Graham,

Why do religious always try to ascribe faith to athiests? Faith is belief without necessarily proof or reason.

Athiests require substance on which to base belief.

For example I believe in evolution even though it cannot be conclusively proven in my life time, the over whelming body of evidence makes any other conclusion difficult.

Similarily I believe that there is no God, as there no evidence to suggest he does, nor scientific reason to suggest we need to look for one.

Treating communism as a denomination of athiesm is pathetic. Stalin and Lenin saw the church as a threat and tried to undermine the considerable power of the established church.

Similarily Hilter courted the church to support his ends against communism, so is Nazism a denomination of christianity?

Finally, perhaps you could point out this athiestic "dogma", as other than a non belief in god there is no other common point.

AJ Phillips

I'm not sure if you are aware, so maybe a little background would help.

Graham Young claims he was originally Christian, then became an atheist and then returned to his religion again.

Graham, apologies in advance if I have misinformed. But I am sure that you once posted you were an atheist.

However, I thought AJ would be interested in some insight into the background of someone he has been debating, particularly in light of his comments:

<<< 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. >>>

As an agnostic whom similarly observes the common sense of the Confucian position, when in circa 250 b.c. the people wanted to revere him as a deity, he responded; “I am only a man, I know nothing of God,” it appears exceedingly dishonest to contend conclusive evidence of either position of the existence of God, when no such evidence exists.

It was recently reported only 5% of donations from one or more of the AID concerts in the 1990’s[?] reached those intended to receive them. I have worked on international concerts, and from my experience, placing trust for such responsibility in concert promoters is synonomous of putting a fox in a chicken run. This is a rerun of the World Vision scam back in the 1970’s.

I further perceive of the AID fundraising, if institutional religion was involved, when the two representative entities engaged, they would have felt right at home with each other. I’ve worked with U2, and can advise Bono is an airhead. e.g. during a sound check of one of their gigs I worked on, over the PA he enquired of the production manager why they were playing in a dump, a question which everyone else involved realised it was because that’s where their numbers of fans who had shelled out excessive prices for their tickets, were coming to see them. Continued

In perspective, some in the churches have done, and continue to do, great altruistic works, however, that is balanced by observation of the great misdeeds many have been, and continue to be, responsible for.

In Queensland it appears the Irish Catholic church has succeeded in realising the new childrens’ hospital and upgrades, being located at their facility in a congested corridor of Brisbane, when the existing RWBH facility retains the research facilities, and adjoining tertiary institution, without such anomalies.

The same church influence may ostensibly be further observed responsible for the recent protracted parliamentary sittings on abortion legislation, when other States and Territories are observed to have dealt with the issue long before. I think the Premier may belong to this church, although I‘m not sure of the affiliations of the Treasurer, or the Opposition leaders.

Observing all these machinations is like observing a rerun of the reformation, where the punters are out there wreaking havoc on each other while the powerbrokers continue their insidious scheming.

It suggests the meek may eventually realise their inheriting the earth, but perhaps with a car bomb.

GrahamY, << 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. >>

I think this must be a valid point. An agnostic simply does not support either position therefore no justification is required. An atheist on the other hand has taken up an equally strong yet opposite position as a theist, therefore the position must be justified by an equal and opposite amount of faith.

Perhaps after centuries of unsuccessfully proselytizing to agnostics, the theists see the opportunity to increase their target audience by “bundling” agnostics with atheists? This provides “harder” targets and potentially justifies greater munitions intensity. This pattern is evidenced by the transition in the AGW debate as greater focus and venom are directed at denialists rather than agnostics.

Perhaps agnosticism can have dogma by association and intent, rather than being different types of atheists. Communism is a good example, where agnosticism gained dogma from political influence to further the totalitarian regime. Likewise, Islamic theology is used to “bind and control” socio-political attributes, to support totalitarian clerical, military and benign dictatorship regimes.

The Christian crusaders had similar “political value” to the Papacies in their ability to raise funds, oblige European aristocracy to raise armies and control the masses.

So could it be said that theists and atheists have similar (complementary) political value (exploitable), whereas agnostics do not? And does this mean that theist/atheist passion can be seen in today’s world in the light of purpose and intent, to be used for political gain more than for religious value?

>> An atheist on the other hand has taken up an equally strong yet opposite position as a theist,
>> therefore the position must be justified by an equal and opposite amount of faith.

NO! it doesn't matter how many times you guys say it, it isn't true.
what you're engaging in is second rate 1st year philosophy, disputing knowledge like a bunch of postmodernist clowns.

it does NOT take an equal and opposite amount of faith to disbelieve in the tooth fairy? i KNOW there is no tooth fairy in any reasonable sense of the word.

similarly, it does NOT take an equal and opposite amount of faith to disbelieve that mary was a virgin (if and) when she gave birth to jesus.

similarly, it does NOT take an equal and opposite amount of faith to disbelieve that a dead mary mackillop cured cancer.

and on and on.

it makes perfect sense to say we KNOW these things are not true. it is not a matter of faith. it is a matter of not spending time considering ridiculous beliefs unless someone gives a compelling reason to do so. and you guys never do so.