Apologies for the bad editing in my last post.

Pericles I don't dispute the logical analysis in your argument particularly if you are looking purely at semantics.

However, the difference between an atheist and a non-atheist is not confined to the absence of belief in the supernatural (albeit it is a large part). Human beings IMO share a common natural altruism and a vision that extends beyond the self (ego). To the theist, being 'nice' to each other as you put it, requires the intervention of a higher and all-powerful authority.

On closer analysis theists believe that for those commonalities to come together and for 'good to win over evil' (in the simplistic sense) there needs to be a 'higher' authority to set the framework for that spiritual/human connection (whatever one wants to call it).

The danger is when you hand over that sort of power and authority to an organisation (a group of people) there is a risk of abuse of that power and responsibility. That does not imply that those who hold that vested authority will always choose to abuse it.

My own view is that we can come to those same conclusions and foster those behaviours without a religious framework. In other words, ideology does not require an artificial stimulus via a belief in a deity.

Like Severin, I do believe that there is a spiritual connection that binds us to each other and to the environment that sustains us and humans don't need Gods to find that connection, but some may see that connection as 'God' - similar to the stance in Stephen's essay.

The positives that are found in a Church community such as friendship, support, mutual desire to do good, goals of self-awareness can be found in many groups whether it be political parties, tree planting groups, charities or other areas of society where people gather together for a common cause. Some people find that commonality in the Church. As OUG put it, the problem is not with 'God' but with the intrusion of Church into affairs outside their jurisdiction in a secular State.

cont/...

AGIR once chided me for suggesting a re-write of the Bible. It was said in the context of the above. I don't believe that society will lose religion or that some theists will lose their belief in the supernatural God (as opposed to the symbolic/metaphorical), but I hold out some hope that the more primitive (sometimes barbaric) language, religious rituals and the negative connotations on women and homosexuality can be modernised to reflect a more progressive 'way of life' approach discussed earlier.

That is, make the Church/religion more in tune or 'egalitarian' if you like, and in keeping with modern developments in law, science and human rights needs. It looks like some Churches like the Anglicans are willing to embrace or 'tolerate' in the early stages some semblance of this idea.

Pelican, hear hear.
"On closer analysis theists believe that for those commonalities to come together and for 'good to win over evil' (in the simplistic sense) there needs to be a 'higher' authority to set the framework for that spiritual/human connection (whatever one wants to call it)."
Some of the posters here seem genuinely mystified by the idea that an atheist can trusted to do the right thing, in the absence of any compulsion by God.
I suspect the very worst thing for society would be for such people to lose their faith, if that is all that is keeping them on the 'straight and narrow'.

You share my old Latin master's skill at hair-splitting, Mr Crabbe. That's some achievement. You even sound like him.

>>In + accusative indicates motion into (not towards, which would require ad + accusative).<<

Well, yes. But we can at least agree that both in and ad, plus accusative, indicate motion, can we not?

The objective was not to exercise first-form Latin, but to point out that your assertion that this particular prefix "'in' implies interiority" does a major disservice to the language, when a perfectly serviceable - and comprehensive - translation of the whole word "insistere" already exists.

>>I chose to introduce a new usage of “insist”... If you gag over new usage, that’s your right.<<

How can we possibly divine any meaning from your writing, if you randomly indulge in such a practice without due warning? It gives you free rein to say "it doesn't actually mean what you think it means, I simply decided to introduce a new usage."

>>You regard heretics as perverts?<<

Don't be so defensive. Look again - I was placing your claims "perversion-as-a-compliment" and "heresy-is-valuable" alongside each other, and making the obvious connection.

>>Straight from the gutter! Don’t misrepresent my statements as approbation of paedophilia.<<

(I suppose I could protest at this point that I was "introducing a new usage of 'paedophile'". But I won't.)

I should remind you that you had previously accepted the labels "idiosyncracy" and "perversion" as complimentary. I merely pointed out to you situations where these were not acceptable attributes.

>>No one in my church accuses me of heresy, but I don’t mind if you do.<<

There you go, imagining another slight. I have no opinion on whether what you say about the non-existence of God is heretical. It was your claim that your insights contained "many valuable things" that caught my attention.

>>It can never be “just about being nice to each other”... It’s much more [than being unselfish], but I have no time to elaborate.<<

Those two simple concepts take us a fair way down the track, though, don't they? How much more can there possibly be?

I guess crabsy doesn't so much exult our intelligence pericles, rather he insults it.

And by that I mean he inwardly celebrates it.

Here is one strait out of the good book Iam reading right now, and it says............... Please for give them my lord, for they not know what they do.

Can some-one translate that for me.

TTM>