[Deleted for abuse.]

: )

@GlenC, “So please, Mindless Cruelty, what is a fundamentalist atheist and what is it that they are all ignorant and/or intolerant of? It might help to remember that atheism is not a religion; it is an intellectual position”

I use religious terms to describe some fellow atheists as they adopt a religion-like attitude towards their non-belief. The term “zealot” has been appropriately used by others, as well.

IMHO, a fundamentalist atheist is one that is intolerant to theism, such as some posters here advocating the burning of The Bible and/or Quran. The burning of a book is NOT an intellectual position. Atheism is NOT an intellectual position, but rather, it is the non-existence of belief, which requires no intellect at all. Just because there are atheists that are intellectuals, does not make it an intellectual position, just as being a theist intellectual doesn’t prove there’s a God. It is merely the absence of belief, or the presence of belief. Being unable to disprove a concept is no more intellectual than the inability to prove it. Both are systems of belief or non-belief, but neither belief nor non-belief requires intellect. But with intellect, we are able to substantiate our positions.

Attempting to state that it’s an “intellectual position” is as spurious as stating that the authors of the documents were inspired by God. It seeks authority in intellect when there is NO authority in intellect. Intellect is only the potential to reason, problem-solve and absorb information, it is not a guarantee of certainty, correctness nor is it devoid of its own fantasies, misconceptions and personal bias.

You gotta come up with a better argument than, “I think I’m pretty smart, so you are best to listen to me.” Because that’s what “intellectual position” directly implies. And so in conclusion, and with all due respect, this phrase can exist as one of conceit, but certainly not one of authority.

@MindlessCruelty

Well yes, I could have qualified that statement a bit better, but I wasn't actually saying that I was the one who thought they had no value. I was looking forward to a future world of reason and rationality where fiction and fantasy are recognised as such and not presented as fact.

As an atheist, it doesn't concern me at all that some people need to believe in some invisible god, but I strongly object to these same people influencing the UN and most governments to pander to their fantasies as if they were true, and making it a crime to criticise their religion.

So, addressing the purpose of this post:
"Fuller exposure to religious education would benefit all Australian students"

Governments have no moral right to support religious indoctrination at public schools OR to financially support church schools.

We in the western world are facing a global crisis with Islam. Not Islam the religion necessarily, but Islam, the fascist-like ideology that is intent on taking over the world and installing sharia law everywhere.

THIS is what has mobilised so many non-believers to action, like never before. Moslems (as a group) are the only people who openly reject the Australian culture, customs and standards of Human Rights and who demand that we Australians change to suit them. This is simply absurd!

This is why school children need to be taught open-minded COMPARITIVE Religion together with a suitable ethics program, before it's too late.

quote ""Atheism is NOT an intellectual position, but rather, it is the non-existence of belief, which requires no intellect at all.

"Attempting to state that it’s an “intellectual position” is as spurious as stating that the authors of the documents were inspired by God. It seeks authority in intellect when there is NO authority in intellect. Intellect is only the potential to reason, problem-solve and absorb information, it is not a guarantee of certainty, correctness nor is it devoid of its own fantasies, misconceptions and personal bias.

"You gotta come up with a better argument than, “I think I’m pretty smart, so you are best to listen to me.” ... “intellectual position” directly implies ... conceit, but certainly not one of authority." /quote
MindlessCruelty (Sat 25 Sept 2010 6:50:51pm)

Atheism is simply explained as absence of belief in God (or gods) in the absence of evidence
i.e. it a reasoned position.

It can be further reasoned succinctly that the supernatural and other claims of the various religious texts and stories are best explained by those stories being fiction.

Your post is a series of strawman statements - setting up an alternative and attacking that made-up position.

Anti-theism is a different position.

@MindlessCruelty and @McReal
The irony of this point of the discussion is that IMHO you are both right.

As an atheist, I agree with McReal's definition: "...absence of belief in God (or gods) in the absence of evidence", but nowadays, the common meaning for "atheist" is "...someone who asserts there is no such being as God...". I suspect that it suits the religious right to have this definition appear in most american dictionaries.

The definition(s) of atheism (by atheists) can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

As atheists, all we can really say about the existence of any god(s) or the flying spagetti monster for that matter, is that, in the absense of any reliable evidence, it is highly improbable that either actually exist. Highly improbable. That's all.

I reject the "proof" offered by religions because it is full of omissions and contradictions. Some sections are meant to be taken literally while others are meant to be symbolic. Who determines that? The infallible pope? Yeah right!

I accept the atheist position because there are no contradictions and no omissions. Every argument is literal. There is no symbolism that is open to to be interpreted as you wish. Its accuracy is being constantly checked and updated with new information that supports all previous assertions. If contradictions are found, then it would be discarded.

This is why Comparitive Religion should be taught to ALL school children, so that they can make up their own minds, in their own time.

It simply is not right to feed young minds with fiction and fantasy presented as fact. They deserve better.