"The Gospels and Tacitus and Josephus are all hearsay. There’s a reason hearsay is rejected in a court of law."

Yes, in fact one of the sources of authority on which Christians rely for evidence of facts is 'Church tradition'. For example there is no evidence that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, nor that St Peter was even in Rome apart from a very attenuated and uncertain piece of hearsay. Yet the entire story of the Catholic church depends on these propositions of fact. In this line of reasoning, the longer the Church tradition, the more authoritative it is.

But of course the more mouths hearsay passes through over a longer time, the *less* reliable it is, not more: thus the church's approach is the opposite of a rational approach to evidence.

>> AJP, rules like Godwin's Law and the newly-minted AJ's law seem to just be attempts to shut down legitimate discussion by ridiculing individuals.

AJP? the one person above all who has been patiently addressing religious arguments? it's that AJP who is attempting to end discussion?

but, of course. it's not that graham could in any way be engaging in manipulative, Reds In The Head mccarthyist slurs.

>> you can't disown Stalin's gulags.

yep, guess i was wrong. it's just AJP stifling debate.

>> Atheists believe that the material world is all there is to know.

i guess it's o.k. to fib if you fib for jesus.

>> You've missed the point on "faith" too

i would've though it was the theists trying to prove their god real who have missed the point.

>> For me there is a mystery at the heart of life which is most probably not accessible by human conscious or knowledge.
>> I call that mystery God. ...

good for you. i can't see how it helps to wrap mystery in godness, but as long as you stay away from pregnant virgins and cancer-curing corpses, as long as your "mystery God" doesn't provide you with moral absolutes, i have no objection. not sure the overwhelming majority of christians would agree, but you can have it out with them.

There are many atheist good works. One difference between atheist good works and religious good works is that atheists are not trying to convert anyone to anything and do not restrict the benefits of their good works to atheists. Another difference is that atheists do not do it as part of a group but make individual contributions.

Bill Gates, an atheist, has made large contributions to such important issues as education and fighting AIDS. He has not emphasised his lack of religious belief nor denied the benefits to those who believe in some religion. Warren Buffett, another atheist, is second in philanthropy only to Bill Gates. Andrew Carnegie, another atheist, is largely responsible for the excellent public library system in the USA. He made his money go far as he would build up libraries in widely scattered areas, and others in nearby areas would be encouraged to match his contributions.

Atheist charities are not diverted to expensive religious edifices and displays.

GrahamY

<<<<<<<<< Just as I can't disown the inquisition, you can't disown Stalin's gulags. >>>>>>>>>>>>

The Inquisition, Stalin's gulags, Hitler's Holocaust, genocide in Rwanda, Pol Pot's killing fields and many, many more atrocities are the fault of human beings - are our inheritance whether we like it or not; whether you like it or not we are all in this together.

Your blame game, Graham, is in complete antithesis to Christ's teachings - claiming all atheists are Marxists is like claiming all Christians are Ku Klux Klan members - you are intelligent enough to know that neither statement is true. Your deliberate obfuscation is insulting to all intelligent contributors to your forum - be they religious or not.

Working my way from believing in Christianity to simple non-belief in ANY religion, is like dissolving a dark veil - I could never return to believing in an interventionist god, an impossible birth, nor the superiority of one religion over the other - rank arrogance!

It is not delusional to not believe in something that is not there, however it is close to a mental disorder to believe in something that is not and has never been.

Shadow Minister! You sould learn to digest the english language properly! so as not to suffer "Foot in Mouth". PS: I'm not the one playing in the gutter!

Funny how the god-botherers have all failed to answer my post of Wednesday, 17 March 2010 4:10:26 PM. All I wanted was simple answers to simple questions.
My point was to bring the discussion back to the basics and avoid being dragged into theological hair-splitting; arguing about definitions; and debating spurious philosophical points.
So again:
1. There is no evidence for god/s. Why believe a hypothesis for which there is no evidence? Just because many people believe something does not make it true.
2. As presented in their holy books, the gods of christianity, islam and judaism are either absent or neglectful or mean and spiteful or all three. The willful ignorance of their priests and followers on this is truly startling and shameful.
Come on believers - how about a genuine attempt to address my basic questions and stop quibbling around the edges?