...Continued

But I hope you’ve got that off your chest now, because that strawman took a real pounding.

<<Christianity teaches that mankind in itself is effectively incomplete- or, lost- without God.>>

Of course it does. That’s one of the ways it tears people down so that it can build them up again with itself as the center of what makes the believer feel good.

<<Nor should we necessarily expect a great wealth of contemporary materials [to prove the alleged Jesus].>>

I didn’t say we should. Just that there aren’t any.

Although, considering the magnitude of the alleged visit, it could be argued that one should rightly expect it.

<<Not when we’re referring to a travelling Jewish teacher with a small band of followers who confines his activities to a relatively small corner of the globe...>>

Interesting point.

Here we have this superior being, and the best way he can spend a mere 33 years with Humans showing them he’s God, is to confine his activities to a relatively small corner of the globe performing petty miracles to relatively small crowds, then disappear for thousands of years leaving nothing but hearsay stories of his brief stay.

Why couldn’t he reveal himself to other cultures too? Why wouldn’t he have taught us something useful instead of stunting our progress with myths of demon possession as a medical diagnosis?

<<Historical study has made many of the events around Jesus’s life historically certain, or beyond any real reasonable doubt- for example his crucifixion and the fact that his followers believed he appeared to them afterwards.>>

Hearsay recorded decades after the alleged incident.

Hardly “historically certain”.

<<The facts are very difficult to account for unless you entertain the possibility of divine intervention>>

What facts? You haven’t given me any yet.

<<The denial of Jesus existence is historically equivalent to a scientist arguing that the world is 6000 years old.>>

And yet you’re unable to provide any evidence at all. Just assertions.

<<You think the government is scared of retribution from the 15 or 20% of the population who take their religion seriously... >>

Continued...

...Continued

Considering most Atheists have shown themselves to not let mainstream religious belief affect the way they vote... Yes.

Considering wealthy lobby groups such as the ACL are willing to donate money to election campaigns... Yes.

<<You did. Several times in fact. But you made very few arguments at all. It was mostly just assertions...>>

I’ve already dealt with this a lot recently at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495&page=0

I used to be a Christian myself. I have many Christian friends and relatives and know of many conversion stories, and every time, they have all involved some sort of life crisis. There is even a story in my immediate family of tragedy turned conversion.

No well-adjusted person who feels they have some purpose in life just decides one day that they’re going to take up a religion, and like Rowan Forster said: "I have yet to hear of any similar transformations resulting from conversion to atheism."

Of course, you have the occasional fraudster out there like Lee Strobels who pretends he used to be a thinking Atheist who looked at the evidence objectively and started believing, but there is no ‘case for Christ’, or any other religion (as you’re helping me to show). It takes a willingness and desire to believe in religion, and that willingness comes from emotion, not objectivity or rational thought.

<<I’m arguing that the accountability factor is a strong psychological reason to avoid believing in God or any religion.>>

Accountability is nothing when you think there is a reward of eternal bliss waiting at the end.

No one in their right mind would trade an eternity of bliss for 80 or so years for selfish pleasures.

<<Who wants to believe that there’s a God looking over your shoulder?>

Insecure people; parents who can’t watch their children every minute.

Making people feel like worthless wretches in need of grace is what Christianity relies on to keep its believers, because if you can convince someone that they need the religion for some reason or another, then you’ve created a dependence necessary for the religion to survive.

Religion is like a virus.

Wow, Daviy! Such a fiery outburst for such a trivial point. One has to wonder what your issue really is.

<<Religion is BS.>>

Agreed.

<<In this I (as an agnostic) I concur with the Atheists.>>

Agreed.

<<But just because religion is BS that does not mean that God is BS.>>

Agreed.

<<The Atheists seem to be continually making the mistake of pointing out the ridiculous nature of religion and ascribing this ridiculousness to God...>>

Not usually.

Although there’s bound to be a very small proportion of blowhards who do, since there is no set way of ‘Atheist thinking’ or ‘dogma’.

<<...when God (if it exists) has nothing to do with religion.>>

Agreed.

<<As an agnostic I reject both the religious and atheist dogmas.>>

Atheism doesn’t have a “dogma”.

<<I reject the religious as purveyors of ignorance and BS.>>

Agreed.

<<I reject the atheist position for confusing religion with God.>>

They do? ALL of them? Where’s this written? Who decided on it?

You may want to break it to the many out there who never even considered religion or God/s that this is what they think.

<<Is there a God? I don't know.>>

Neither do I. No one does, and no one other than Theists claim to know, as you can’t usually disprove the non-existence of something.

Again though, there’s bound to be a few blowhards out there who think they “know”.

<<Yes, agnostics do deal in knowledge and if the knowledge is not available they say 'I do not know.'>>

So, do all the Atheists I know of.

<<This is a rejection of both religious and atheist thinking because both claim to have knowledge they do not have.>>

Again... Where’s this written? Who decided on it?

You’re making the same mistake that most Theists make in thinking that Atheism has a doctrine or a way of thinking or is like a religion. But Atheism has no more of a way of thinking than a-fairyism has.

By your definition, virtually no one is an Atheist. You’re punching at shadows.

Come back to me when you’ve learnt what Atheism is... http://tinyurl.com/yleu6x8

A J Phillips, it is possible that Agnostics don't have some sort of dogma, but it is not possible that Atheists don't, brief as it might be. They have a faith.

One of the things interesting me about this debate is the number of straw men flying about on both sides. It's not really possible to make too many useful generalisations about Christians per se because there is such a wide range of belief and practice. You really need to be talking about specific Christian denominations, or perhaps Christians in a particular social context.

A liberal Christian is not the same as a fundamentalist Christian, and it doesn't make a lot of sense in a lot of contexts to conflate them.

The same holds true with Atheists. There are different types of Atheists, and to characterise them all on the basis of Marxist Leninists or Maoists would be wrong. But likewise to characterise them on the basis of yourself would be equally wrong.

And when you treat Communism as a denomination of Atheism then you can see a lot of the hegemonic behaviours exhibited by some medieval Christians.

I'm not going to argue that all Atheists should be treated on the basis of the behaviours of 20th Century Communists, nor should anyone argue that Christians ought to be treated based on the behaviour of 12th Century crusaders.

But I would argue that since Atheism has become expressed in institutional and systematic ways it exhibits similar behaviours to many other isms that have become institutionalised. That includes proselytisation, which is exactly what many of the Marcist "action" groups you see out on street corners distributing literature and gathering signatures on petitions of one sort or another are about.

What about the following definitions:

epistemic scientism: the view that “the only reality that we can know anything about is the one science has access to.” (example: E.O.Wilson), and

ontological scientism: puts limits on what exists objectively because it holds that “the only reality that exists is the one science has access to” (example: Carl Sagan).

(both definitions taken from Mikael Stenmark, Scientism: Science, Ethics and Religion; Aldershort-Ashgate, 2001).

Does this clarify anything - maybe by replacing “scientism” with “atheism” - in spite of the subjective ambiguity of ‘knowing’ as “being absolutely certain or sure about something” (as in my dictionary)?

>> One of the things interesting me about this debate is the number of straw men flying about on both sides

yep. now, do you practise what you preach?

>> it is possible that Agnostics don't have some sort of dogma, but it is not possible that Atheists don't, brief as it might be. They have a faith.

nonsense. this has been explained, many times.

>> And when you treat Communism as a denomination of Atheism ...

anybody who treats "communism as a denomination of atheism" has lost all touch with rational thought.