Socratease

I suspect you have that wrong.

Shouldn't it read, 'there is no god, but God'?

The research you cite might just show TBC that if you believe you are following a religious path, then you will believe that your beliefs equate with God's commandments.

But you're completely off-topic. What about finding some research about what Atheists believe? On the basis of the discussion here thus far I'd suggest that most Atheists think that Atheism is whatever they believe. Very egocentric (if we must use that term, which I think is inappropriate in the circumstances of your cited study), but completely parallel to the research you cite.

I checked out Wikipedia earlier today. For those really interested in what Atheism is it is a good starting point. It supports AJ Philips contention that "classically" as in "classical Greece" it encompassed agnosticism, but not that this is still the meaning of the word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism.

Shadow Minister,
>>With all due respect, the oppression of christians in communist Russia … was comparitively a slap on the wrist compared with punishments for possessing "capitalist" literature<<
Due respect or not, my experience I wrote of was with post-WWII Communism in Eastern Europe. I never lived in Communist Russia to be able to make that comparison. Did you?

There are many injustices and sufferings that are/were not as hard as what people went through in the Gulag or Auschwitz, however I consider it rather cynical, if not arrogant to use the term “slap of the wrist” to describe other people’s sufferings by those who were lucky enough not to have to endure them themselves.

AJ Philips,
I personally did not live under Nazism, but I would never belittle the stories of its victims (well, those who survived), calling these experiences “means to obfuscate”, “cheap shots” or by insisting that I knew better than they what drove their prosecutors or what was the source of their ordeal.

I could not make it more clear and explicit that I used “atheism” in the sense Communists understood it. I knew that was not the meaning accepted by many today, hence my questions about its definition.

Maybe I am too simple to understand your definition, but if we were discussing for instance Australian politics, and somebody said he/she had “no belief one way or the other” it would be natural to ask whether it meant he/she supported neither Rudd nor Abbott, or that he/she was neither conservative nor liberal, or was neither in favour nor against tax exemption for Churches, or what.

I know what "belief" means for e.g. a Christian, but he/she cannot “have” it (one can have or loose faith). Christians build their world-views on some beliefs, so does, for instance, Dawkins, (though, of course, on different ones) that he is not shy to spell out. The same my favourite atheist Carl Sagan.

Severin,
>>are you strictly non-denominational Christian? <<
As I already said it somewhere, my world-view is what you call “theist” (see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883 or my discussions with Squeers), my religion is Christian, my religious orientation/tradition is Catholic. I was baptised, married etc in a Catholic church, so I suppose you could not call me non-denominational.

My preference for the Catholic perspective is perhaps not unlike your preference for the English language (if I am right) although you are well aware that the same clever or silly things can be said in many other languages. There are many reasons for this preference, my personal experience I wrote about above, my family education, the cultural environment I am most familiar with, my training in straightforward “mathematical thinking” in symbols, etc. Well, I think this is more than what you asked for.

Grim,
>>He who makes the rules shouldn't have to abide by them.<<
Could you spell out the rule Graham made but does not abide by?

George, I was commenting on a post of yours, not of Graham's.
Indeed, I fully approve of Graham's comment:

“Yep Severin, Bushbasher is on the verge of being suspended. You can get away with flaming me more than you can flame anyone else on the forum, but there comes a time when you've over-stepped the mark.”

I would agree that BB was being rude and personal (while agreeing with his argument, and understanding his frustration; atheism is -if anything- a DISbelief system, not a belief system).
I was referring to your remark:

“Graham facilitates the discussions/disputes on this OLO for which I think he deserves some appreciation, if not respect, also from those who do not share his world-view. I certainly learned here a lot about contemporary Atheism and Atheists, what makes them tick, and I am grateful for that.”

Should we accord his views more respect than anyone else's, because he's the boss?
Come to think of it, that sounds as much a Jewish attitude, as a Christian one.
I had a little trouble with another paragraph in the same post of Graham's (with all due respect, of course):

“However I would argue that it is of its nature more prone to oppressive behaviour than at least Christianity, if not some of the other religions, because it encourages an unrealistically high assessment of human infallibility. Lack of humility is a strong element in many of the oppressive behaviours in which mankind has indulged, certainly those behaviours driven by belief.”

I would suggest John Howard owed a large part of his political longevity to the moderating influence of the Democrats. His demise quickly followed theirs. In the same way, I think our modern compassionate church owes a great deal to secular Humanism. The church of past centuries was far less compassionate, more oppressive (of the working classes) and extremely arrogant.
Concerning “unreasonably high assessments”, how many Christians turn the other cheek, give up their coat as well, when sued for their shirt, forgive their enemies and treat everyone on Earth as their neighbours?

Graham
I understand the points you are making but for arguments sake what is the difference between a set of man-made laws via legislature or via religion?

Both are, if you like, egocentric. Most Chrisitans have re-evaluated much of traditional beliefs and much of it is metaphorical, many embracing the idea of evolution as part of God's plan. We make up the rules as we go along, even religion evolves and adapts to change.

The days are gone when most Christians believe in the bearded man in the sky looking down and influencing events throughout the world and where, with exception of the most fundamentlist, fear God's wrath and vengeance. Is this idea of fear of God still relevant to most modern Christians?

The difference is a different type of faith. Faith in a God type entity to control or faith man can live and function within those same values through a spirit of mutual cooperation, investment and inbuilt altruism. Atheists values and Christian values are the same - thou shalt not kill, steal, covet, thou shalt be good, kind etc. Atheists and Christians are human first and foremost.

Spirituality can be achieved through our connections to other people, the earth and the beauty and wonders of the cosmos.

However all that is fine, but it still needs to be acknowledged that religion is an important aspect of people's lives. This debate always seems to come down to Christians vs atheists, defending their viewpoints by discrediting the 'other side'.

It is easier just to explain why a person might believe life is better for them with religion than not, or why one does not seek that same fulfillment via religion.