:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.”
Jefferson

“Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.”
Jefferson

Grey
> claiming that 'there can be no evidence that God exists' (which is Dawkins' position)

This is the third time I am correcting your misrepresentation of Dawkins. He doesn't say 'there can be no evidence that God exists'.
On the contrary, he says that the proposition that God exists is a question of fact which is amenable to scientific inquiry like other questions of fact. He looks at the evidence and reason in favour of the proposition that God exists, and considering the evidence and reason against, concludes that the belief is not reality-based.

Thus he does not reason: there can be no evidence that God exists and therefore God does not exist. Rather, he reasons: there can be evidence that God exists, there isn't any, the reasoning that He exists is circular, and therefore God does not exist.

Have you read The God Delusion?

<<<< There is a time when a Christian must sell all and give to the poor, as they did in the Apostles times. There is a time allsoe when Christians (though they give not all yet) must give beyond their abillity, as they of Macedonia, Cor. 2, 6. Likewise community of perills calls for extraordinary liberality, and soe doth community in some speciall service for the Churche. Lastly, when there is no other means whereby our Christian brother may be relieved in his distress, we must help him beyond our ability rather than tempt God in putting him upon help by miraculous or extraordinary meanes.

— John Winthrop, “A Modell of Christian Charity” (1630) >>>>

Christians are charitable for a number of reasons:

They are exhorted to, because they were taught Christ believed in helping others.

They are reminded to when attending their regular bible studies or church sermons.

Christians also wish to secure a place in heaven.

And they think that that is what god wants them to do.

____________________________________________________________________________

Atheists aid others because they want to help.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Considering that atheists are not admonished to donate or volunteer at nowhere near the rate that Christians are, the percentage of altruism on the part of atheists is admirably high.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Is this "contest" then a desperate attempt to malign a diverse group of people, simply for not believing in religion?

Not very, charitable behaviour on the part of Forster and others attempting to take the moral high-ground.

_____________________________________________________________________________

What WOULD Jesus think?