Martin N,

There may have been a stage in your life where you didn’t have a religious belief, but I don’t think you were ever a serious, or ‘thinking’ atheist. Otherwise, you would understand that it is theists who are making the claim, not atheists. Atheism is simply a response to that claim.

<<Was I indoctrinated into atheism? I didn't think so - it was part of my belief system.>>

Of course you weren’t indoctrinated into atheism, because atheism doesn’t have a doctrine to be indoctrinated into. I’m glad you added the “part of” in “it was part of my belief system” though. Most theists are actually silly enough to think that atheism is a belief system, would you believe?!

<<Atheism really is a belief system.>>

Oh...

Well, in that case, I’ll ask you the same question I ask everyone who makes this ridiculous claim...

If atheism is a belief system, then name for me one other universal tenet of atheism other than the lack of belief in gods.

Pericles,
I often (certainly not always) disagree with you, sometimes I can learn from you, and I somehow came to think you were a historian (apologies if I am wrong). 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?

Every week church-leaders such as Pell, Jenson and others preach their interpretation of their religion; every week. At Christian dates of import they are given full media attention and frequently comment on non-religious or other religions to the public at large.

Australia held a single atheist convention a few weeks ago: in all I have read and heard from the speakers there was an abundance of discussion of philosophy and science. The range of topics, while publicised was never given the level of attention by mainstream media that Pell receives all-the-time. You need to seek out the ABC for transcripts and videos for considered comment on the convention.

Consider, similar sentiments of denigration expressed by a leading Muslim Iman about Christians; how would do Christians feel about that? And remember that Muslims receive more air-time than atheists but still far less than the likes of Pell.

Would not such negative sentiments "inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures", as Pericles pointed out? I think so.

The claim that atheism is a belief system, apart from the obvious which has already been pointed out: no doctrine, dogma, ritual, superstition, holy-days or other religious rite of passage. Please consider that:

1. Many atheists are born into religious families or attend religious schools; somehow these people work out that bibles are full of contradictions, impossibilities and no evidence for any claims about a supreme deity it contains.

2. Santa Claus; like many I was brought to believe in this childhood fantasy. Not believing in Santa is no more a "system of faith" than not believing in deities.

Finally, the Easter Attacks on innocent people who go about their lives without causing harm to anyone is a sad indictment of religious leaders in particular and religion in general; where were the congregations protesting their leaders' unsubstantiated claims? Not a single religious poster at OLO has had the guts to say that the Pells of religion consistently harm others by their proclamations about non-believers.

All we (atheists) hear is more obfuscation, sophistry and excuses.

AJ Philips – I watched the video you recommended. It started off with this: “Let’s assert that some kind space-time quantum foam sort of something existed before our own universe began, before our own big bang.”

Yes, well, I have to say that that didn’t inspire much confidence in the scientific rigor of the video.

You don’t seem to like my saying that in a godless world things simply happen spontaneously. But if there is no intelligent cause giving any direction to what happens in the universe, then things must just happen spontaneously i.e. without any intention or purpose., as in “spontaneous combustion”. I don’t see what your problem can be with that.

On your preferred theory of abiogenesis involving clay, this is what John Horgan, Scientific American’s senior writer from 1986 to 1997, had to say: “A. G. Cairns-Smith … proposes that life arose on a solid substrate that occurs in vents and almost everywhere else, but he prefers crystalline clays to pyrite … Unlike some origin-of-life theorists, Cairns-Smith cheerfully admits the failings of his pet hypothesis: no one has been able to coax clay into something resembling evolution in a laboratory; nor has anyone found anything resembling a clay-based organism in nature. Yet he argues that no theory requiring organic compounds to organize and replicate without assistance is likely to fare any better. ‘Organic molecules are too wiggly to work’, he says …”

And “‘The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened’, says Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee …”

And “RNA might be the first self-replicating molecule … But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge … Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, an RNA specialist. ‘It is an inept molecule’ …” “In the Beginning … ,” Scientific American 264: 116–125, Feb. 1991

Severin,

Very well said!

I was trying to put together a response for the excuses made for Pell and Jensen in this thread, but couldn’t quite formulate one that I thought would prevent me getting bogged down in sophistry and obfuscation, so I gave up trying.

JP,

<<I have to say that that didn’t inspire much confidence in the scientific rigor of the video.>>

Firstly, scientists don’t know and will possibly never know for sure what existed before the big bang and none of them deny this. That being said, there is nothing unscientific about making assumptions to start building a hypothesis on. That's how science works.

What scientific rigor is there is saying it was all just magiked into existence?

Secondly, it is a red herring to highlight the uncertainty of the video or anything scientists say on this matter as I was responding to your implication that atheists believed similar to the spontaneous generation.

And thirdly, it’s a bit rich for someone who not only plonks a god in the in the unknowns, but presumes to know who that god is, to be commenting on the “scientific rigor” of anything. It is more scientific to assume quantum foam than believe in a god.

<<You don’t seem to like my saying that in a godless world things simply happen spontaneously ... I don’t see what your problem can be with that.>>

My problem with that is that there is actually a cause to things like consciousness, intelligence and abiogenesis. The big bang? Well that’s an unknown and may always be unknown. We don’t even know if there was a cause to begin with. But anyone who cares about their beliefs being true would sooner say, “I don’t know”, than assume that an invisible magician did it.

Speaking of the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy...

Continued...

...Continued

<<On your preferred theory of abiogenesis involving clay, this is what John Horgan, Scientific American’s senior writer from 1986 to 1997, had to say...>>

Firstly, considering abiogenesis is still in its infancy, pointing out problems in the theory is hardly going to win anyone a Nobel prize. At this point, the fact that it has not proved to be impossible is of more significance.

Secondly, even if you could conclusively disprove abiogenesis, it still wouldn’t prove that a god did it all - to think so would be a false dichotomy. Nor would it disprove evolution for that matter.

And thirdly, this too is a red herring as I was, again, responding to your implication that atheists believed similar to the spontaneous generation.

<<And “‘The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened’, says Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee …”>>

Yes, I agree - “almost” and “imagine” being the operative words there too, by the way.

But like I said before, the first living cells would have been far more basic and primitive than the complex cells we know today. So much so in fact, that the more complex single-celled life forms today would simply devour them before they had a chance to form or replicate enough for any of us to see them.

Anyway, JP, we can continue this ‘til the cows come home but the fact remains that atheists don’t have a faith, and if everyone simply gave up by answering the tough questions with, “God musta dun it”, then we'd still be in the Dark Ages burning heretics.

You owe a lot to the inquiring minds of those who, unlike yourself, aren’t content to just take the lazy route by filling the mysteries of the universe with non-existent beings.

Just remember that the next time you want to mock them.