QUOTE:
Atheists simply accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural—no more, no less. There is no element of indoctrinated belief about atheism. Atheism is founded on the concept of evidence.

Atheism’s firm foundation on a desire for evidence, and not belief, is consistent with rational thinking and plain common sense. We use evidence as the basis for our scientific, medical and legal work.
UNQUOTE

Approaching this sort of claim from a Muslim's perspective, i have found the atheist discourse is so flawed that it is anything but motivated by the desire for rational discourse.

Several examples:

A speaker at the recent Melbourne conference of atheists, John Perkins, presented a paper titled: "The Cost of Religious Delusion: Islam and terrorism". The paper was long on steotypes but short on evidence. For example it claimed the Qur'aan upholds a geocentric view of the universe based on verses such as the following:
for example, in Surah 36,verse 40, Allah says:" The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
Anyone with the inclination can discover for themselves that the Qu'raan refers to the sun following an orbit: and indeed it does, along with our whole solar system, it orbits the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way at a speed of about 220 kilometres per second (792,000 kilometres per hour). (http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=12622&CATE=1).

John Perkins made no reference to support his interpretation. In fact his whole essay is devoid of any authorative reference to support his claims, obviously reflecting the fact that he knew he would be standing before an uncritical audience. So much for adhering to principles of rational discourse.

1/2 cont...

Pericles,
I am glad you returned to the original question I asked. Thank you for the detailed explanation of your reaction to the sermons by Jensen and Pell.

So I take your post as a confirmation that there does not exist an authentic transcription of their sermons freely available on the internet. That would have immediately answered my original question, that I am now sorry for having asked at all. [My only excuse is that I think had I reacted with the same zeal to something e.g. Dawkins said or implied, you would naturally want a link or other reference to see what exactly he said, so that you could judge for yourself.]

AJ Philips,
I certainly do not see Pericles or you as opponents in whose “armour” I would be “poking and prodding to find a chink”, since I do not see exchange of opinions on this OLO as a debating competition where one is after scoring points. Apologies, if I caused this misunderstanding. However, you cannot expect me to apologise also for thinking I know better than you what constitutes my faith, what are my reasons for it, as well as for being more familiar with the political system I grew up in.

I asked Pericles a question, he answered with questions of his own, which I tried to answer to the best of my knowledge; then you entered into the debate, and I tried to clarify things that I thought needed clarification. You did not think they needed clarification, OK.

So I think we should indeed heed hypatia’s advise and stop this verbal ping-pong, red herring or not.

2/2 cont

A second example:

Ibn Warraq, described by Richard Dawkins as a "true scholar" (or something to that effect), critiqued Islam as being based on anthropomorphic descriptions of God. This of course is inconsistent with the very nature of God. He failed to clearly indicate (except in a vague footnote) that he is in fact critiquing not Islam of the Prophet but the Wahhabi sect that emerged some 3 centuries back. Nor did he site (as a true scholar would have) the Muslims scholars who had, with far more eloquence and erudition, refuted this deviation from mainstream Islam many centuries before (eg. http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/inthesky.htm or http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm).

On a more positive note, within the Qur'aan there is the claim that it will not be corrupted.
"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it." Q15:9

Here we have a claim which can be put to the test. If the claim can be refuted "beyond a reasonable doubt" then this obviously castes serious doubt over the claim that the Qur'aan is the word of God.

On the other hand, if such evidence cannot be provided then we have to consider what is the likelihood of such a text being passed down for over 1400 years and there being no substantive evidence of it being corrupted. Recall the "Chinese whispers" game.

So here is an exercise for atheists: find evidence that indeed the Qur'aan has been corrupted, relying on serious scholarship. I have found atheists will shy away from this sort of challenge. Again so much for relying on the evidence.

I think the truth is most atheist extrapolate from their experience with Christianity and do not spend the time (indeed lifetime!) required to examine Islam seriously.

In short I dispute the idea that, at least insofar as Islam is concerned, that atheists "use evidence as the basis for our scientific, medical and legal work"

Curiouser and curiouser, George.

How on earth do you get from here, your actual question, verbatim:

>>So could you please spell out for me what, apparently unprecedented, “events of Easter … inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures” and what “consequences” are they supposed to lead to?<<

To here?

>>So I take your post as a confirmation that there does not exist an authentic transcription of their sermons freely available on the internet.That would have immediately answered my original question, that I am now sorry for having asked at all.<<

Where in your "original question" did you mention transcriptions, authentic or otherwise?

My musings on the issue were confined exclusively to what I, and all the people who did not attend the services in question, read in the press. My reaction to it was based therefore on the same material that was seen by the vast majority of the Christians in Australia.

I was not relying on detailed analysis of the actual words spoken, nor, I suspect, was anyone else. So, when you said

>>My only excuse is that I think had I reacted with the same zeal to something e.g. Dawkins said or implied, you would naturally want a link or other reference to see what exactly he said, so that you could judge for yourself<<

... you miss the point again.

I was not "judging" the sermons, or their content.

I was speculating on the impact of the reports of those sermons on the faithful, given they had the same information on what was said as I did.

Incidentally, this reference of yours was a little misleading

>>The only link to an Easter sermon by Pell, authorised by him, was http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/homilies/2010//201044_1424.shtml<<

Even an atheist can tell, at a glance, that this was not a sermon.

<<On a more positive note, within the Qur'aan there is the claim that it will not be corrupted. "Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it." Q15:9>>

Verily, is that what the Qur'aan claims? When you quote a paragraph with no context it can mean anything you want it to.

<<we have to consider what is the likelihood of such a text being passed down for over 1400 years and there being no substantive evidence of it being corrupted.>>

So? If in 1400 years time the text of Harry Potter shows no signs of being "corrupted", will that mean that wizards are real?

<<So here is an exercise for atheists: find evidence that indeed the Qur'aan has been corrupted, relying on serious scholarship. I have found atheists will shy away from this sort of challenge.>>

As they should. You've set a challenge that you know no-one will take up.

<<I think the truth is most atheist extrapolate from their experience with Christianity and do not spend the time (indeed lifetime!) required to examine Islam seriously.>>

Yes, I suspect that most atheists recognise from their experience with Christianity that Islam is just more of the same nonsense. As for spending a lifetime examining Islam seriously, why would anyone bother?

George,

<<...since I do not see exchange of opinions on this OLO as a debating competition where one is after scoring points.>>

That’s a good point, but I can then, unfortunately, only assume that it was the latter of my two theories.

<<However, you cannot expect me to apologise also for thinking I know better than you what constitutes my faith, what are my reasons for it...>>

Oh, absolutely.

You certainly do know better than I about what constitutes your faith. That’s why I would never dream of assuming to know the reasons for why you believe.

But the fact that you use the word “faith” to describe your belief gives me sufficient knowledge to know that those reasons are not good reasons. At least not when you take into account just how much of an affect religious belief can have on a person - whether that be good or bad.

<<...as well as for being more familiar with the political system I grew up in.>>

I don’t claim to be more familiar with the political system you grew up with, but one could argue that you were unable to view the situation in a more measured and objective way having been a theist in amongst what would have felt like a full-blown attack on your beliefs. The atheistic aspect of the ideology may have been a little more pronounced to you than what it was in reality.

Either way, I do think it’s a bit below the belt and misleading to refer to Stalinist countries as “atheist” when there was so much more to the ideology. Remember religion was a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

<<...then you entered into the debate, and I tried to clarify things that I thought needed clarification. You did not think they needed clarification, OK.>>

No, I didn’t think the fact that atheism and theism are not world-views in themselves needed clarification because I agreed.

Continued...