Runner

"Self Righteousess does however blind a person from seeing things as they are".

Quite so. So how do we measure who has the greater level of SR?

You, or the rationalist author?

AN, "those who believe in religion are that of spineless idiots who need a crutch in order just to survive" sounds pretty accurate to me.

Hasbeen, "Therefor[e], I suppose you could say I am a believer in christianity, just not the god stuff that goes with it".

Like all the Bishops in the C of E, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Spong and many others. That just shows though that there is absolutely no need for the special status of religions in our society, since we do not need the superstructure that leeches its way through our taxes and avoids any hard questioning.

If there were any real xtians inside a church, they'd have thrown their corrupt masters out long ago.

I look forward to an Eygptian/Libyian style uprising within the pews of the xtian church here in Oz.

It won't come of course, because of the well reasoned Arthur offering above... 'spineless idiots in search of a crutch'.

Arthur N,

Someone doesn't choose to be female, gay or black. But they choose to worship a god. If they are secure in their decision, any teasing should be water off a ducks back.

Same goes for those who are secure in their non-belief.

I think the agnostics are the most secure. Atheists seem altogether too keen to convince people they're right. I think the ultimate atheist is one who just doesn't care because it because it is so irrelevant to them. Like me.

I also think some people look to take offence. So when you offend them, you have actually made them happy. Then I'm happy for offending them, and they're happy to be outraged.

It's a win-win.

What's the point of having a faith when it is never tested. If everyone believed in god, it would negate the whole experience.

Imagine religion with nobody to convert, nobody to feel better than, nobody to tell that they're going to hell, no teasing and second thoughts to be overcome. What's the point in that.

The righteous need the sinners. The sinners need the righteous. It's all good.

Houellebecq, Friday, 1 April 2011 11:49:09 AM: "I think the ultimate atheist is one who just doesn't care because it because it is so irrelevant to them. Like me."

Irrelevant? Not unless you don't pay any tax to support the tax-favoured status of religious groups. Not unless you never want the option of voluntary euthanasia for you, your family or friends. Not unless you don't care that the ACL is running a strong campaign against marriage equality. Not unless you don't care about women in Queensland who don't have full access to legal abortion. If religious people would leave the rest of us alone and not seek to impose their views through legislation then Australia would be a better country.

Excellent Meredith.

Pity comments don't entirely seem to reflect your final line, just yet.

But of course belief systems float upon the seas of emotion. By definition one must abandon no small measure of reason and evidence to maintain them. From the three monotheistic faiths and their Alms Race, to new age therapies, to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccine advocates, to jilted lovers or defensive parents of those who commit horrific crimes. All have identified with, and internalised something, that does not exist.

And without reason or evidence the fault must, by elimination, be uncomfortably clear: it is the individual. As much as we try to build bridges, faith seems to be a durable cognitive detriment. Abandon Reason and evidence all ye who enter here.

In many ways you were asking your friend to accommodate a mindset that challenges his cognitive acuity, behaviour of other friends and significant others. How he sees himself based on the positive feedback of others. In fact his very ontology. And to accept your position passively he must - albeit briefly - identify with the ontological other. Tough gig. For other "believers" it demands leaving an entire, sometimes privileged life, behind. To risk the retributive altruism of the tribe.

I too squirm under the label "atheist", being one of those rare creatures to have never "believed", rather driven by a desire to "conclude". That's about the best description I can muster but as a "non-theist" only one goal supersedes universal abolition of bigotry (an intellectual offence I freely admit to) and equal rights.

And that is to embrace the ontological other.

If only they'd stop running from reality long enough for me to do so ;-)

TBC
"...those who 'believe' in anything as fanciful as the Catholic church need to be given a jolt every now and then."

Hear hear. And what about those who believe that the State presumptively represents the greater good; or represents the people more and better than the people's own voluntary and peaceable actions represent themselves and the greater good; or who presume that the State represents superior virtue, knowledge and capacity; or who believe that the State can rationalise scarcity by creating benefits out of thin air using nothing but aggressive force? Surely this is intellectually no better than religion, and morally worse?

Your point being what, Peter?

That St. Peter and his chums are the pinnacle of life-on-Earth, and we should all bow to that wisdom?

Or that everything is bollocks no matter what?