Peter

I cannot speak in the same theological language, only in simple terms - so bear with me.

Atheism is very much about the non-belief in a supernatural being. If one does not believe in the deity then the teachings that purport to come from that deity cannot be positively communicated.

Many atheists acknowledge the spirituality of human beings (some finding it via formal religion) as important.

Even an atheist knows we are more than a bag of bones and more than just a gene carrying factory. Our cognitive abilities and higher order thinking (incl. 'spirituality') is part of the advantage humans have for survival. It is in our collective interest to care for one another.

As far as human as person relations go, cannot the dignity of humans and other living things be part of nature. How often do we look at a sunset or a wilderness and be exilarated by its beauty and grandeur - it's dignity. It does not take a belief in God to admire natural beauty and to instil feelings of stewardship of the environment including the wellbeing of humans.

Stories such as The Road and Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm that look at the worst in human nature also reveal the best. The natural parting of the good people and the bad people in these works of fiction is just a literary reflection of the variations in human nature.

Human beings, according to religious folk, were created by God in his image.

There is no one homogenous global religion that could hope to bring about that human person relation, it has to come from within, religion can sometimes stifle that goodwill towards one's enemy.

Any moral framework would still be man-made. The religion is just the background story.

Peter, with respect, I suggest you stick to speaking for yourself, and let others speak for themselves. And beware of setting up straw men. I don't know what "atheism in its present form" or "the new atheism" might be. I think you're referring to some particular individuals. You should address them and their arguments specifically, without imagining THEY speak for all "atheists".

My attitude is that love and relationship are the core of my life. But I don't believe in your God, Christian or otherwise.

Furthermore, I see my attitude as arising out of nature. A relatively new view of nature is not that it is just "red in tooth and claw", but that cooperation is pervasive - along with competition. (There is always a tension between sharing and selfishness, it is a condition of life, from families to nations to baboon troupes.) Mammals live in social groups, we are mammals, we have our particular form of social group and social behaviours - and part of our particular form of social behaviours is that we are capable of deep bonds of love. It may be that humans are most distinctive not just because of our intelligence, but also because of our strong emotional attachments.

And please don't patronise me by saying if I believe in love and relationship then I really have a religion. If my valuing of love and relationship sounds like your interpretation of your God, that doesn't mean I ought to take on all the accreted custom, myth, imaginings and writings that comprise the major religions. Perhaps it means you can drop a lot of the superstructure and get more directly to the core wisdom.

The subtitle of this nonsense contained references to the power and competition, plus pleasure and death, being all that the atheist world view has to offer.

Perhaps so, but how does Sells explain this image from a thoroughly vile film which was at the time lauded as a great missionary tool for the christian "faith". Bucket loads of pain and suffering leading to a brutalized death

http://hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion2/05.jpeg

This is supposedly an integral part of the christian message which christians are celebrating next weekend as "good news".

Remember too that it recently became public that the recent pope used to engage various "smacking of the flesh" exercises so as to strengthen his "faith", and resist the temptations of the "flesh".

There is just a matter of degree between such private masochistic practices and the horrific sado-masochistic pornography of Gibsons snuff/splatter film.

And yet steps are being taken to have this pleasureless pervert declared a "saint".

Only men and women of inherent pleasure are capable of knowing and being the Truth, and thus of being good company to all beings.

Plus my usual references re the truth about applied christian his-story 101

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html

This is becoming a somewhat familiar theme of yours, Mr Selleck.

>>This is basically why atheism in its present form is irrelevant to Christian faith because it can only think of God in terms of the analogy of “being”<<

(Let's ignore for a moment the idea that atheism, in any form, might ever have relevance to the Christian faith. Pure red herring.)

The problem of course is that throughout its history, thinking of God as a "being" is a recurring theme in your religion, as you yourself point out.

"The next step in this argument is to take the statement that man was created in the image of God seriously"

But to do so, you resort to a form of third line forcing...

"If God can only be understood by language that is based on an analogy of relation and if man was created in his image then our ontology is also based on that analogy. Since relationship can only exist between persons, that means that the proper ontology of man is that of the person."

This form of "if... then... then" argument relies entirely on the intrinsic strength of the "thens". On this occasion, it simply disappears into nothingness when you look carefully at the second "then", the ontology that is the "person".

Looking back at the path you took to reach the "person"...

"They concluded that the three Persons of the Trinity could only be understood in terms of the relations of persons... This was an ontology of being which did not rely on “being” understood in terms of the things of the world, their nature, but of existence in relation."

In relation to what, Mr Selleck?

In relation to non-existence?

I believe I understand what you are trying to do, which is to paper over the cracks that appear whenever religion - not just your own, or even your own version of Christianity - is examined too closely. But it is instructive that you are only able to do so in your own private language.

Using logical constructs that sag, rather alarmingly, in the middle.

What leapt off the page for me in this rambling mishmash was the comment on marital relations: "Do we regard our spouse as a means of sexual gratification, as an incubator for children, as unpaid labour or as prestige possession? Or do we regard them as “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh”?"

So in addition to the above pertinent reader comments I would like to add that when spoken by the chest-thumping male of the species, the phrasing that "his" woman is "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh" sounds just about as warped as the idea that Eve was just a spare rib. In the face of this, a plain old contract between a man and woman to be helpmates to each other in practical terms is a good deal less threatening.

Historically, the Puritans in the US seem to have had nicely passionate marriages, but the overall track record of Christian marriage isn't so positive. There are numerous cultures around the world that have norms governing sexual relations and child-rearing that are superior to ours, and that without reference to the God of the Bible (old or new testaments).

'The new atheists would have us return to a time in which the only realities are power, competition, pleasure and death.'

That sounds fine by me. If the religious want more, they are free to enjoy those lofty tales so tried and true. Why does it have to be either/or, and why does atheists enjoying anything have to do with the religious?

Realities? Realities are subjective.

'The natural parting of the good people and the bad people in these works of fiction is just a literary reflection of the variations in human nature.

Human beings, according to religious folk, were created by God in his image. '

True pelican.

God would be nothing without the Devil. How would he distinguish himself? Everything in it's place. No good without bad or bad without good. It's the inescapable beauty of all things. And as I said, it's all personal and unique to each person's psyche. Heaven, Hell, God, Devil, they're all inside me and part of me and everyone else. Individually. And they all have different hairdos.

But if you're really needing of comfort y'all, The Shins is da word...

'Of course I was raised to gather courage from those
Lofty tales so tried and true and
If you're able I'd suggest it 'cause this
Modern thought can get the best of you.

This rather simple epitaph can save your hide your falling mind
Fate isn't what we're up against there's no design no flaws to find
There's no design your flaws are fine.

But I learned fast how to keep my head up 'cause I
Know I got this side of me that
Wants to grab the yoke from the pilot and just
Fly the whole mess into the sea.'