"Better to be hated than ignored." I guess if this is the Church's new corporate mission it's a start. Will they hang this from the front door of Cathedrals or use it in outdoor advertisements? It's pretty catchy.

I doubt the anger is directed at something you like to call "God" though Greg. I think the anger is directed at people who foist their beliefs on others for their own ends.

Take for example, school chaplaincy. My 6 year old is exposed to this "divine intervention in curriculum" once a week. Opt out is not much of an option if you don't want your child ostracised from their peers. "Opt in" is the only true option yet Church Inc. don't have the stomach for that sort of test.

That makes me angry Greg, the pathetic drive for young minds using every political tool at its disposal. "God" ain't the issue Greg, "meddling God botherers" are.

What a load garbage.

Typical of the kind of simplistic straw-man nonsense that the Centre for Public Christianity with its naive mommy-daddy "creator"-God, promotes.
Why not check out these references instead.

http://www.dabase.org/dht7.htm

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god.aspx

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/gnosticon/culturally_prescribed_god_idea.html

http://www.beezone.com/up/propheticcriticismreligions.html

"I doubt the anger is directed at something you like to call "God" though Greg. I think the anger is directed at people who foist their beliefs on others for their own ends."

That pretty much sum's it up for many of us.

Then you get to disections of the character of the christain god, generally as a response to claims by thiests about how good their god is. Likewise for the Islamic prophet, most could not give a rats about him but when he is help up as an ideal which the rest should aspire to then his shortcomings deserve some highlighting.

Once you step outside belief in the christian god it becomes obvious how much christains have to explain away or pretend it's not there to continue the belief that their god is somehow good or loving.

It's not so much about caring about god, it's the attempts by some christains (muslims and other thiests) to impose their beliefs and the consequences of those beliefs on others.

R0bert

There are enough straw men here to fuel a biomass power station. Misotheism (which by the way my spell check does not recognize), it seems, is a hatred of god or gods. How can one hate something that does not exist? Ipso facto, misotheists must believe in the existence of (at least one) god. Wow! Atheism demolished by creating a single word. Almost a miracle. Oops, does that slip mean I believe in miracles? I guess Greg Clarke might think so. Sorry Greg, I don’t.

My own atheism is simply a lack of belief. I didn’t pick the label, though it is a convenient one. There might be a measure of hostility there but obviously it cannot be towards a god. It must be towards the belief in such gods or more importantly to the consequences of such beliefs. Pretty simple really. Thanks for the chance to reflect.

That might all sound a bit negative. Let me emphasise the positive. “Rejecting God in a public way”, the core target of Greg Clarke’s odd argument, is celebrating a freedom that did not exist when I was young. Religion was an oppressive force. Some of my less timid peers could be open in stating their lack of belief. I was unable to. That was a long time ago. It became progressively easier. Today anyone in this country can be open about their lack of religion. It is still not so everywhere. The public rejecters of gods have led the way in promoting this freedom. More power to them

"I think hating God in this way is far preferable to losing interest in the question of the Divine. I far prefer an angry Atheist to an Apatheist. At least the God-hater still cares."

Atheists are no more angry than any other person. How can an Atheist hate God whom does not exist. The notion is a nonsense. To an Atheist that is like saying denying the existence of fairies must mean you hate them, or the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

Atheists have no interest at all in God per se, it is those who practice this faith that insist on inserting their beliefs into the school system and using the playground as fodder for recruitment.

That is the crux of it no matter how you wish to spin it. The approach taken in this article is a 'head in the sand' denialist approach. That is denial (not wishing to see) to what Atheists are in reality objecting.

There is enough spin in politics, please lets not have it in the debate about secularism.

What bitey, Ho Hum and R0bert said.

I don't hate things which aren't real.

I abhor dogma that some feel they are justified on forcing on people - such as the CRE programs at present. If we remain silent on these infringements into our personal lives then we only have ourselves to blame if the secular state crumbles.

This article is just a weak attempt to silence those who do not share the views of Christianity.

Your point is and will be well illustrated in these posts Greg.

And your comment well illustrates the meaning of those posts runner.

It is deceptive to accuse people of 'hate' when clearly there is no such emotion. Do you actually read what people write or do you stumble in like a bull in a China shop not caring what you break or ruin in the process. This is not the act of a Christian who seeks the truth, and in this context refuses to unveil the real and legitimate concerns over forced Christianity.

Christianity per se is not the problem, it is the people who act in God's name to force their will onto other people and who arrogantly defend their world-view as the only valid one. This happens within the Christian faith as well, if the Protestant vs Catholic tensions are anything to go by.

Many older Catholics of my acquaintance still believe Protestants are heathens and won't go to heaven. And it is the same God. SOME Muslims are saying death to the infidels or live by the creed of "you are either a Muslim or not a Muslim" where anyone other than Muslims are viewed with less respect - as is being identified as a huge problem in Britain.

That is real hate and to deny it is to allow evil to prosper. It is no longer acceptable for religions of any persuasion to force their will onto other people.

That is not hate.

Don't worry Runner soon you will receive your reward for casting aspersions on all non-Christians:

http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/

" Judgment Day!
May 21, 2011

And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. Revelation 9:5."

I figure having read to Runner's insults for years, I've had more than my allotted 5 months of torment and can look forward to a world empty of fundamentalist Christians as they are swept into heaven.

Yay!

Do misotheists hate/reject god due to ignorance or perhaps due to a religious upbringing? I think the second option is more likely.

When you look at the hate the religious have for things like evolution and the big bang theory I ask myself the same question. In this case it is definitely due to ignorance. Unless people like runner would like to prove me wrong by actually explaining why he rejects/hates these theories.

There are three main types of people in the Christian world;
Christians - Agnostics - Athiests.
Christians believe in a Divine God almighty, a loving God.
and there are various types of Christians;
(1) A true believer who obeys the simple law of,"if you love the Lord your God and love your neibour as yourself then you break no laws.
(2) Then there is the Sunday morning christian singing louder than the rest. Many of them are not dedicated christians
(3) then there is corporate christians (the man made church sects)who use the bible and its scriptures as a corporate tool to make money.
Agnostics are neither believers nor non-believers.
They have the opinion that there may be a god or there may not be a god. They keep an open mind on it in the hope of finding the answer one way or the other.
Then there are the Athiests, who deny the existance of any god or religion.
The point I wish to make is we can all live in harmony together by respecting each others views and not try and force our opinions on others.
And for the record I am an agnostic.

I would guess that most angry atheists such as myself are not angry at god, but angry at Christians and the Church that feels it needs to impose their doctrine on my life.

Shadow I understand what you are saying and agree that the church in most cases impose their own beliefs on the people. They do this by using their followers to push the the church doctrine on agnostics and athiests alike. I have friends from many walks of life. Some call themselves christians, some athiests, some agnostic. One of my best friends is a true christian believer and not one of the Sunday morning christians singing louder than the rest. His name is Bill and he devotes all his time and resources to helping struggling families, the poor and the homeless. I often give him a hand of a Saturday afternoon collecting bread from a bakery and fruit and vegetables from a fruit shop both in Mentone both donated. We then travel to poor areas and distribute the food. What I like about Bill is he respects people and their views and does not try and force religion on people. He respects that I am an agnostic and does not attempt to change me or anyone else for that matter. He will only preach to people if they ask him.
cheers

Ammonite writes

'I figure having read to Runner's insults for years, I've had more than my allotted 5 months of torment and can look forward to a world empty of fundamentalist Christians as they are swept into heaven.'

Just a few articles ago he writes

'The slaughter of innocents is a common theme in the bible, the Q'ran, the Torah - whatever it takes to make the f&ckers believe in god.'

I am sure the 'insults' have cut deep Ammonite. You seem blinded by your own indecency.

Provocative article here, which no doubt raises some good questions, especially about the psychology and nature of humanity.

For those criticising Clarke's use of the word hate, 1: Don't shoot the messenger, in fairness to him he's reviewing a book after all. And 2. It's more of a rhetorical flourish anyway.

Pelican,

[Christianity per se is not the problem, it is the people who act in God's name to force their will onto other people and who arrogantly defend their world-view as the only valid one].

I believe I understand where you are coming from with your complaint here- no one likes it when other people claim exclusive truth. But on the other hand, making that complaint in the way that you have suggests you have unfortunatly misunderstood the nature of Christianity. IF Christianity IS true, then it IS the only valid worldview. Likewise, if naturalism is true, then clearly atheism is correct and the vast, vast majority of religions are incorrect about the ultimate nature of reality. There can only be one objectively true worldview.

Each generation has its own quirks, and I believe you've displayed a 21st century quirk here. An irrational paradox of the modern age is that it's supposedly arrogant to claim to know the truth and to tell everyone else (however tactfully) that they are, in fact, wrong. And yet, at the same time it's perfectly acceptable to make the truth claim that all worldviews are equally valid and that anyone who doesn't believe that is, well, wrong!

I do not hate god. How can I hate something that I believe does not exist?

I have no feelings either way for those who believe in a god. I am aware of the fact, that I cannot prove god does not exist, and others cannot prove he does.

Religion is another matter, I do have problems with many religions of all faiths, especially those of a fundamental slant. I do not hate religion but many I do not respect.

Better hated than ignored eh?

Are we being trolled by the Christians now?

LOL....What a pathetic attempt to stricken the free born people of this planet that can think for themselves quite well. This is how they do it.

They make you feel as guilty as they can, order to play upon your natural human emotions and make you feel sorry for them.....now thats! desperate:) Do Not let them make you feel that you owe them anything.

Hating GOD...LOL What GOD! The all mighty invented one....pleaseeeee! Give it a rest.

Its the free people of this world that will ignore you.

Turn your backs for a new and free world.

Ban all parasitism.

LEA

"God the Lover"?

...I hope she's a 25 year old blonde nymphomaniac!

It's not how I remember "Endgame" either, which is predicated on an endless stalemate in a drawn-out game of chess--infinitely boring without some kind of resolution to play for I s'pose is the point.

But yes, I've got no time for atheists who relish their reductionism either.

...But then, it's not about asserting that "there is no God!", and more about, "God! ...What are you on, mate?"

Of course I flat-out don't believe in the Biblical God--bloody nonsense (though hermeneutically fascinating!)--nobody who's ever thought about it could (cheap shot at xtians there)!
...But then, there are infinite other possibilities in the universe and ignorance is a kind of "absurd"* bliss/torture.

"I far prefer an angry Atheist to an Apatheist. At least the God-hater still cares".

And I far prefer a thinking Christian to a devout one. At least a thinking Christian's an apostate.

* Beckett's plays were part of the theatre of the absurd.

I detest the suggestion that thinking people cannot be devout believers. And Greg Clarke would also detest such a claim.

In my experience, it's a statement that online atheists make with predictable regularity, yet lack the ability to prove or even make good arguments whatsoever in support of.

"I detest the suggestion that thinking people cannot be devout believers".
Well you should qualify that, Trav. .. Believers in what?
I devoutly believe that good is better than bad, and that we could make this world a better place for everyone. And I devoutly believe in my ignorance--which allows for endless possibilities. But I'm willing to dismiss 2000 year old fairy tales that appeal to fear and vanity, in the light of more rigorous, evidence-based and up-to-date explanations for my existence. But I'm fickle though, should new, more compelling evidence come to light, I'll consider it too--or at least I'll weigh it against my infallible ignorance.

Anyway, I implied that believers in the "Biblical God" could not also be thinkers.
Many Christians treat the Bible as symbolic/literary evidence for an enduring, even universal, fascination with the mystery of creation. I agree and don't dismiss it--all that hankering can't be based on nothing, right? That would be absurd.
I find that kind of rationale cum sceptical agnosticism perfectly acceptable, though I can think of other explanations too and so in all humility I don't put any faith in it.
If God wants to punish me for owning my ignorance, so be it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgDAxCcXdZ0

Isnt it funny that religious groups doctrine, relays on more children for indoctrination, to save, its system......Now 7 Billion...well....I guess religious people are intelligently understanding.

Religious people are not bad people, there just a bit slow:) no catching up now! you hear:)

The environmentalists are very concerned about the religious mind-sets as well as the UN, on there breading philosophies.

Ummmm lets see. No birth control, No contraceptives, No abortion, but just more children:).....funny that:)

LEA

Squeers, yes, you "implied that believers in the "Biblical God" could not also be thinkers."

And that's exactly what I was referring to.

You love evidence, that's "evident" from your posts. Yet, you haven't provided any for this statement. And as someone who considers myself to be both a believer and a thinker, it's offensive.

But of course, I guess it shouldn't worry me, it isn't like you've provided any "evidence" for your statement.

Cool link Ammonite.

Inspired me to sing "it's the end of the world as we know it".

The BIG question is do I have enough time to master the trumpet to warn the people?

Loved the comments section, especially the battle hymn. Bring it on!

Or not.

http://christianity.about.com/od/symbolspictures/ig/Christian-Symbols-Glossary/Bread-and-Wine.htm

Just in case "breading wasn't understood.

Love all that loves you:)

Peace.

LEA

God's covenant in blood, poured out in payment for mankind's sin.

What have I done wrong again?

Only the ignorance of man can not see the true meaning of life.

My kung-Fu is strong:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALaajR2Wcjk

Of course interpretations may vary:)

Its your world.

Good luck.

LEA

Trav:
"You love evidence, that's "evident" from your posts. Yet, you haven't provided any for this statement [that thinking people cannot be devout believers (in a Biblical God)]. And as someone who considers myself to be both a believer and a thinker, it's offensive."

Let's start by defining our terms.
According to the OED a "thinker" is: "A person engaged in thinking; a being having the power to think. Also: a person who thinks out or devises something"--"free thought"?
And a "believer":
"One who has faith in the doctrines of religion; esp. a Christian disciple".

This is disappointing, I was hoping to find something more damning, nevertheless these terms seem to me to be mutually exclusive as modes of cognition; one thinks aggressively, independently and prospectively (this is at least my definition of a thinker), and the other imbibes passively, credulkously and yearningly.
According to these modes of cognition I don't see how you can accept the Bible's account of a jealous, vengeful, homicidal and in various other ways irrational (you don't want me to cite line and verse do you?)--indeed all too human--God, and yet claim to be a "thinker" simultaneously.
The Biblical account of God and his creation just doesn't bear thinking about!
Yet you claim to be a "thinking" Biblical fundamentalist, I take it?
How can you then interrogate, that is think about, this anthology compiled by men--or do you take it to be the literal word of God? In which case thought is surely redundant? and you are ergo not a thinker?

What is "your" definition of a thinker?

I put very little store in my thinking, and even less in empiricism; but for me, believing in some musty old text, written by men and endlessly revised and translated by men, doesn't count as thinking at all.
May I ask how you reconcile your Biblical fundamentalism and "free thought"?

Squeers,

I note with interest the sly transitions in terms being made here. We started off talking about being a "thinker" and believing in "The Biblical God" and by the end of the post you were equating this with "Free thought" and being a "Biblical Fundamentalist". Both of those phrases are heavily loaded and their meanings are themselves up for debate. I'm not obliged to do any reconciling here- you are the one with the burden of proof as you've made the claim here.

I'm happy enough with the definitions you've given- ie: "A person engaged in thinking". The first two definitions that came up on my google search were as follows: "A person who thinks deeply and seriously" (dictionary.com) and "One who devotes much time to thought or meditation" (the freedictionary.com). Any of those three will do for me, because all three fit what I had in mind- that is, my understanding concurs with all 3 of those definitions.

For someone who prides themself on being a thinker, your thoughts on this subject seem rather simplistic (as opposed to thinking deeply about the matter). For example, where is the conflict in accepting that the Bible is, in fact, an "anthology compiled by men" and yet also believing that it contains both timeless theological truths and actual history? Why is it irrational to believe that a God who is a personal agent and who valuse some kind of relationship with his creation would also at times display relational characteristics (and thus appear jealous and vengeful to our human way of thinking)?

As I said, you've made the claim here (and quite a big claim, I should add) but as far as I can see, you're making simplistic assertions rather than deep arguments.

@Runner

>>>> The slaughter of innocents is a common theme in the bible, the Q'ran, the Torah - whatever it takes to make the f&ckers believe in god.' <<<<

>> I am sure the 'insults' have cut deep Ammonite. You seem blinded by your own indecency. <<

I assume you are offended by my use of the word "f&ckers", which is a bit OTT. I should've said something like the "hapless sods" - to emphasize the degree of fear that is used to create and maintain believers.

Then, true to form, you respond with a personal insult. This is exactly what I mean by your behaviour towards others on this forum - your personal vindictiveness.

@Neutral

Thanks. I can't wait; the world will be a whole lot less violent once the fundy Christians have been taken in the 'rapture'.

"Its the end of the world as we know it, the end of the world as we know it.... and I feel fiiiine!"

Trav,

I've instigated no "sly transitions in terms", but tried to be faithful to the definitions the OED gave. This is the complete OED and so each term had other definitions and long lists of varying usage. The two definitions I cited were however the primary ones.
I suggested "free thought" to round-up the definition of what a thinker indulges. You're under no obligation to accept the term, though it seems fair and acceptable to me. Can you tell me what you're definition of a thinker is?
I accept that the expression "Biblical fundamentalist" is a phrase loaded with baggage, but in this instance it aptly says exactly what you've claimed to be: a thinker who also believes in a Biblical God.

Anyway, I've no wish to give real offence; I took this to be a light-hearted thread, which is a refreshing change after some of the heavy-going ones we get on the topic.
I stand by everything I've said, however, and still don't see how you can claim to be a "thinker" (and all that implies) and a "believer in a biblical God". Please explain?
If it's any consolation, I'm equally unimpressed with so-called "thinkers" who claim to "believe" there is "no" God, or indeed put their faith in anything they've thunk. The delight and attraction, as well as the bane, of "thinking" surely lies precisely in its endless round and its hapless indeterminacy. One stumbles across all sorts of beguiling constructions, but cannot become transfixed by any of them and remain a thinker. The essence of thinking is unrest, the prize is angst and the lesson is humility.

As I have commented previously, whenever there is a post that mentions God or religion, it tends to get a lot more responses than other posts. And yes, a lot of them seem to be angry.

Why is that?

Squeers:”Anyway, I've no wish to give real offence; I took this to be a light-hearted thread...”

Hmm... Not me, it was the final straw. I am withdrawing consent for the kids I have in Religious Instruction. If they are made to feel bad then I will explain which religion is doing that to them.

Yesterday I listened to little children being told “God made you God made everything yadda yadda yadda...” and then to top it off I read this article.

Do I hate God/s? No, in my house I am God which is why monsters are not allowed to hide in wardrobes or under beds here and giant robots with big teeth have been banished.

Hey RD, I don't know. I don't feel angry - my decision has cheered me up and I wish I'd done it ages ago.

Hey, Jewely - your cheeriness is due to feeling of "empowerment".

You got to make a decision about something that goes on in an institutional setting - something you suddenly "seriously" realised was in your power to alter.

Previous posts say the obvious pretty well: Atheists do not hate God, they hate the fact that believers use God to make up for their appalling lack of Good. (Yes this is a big generalisation)
They purport to follow holy teachings of Love...then use their "holiness" to justify bullying and general nasty behaviour.
If religion is so "true" how come it does *not* lead to better behaviour? How come it is all too often associated with ignorance and pain? (Not to mention paedophile apologists and protectors)
Good is innate in humans, God is used by the few to manipulate the many. Even Jesus said "the self is the path to God"...which was deliberately mistranslated as "I am the path to God" so the priests could then speak for Him. It is this sort of dishonesty that Atheists deride...not hate, which is an attitude more associated with religious folks.
Finally, religions rely on child indoctrination...the most dishonest form of culture possible. The *only* form of religious education that is not child abuse is comparative religion. All else if fear inducing mental straight-jackets that children can and should do without.
Remember: An atheist is someone who believes in *one less* God than the religious person.
So where did the universe come from? God built it. So where did God come from? [crickets] "Solving" the existential mystery by introducing something even more amazing is sloppy logic.
So does God provide a path to Good?..not according to history. Only good leads to good, and atheism is a more effective path than the childish "God as Big Daddy who will punish you" approach.

I had a think about that Poirot and yep I’ve been very reluctant here making decisions and not understanding the way things are done. It is subtle but it is the subtle differences that are difficult for me to navigate. OUG suggested a very long time ago I need to find what power I had and I can see you can’t find out without pushing a few boundaries.

I was informed that “all children go” by the powers that be when I questioned scripture lessons. I requested to see the form and it has several boxes that can be ticked including “None” (I have it in my hot little hand). I wasn’t lied to but I was pondering if I was about to upset the boat or ark and make some weird cultural mistake, one that could affect small people more than me.

Learning about Aussie from OLO can sometimes be confusing.

So many strenuously negative comments on this thread seem to reveal almost a confirmation of the author's assertion that Atheists seem to hold a vindictive view of anyone who believes in God - not only rejecting the notion of God, but also of all who believe. This would seem to me to be a form either of self-righteous or of quasi-religious indignation - or at least to be significantly intolerant of one's fellow man. There have been some exceptions, and I would not be so bold as to intimate that those others represented in this thread would be truly indicative of atheists in general.

Christians, by the way, are rightly by definition those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God made Man. If any care to study the teachings of Christ they will find much to contradict those negative biblical references that some posters take much delight in waving around as Eureka flags in their sterile attempts to dishonour Christianity. Christians are not bound by the bible, as some take great delight in intimating or asserting, but many study the bible seeking confirmation of the teachings of Christ Himself. Though there are undoubtedly some who take the word of the bible too literally, these do not represent the whole of Christianity, just as some irreligious bigots would not be held to represent all who do not believe either in the bible or in God, or in Jesus Christ.

Just as the majority of students of the Koran are not zealots or terrorists, the majority of those who study the bible are not proselytisers.

I could easily take exception to many of the postings on this thread, but I refrain from doing so, as is my God given right.

Hi Jewely,
I'd used my four posts here when I had the chance to reply yesterday.
None of my kids do RI. My oldest girl did last year purely because she wanted to be with her friends. But this year, happily, none of them want it. But there are Christians lying in wait all over their schools; RI, Strength and Shine programmes, social groups where children are groomed for the more intensive clubs and camps and evangelism they're seduced by outside school.
So was just me treating this thread in a light-hearted manner, but don't worry, I take their sneaky agenda in State schools very seriously.

Trav,

I'm still hoping you'll define your terms for me...

A variety of compromises have been put forward on this and the SRI thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11980.

These have been (in no particular order):

1. Opt-in instead of opt-out of RI

2. RI be conducted by relevant religions in their place of worship - in addition to this, suggestions for out of school hours at schools by religious teachers.

3. Banning RI completely from state schools - there are religious schools available.

4. Chaplains be replaced by Psychologists and/or counselors.

5. Ethics be taught in a non-denominational structure.

6. Teaching of comparative religions.

All these suggestions have been met with dismissal by most (not all) regular self-professed 'christians'. I am using italics for the sheer lack of charity exhibited by these shrill uncompromising few. They do not want to negotiate, they cast aspersions on the values of those who disagree with them and simply behave like spoiled children.

I would like to add to the list above:

7. The art of negotiation and compromise.

Christianity receives a greater share of the teaching 'cake' than any other group, be they other religions or non-religious. I'm hoping the rapture does occur today (although it may be tomorrow given that the prediction was by an American minister on American time). Whatever, I doubt that any of the intolerant, uncompromising few will be 'enraptured'.

Welcome to hell.

From Getup:

Doris Daisy: Strange isn't it that the Government is spending millions to place religious chaplains in government schools yet religious schools like the one I work in provide trained counsellors. We wouldn't dream of sending a student who is suffering from depression to see the priest. Quite a reversal!

The link is here:

http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1096087-school-chaplaincy-program?page=6&ref=comment

My 6yo son was very dissapointed this morning to wake up and find no scorpions to battle with the coming of the rapture.

Neutral

Tell your son not to worry The Rapture is predicted on USA time - which means you son can fight the scorpions tomorrow.

BTW

I would like to make clear to all the religious people who have accused me of vitriol that I do not hate religion. Any religion.

I hate hypocrisy.

Go figure that out.

Oh yes, of course Ammonite!

So now he wants to go to America to protect them:)

Quite ironic when you think about it....

Anyway he seems happy enough battling the dog in the back yard.

Salt:”So many strenuously negative comments on this thread seem to reveal almost a confirmation of the author's assertion that Atheists seem to hold a vindictive view of anyone who believes in God - not only rejecting the notion of God, but also of all who believe.”

You calling others anti is interesting. I suspect the Christians would like to think of atheists as haters but mostly we’re just cruising along until other peoples beliefs try and mess with how we want to live and where our tax money turns up. My Christian and Muslim and Hindu mates never did that though and the quandary is they support organizations and churches that do. I’m going to carry on liking them anyways. Atheists have to forgive more often than anyone else.

Squeers:”So was just me treating this thread in a light-hearted manner, but don't worry, I take their sneaky agenda in State schools very seriously.”

I’m just learning about state schools here, high security fences, blocked out windows, parents not allowed in the corridors where they might get a glance of what their children are doing. Thank any given deity it’s now the weekend because on school days I want to cry loudly all the way there and all the way back sobbing and clutching each lamp post along the way while randomly screaming WHY DID YOU FORSAKE THEM.

Where have the family friendly joyful little schools gone?

Ammo:”The Rapture is predicted on USA time - which means you son can fight the scorpions tomorrow.”

I heard God was coming to pick up the 0 – 7 year olds and take them to heaven, I was wondering what the 8 year olds did wrong?

Dear Jewely

Everything I know about the Rapture is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zm9saD19bY&feature=uploademail

That's a bum rap about the 8 years +. Another reason why religion has no place in state schools. Just imagine what little 8 eight old Davey is saying to his non-Christian mate, Yusuf.

Ah yes, the old Jesuit saying:

"Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man."

So Yusuf will go to hell, for not being Christian.

Well Jewely, its good to see you're in good form. Funny all the same that you should say that "Atheists have to forgive more often than anyone else." One look at some of Ammonite's and a few others' posts might tend to question the universal applicability of that little statement.

Nonetheless, have to love all atheists (and let's not forget the agnosticators), for that is the Christian way, and as one may be assured of some interesting points of view. Life is full of little joys, and we must appreciate them while we can.

It's amazing all the same how stuck we remain on the SRI question, although this is quite a separate thread. Curious. SRI seems to have a life of its own. Will it also go poof on the 21st? (U.S. time of course.)

Nice clip Ammo, gave me a giggle. How long we got to go now?

Salt babe I am always in good form, except when I am in bad form.

And I think all religions have that loving everyone else clause except when they are told to hate everyone else.

The SRI question isn’t really a question is it? It’s more like the “done thing” at others expense. I reckon get it out of public schools, leave the little kids alone.

Of course disbelievers and doubters have to forgive more, otherwise they’d go insane. Not only forgive and be more tolerant and be more understanding than those of faith. Amazing they can figure it out given that no one is instructing them to do it and they aren’t following any holy books (updated and revised to suit various times and societies) to work out what is right and wrong.

You ever had a nutbar preach to you? I either want to shake them, shoot them or shoo them away. The law advises the shooing so I stick with that. I’ve just had enough of faith. Science and evolution has never caused me a moment of harm (does the dentist or appendicitis count?). If others have their beliefs I am happy (and sad) for them.

Saltpetre

You just don't get it do you? Many people not just atheists, agnostics, other religions, INCLUDING CHRISTIANS, don't support RE in state schools.

Trying to explain anything to you is like talking to a brick wall, we don't need our children's minds walled by religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbM_MIz4RM

Gee, Saltpetre, I wish Boaz was still around to hear this.

>>If any care to study the teachings of Christ they will find much to contradict those negative biblical references that some posters take much delight in waving around as Eureka flags in their sterile attempts to dishonour Christianity.<<

I have lost count of the number of times I tried to explain this to him.

Except, of course, I was referring to Muslims and the Qur'an.

"If any care to study the teachings of Mohammed they will find much to contradict those negative Koranic references that some posters take much delight in waving around as Eureka flags in their sterile attempts to dishonour Islam."

Of course, I wasn't quite as direct and succinct as you have been.

Many thanks.

Squeers.

I already defined "thinker" in my last post...

[I'm happy enough with the definitions you've given- ie: "A person engaged in thinking". The first two definitions that came up on my google search were as follows: "A person who thinks deeply and seriously" (dictionary.com) and "One who devotes much time to thought or meditation" (the freedictionary.com). Any of those three will do for me, because all three fit what I had in mind- that is, my understanding concurs with all 3 of those definitions.]

So I'm assuming you're looking for a definition of "Believer in the Biblical God", which admittedly is more difficult. I would simply say that it is someone who takes the Bible seriously and believes that there exists a personal God, in the form of a trinity, who lived amongst us on earth in the form of Jesus Christ.

I see no inherent conflict in being someone who fits into both camps.

Thanks Trav,
but when you say, "where is the conflict in accepting that the Bible is, in fact, an "anthology compiled by men" and yet also believing that it contains both 'timeless theological truths and actual history'? [my emphasis]"
This suggests a compromise; you said you believed in a "biblical God", and now you're admitting the Bible is an "anthology compiled by men", and throwing universals and historcism into the mix to boot!

"Why is it irrational to believe that a God who is a personal agent and who valuse some kind of relationship with his creation and who valuse some kind of relationship with his creation would also at times display relational characteristics (and thus appear jealous and vengeful to our human way of thinking)?"

I didn't say it was "irrational", I implied it wasn't 'thinking' in any legitimate, enquiring sense, but merely derivitive. But since you ask, how is it rational (not to mention ethical), for instance, to rationalise that your personal and caring God is preoccupied with spoiled westerners, while simultaneously indifferent to the wholesale suffering, misery and death in the third-world part of his creation? Don't you think he should get his priorities in order?

"So I'm assuming you're looking for a definition of "Believer in the Biblical God", which admittedly is more difficult". No. One that's a thinker too?

"I would simply say that it is someone who takes the Bible seriously and believes that there exists a personal God, in the form of a trinity [why in the form of a trinity? Is that thinking, or dogma?], who lived amongst us on earth in the form of Jesus Christ".

Sorry Trav, I have no wish to take the p!ss, but you can't have it both ways. You're either a believer or a thinker, the two don't mix.

And if I may add, without false modesty, I'm not "someone who prides themself on being a thinker"--and I see the limitations of thought!

You would think food for thought was a blasphemy, and hate! well....if one's hates.....you loose"_) Now since we all are from the soup, whats the way out. If its not coherent to our thoughtful beginnings, love must and can be the only way out for this human-condition.

The zoo or jail if you don't see it. Love will....all that are not, will see the day, and you all live it.....and you do.

I believe every man is worth his salt.....

and with that man, comes the live giver.

And that's why they prize the lord.

Its just an observation by many smart men/people:P) and now time, your up with.

Now. The big question........why us, for all else?

Thats the question i WANT answered....please.

LEA

Ok Ammo, better take a deep breath, or your head may xplode. I got your drift a long time ago. You are a good person who chooses, as is his/her right, not to believe in an all-powerful loving smiter of whatever disturbs the inviolable balance of wit. More power to the ethos.

I have lost count of the number of posts I have made supporting the majority view that RI in non-denominational schools needs replacing with cultural education, and courses in ethics, moral values and mores of acceptable human behaviour - provided by professional educationalists, not outside volunteers. Em tassol.

Jewely, your post reminds me of that old Mae West joke - "When I'm good, I'm very, very good; but when I'm bad, I'm better."

Squeers: In much earlier times, God had a lot of time on His hands, and not a very large flock to look after, and He had provided Man with freedom of choice, so, naturally, He set in place a few tests, to see how His creation might respond and evolve in thought and action. These various tests have found their way into biblical texts in various forms, and in the process various theists have interpreted these in various forms. The intent was always simple - to keep everyone guessing, striving, questioning and evolving. It seems to have worked, because here we are today, still puzzling over intent and purpose. We can't ever know everything, and that's all part of challenge of sentient life. Life was always meant to be a challenge, and so it is, and will be.

Salt....this is what all know as you and others:) I give this song to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx9qUR9P2ZQ

Dont read into the bad bits:) thats what will save us all.

You know:)

If one day we are not afraid,...we will be human in all mighty this:)

All are religious from birth......You know I know this:)

Good night, and may your thoughts see what we are:)

LEAP

OK Salty,

You've had your laugh at our expense. Next time you post something like:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11980&page=0#206895

Squeers, Pericles, AJ Phillips and the rest of us deliberate non believers will know you are just taking the p!ss.

Just a point, though I didn't really 'choose' I admit I gave religion a great deal of thought, but at age 12 found too much unanswered and contradictory in the Abrahamic god. I can't believe, anymore than I could in the tooth fairy.

Now you are attempting to trivialise what I studied and considered carefully at a young age with your 'humour': >> Ok Ammo, better take a deep breath, or your head may xplode. I got your drift a long time ago. <<

I'm sure you are a good person too.

P)

So we have gotten nowhere - I can't hate something in which I have no belief.

Ok, Ammo, as determination of the merits of two diametrically opposed propositions necessarily requires deliberation and an ultimate decision (or else a continuity of uncertainty), it therefore involves a choice being made - or no choice, no decision. The only alternative would be a non-conscious osmotic awareness of a truth, without conscious evaluation - as a sort of instinct?

As we have both considered the options, we have both made a choice.

For myself, in earlier life I simply had faith, and found no reason to deny that faith. In later life, having gained some knowledge of the nature of the universe, I have only found cause to reinforce my faith - as I have concluded that mere chance does not adequately explain our existence or our history. My faith is not based on any religious dogma, it is a matter of conscious choice - I choose faith.

Some posters have contended that having faith means you automatically have to accept and live by all the dogma dished out as part of their particular religious persuasion - like an automaton - and that to do otherwise is a denial of their faith. This may apply in some ultra-restrictive sects, but as a generality it is utter hogwash.

Some have also contended that you either think, or you have faith, as though these have to be mutually exclusive. This is also hogwash - as we have inevitably to make many choices and decisions throughout our lives based on many factors having nothing to do with faith.

Some contend that having faith means taking everything in the bible, or Koran, or whatever texts, literally - with blind faith. This is also hogwash. Most study texts only to find guidance in living a good life.

You know, some people have "found faith, or found Jesus", and have become better people for it.

Of course there is the case of religious fundamentalists or terrorists, who are simply brainwashed for ulterior purposes. Hopefully such misuse of religion will one day be history.

Squeers,

[This suggests a compromise; you said you believed in a "biblical God", and now you're admitting the Bible is an "anthology compiled by men", and throwing universals and historcism into the mix to boot!]

Here we agree on the facts but disagree on the meaning or result of those facts.

The Bible is a collection of books written by men, and compiled by men into one book which we now call the Bible. That's basic Bible history which everyone knows! No one that I'm aware of claims that the Bible dropped out of the sky- no, it was written by various authors. Why is this "admitting" something? It's simply stating two historical facts. What you haven't explained, is why you believe there is an inherent conflict between understanding this and also believing that it contains a divinely directed message.

[I didn't say it was "irrational", I implied it wasn't 'thinking' in any legitimate, enquiring sense, but merely derivitive. But since you ask, how is it rational (not to mention ethical), for instance, to rationalise that your personal and caring God is preoccupied with spoiled westerners, while simultaneously indifferent to the wholesale suffering, misery and death in the third-world part of his creation? Don't you think he should get his priorities in order?]

I do not believe this, so therefore it doesn't apply to me. And it isn't a prerequisite to "Believing in the Biblical God" (using the definition I gave in my last post) to believe this either. Therefore I don't see the relevance to the conversation?

(cont'd)

[Sorry Trav, I have no wish to take the p!ss, but you can't have it both ways. You're either a believer or a thinker, the two don't mix.]

I would appreciate it if you explained why you believe this, in more detail.

[And if I may add, without false modesty, I'm not "someone who prides themself on being a thinker"--and I see the limitations of thought!]

Yes- I did realise, after I posted, that this was an incorrect description of you (based on a prior comment you made) but I was unable to correct my error due to the 4 post limit. So my apologies for that.

Trav,

I think it's entirely relevant to your belief, and to your thinking, that you interrogate inconsistencies, such as why "God is preoccupied with spoiled westerners, while simultaneously indifferent to the wholesale suffering, misery and death in the third-world part of his creation". You say "I do not believe this". Presumably you mean you don't believe God's indifferent? But he's God, how can he allow it? Children step on land-mines and starve to death around the clock, and it's as banal as the ATX.
If you're a thinker, don't you wonder about that?

And Trav, there are plenty of people who think "the Bible dropped out of the sky", or at least that it contains the literal word of God. Which is why they dismiss evolution, insist the world's only 6,000 years old, deny the fossil record etc.
That's why I asked if you believed in a "Biblical God", because to me that means fundamentalism.
I can relate to feelings of awe, mysticism and even deep conviction. I have a deep conviction that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of by empiricism, but I don't claim to know what they might be. All I know is I don't know and don't pretend to know.

"...believing that it [the Bible] contains a divinely directed message".
Believing so is to under-estimate Humanity.
I've read and studied literature all my life and been inspired by many texts. I could assert that Shakespeare was divinely inspired, but then divinity would have to be his corpus, and it's not. Shakespeare was inspired by the Reformation and neo-Classicism; his are founding texts of, and testament to, Humanism. All literature is of its time and place and humanly inspired. As soon as we call one text divine, we divide and despise unbelievers.
"Divine" texts are the instruments of States, that's why religion is always close to power. Better to have devout servants than slaves. Oppression and force are inefficient, precarious and unpleasant. Ideology is more convenient all round; the oppressors "and" the oppressed put it all down to God. That's my thinking.

Squeers, Yes I do think and wonder about many questions all the time. And I do sometimes look at some of my fellow believers and wonder why they seem to lack the same level of self reflection as I do (I hope that doesn't come across as arrogant).

But to suggest that one couldn't "Believe in the Biblical God" whilst simultaneously wondering about such things strikes me as odd. One doesn't need complete certainty about everything to hold certain beliefs. One doesn't need to think they have crossed every t and dotted every i to hold a belief. Here I mean this quite generally, and not just about someone's religious belief or lack thereof, although that is a particularly pertinent example.

Note: I do have some thoughts about the specific point you raised re: God's appearance of being uncompassionate towards the plight of those who are suffering. I didn't go into it here as it was only one example you chose to make your point (but if you want to discuss my thoughts on that I would be happy to do so).

(cont'd

I'm interested in a couple of comments you've made.

"Believing so [that the Bible contains a divinely directed message]is to under-estimate Humanity".

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the literary genius of the Bible is very much human, in a similar way to what shakespeare is?

If that's what you believe, I wouldn't disagree that Shakespeare may or may not be just as brilliant (from a literary point of view) as The Bible, because I'm not really qualified to comment.

But I'd add that in the context of the Bible's inspiration, I don't believe it is inspired because of it's literary genius, so I wouldn't see that point as being relevant to my own personal belief in inspiration or as being relevant to the question of whether there is a conflict between a "thinker" believing in inspiration because a thinker could potentially utilise other arguments for inspiration that do not rely on the brilliant of literary structures and what not.

"As soon as we call one text divine, we divide and despise unbelievers".

Are you saying here that this would count against the Bible's inspiration, and would provide support for the idea that one can't believe the Bible was written by men and also believe it contains a divine touch as well? If so, how?

Trav:

"to suggest that one couldn't "Believe in the Biblical God" whilst simultaneously wondering about such things strikes me as odd. One doesn't need complete certainty about everything to hold certain beliefs. One doesn't need to think they have crossed every t and dotted every i to hold a belief".

You seem to be rearranging the terms of our debate. Remember we're talking about the (my) alleged incongruity between "thinking" and "believing", not about "wondering". Also, in my stated view the essence of thinking "is" uncertainty; remember my quote "nothing is certain except nothing is certain"? I'm arguing we can't have "complete certainty"; if we could, thinking would be redundant, no?

When I say believing the Bible is divinely inspired underestimates humanity, I don't say that therefore the Bible is "not" divinely inspired, only a) that there's no way to establish this, b) that it naively underestimates how religious texts are used as instruments to encourage conformity and hegemonic compliance. And c) that it underestimates and devalues the extent to which human beings are idealistic creatures, and capable of great flights of fancy.
I quickly add that I don't think this human propensity is "necessarily" based on nothing, but a) that there's no way to know--with thought--or to prove it, b) that it's dangerous to claim to know via subjective convictions and beliefs, because ideas are contagious and often translated into action, inaction, oppression and tyranny, and c) that allowing this ideological aspect to our natures to dominate diverts us from biological/material realities and the manifest exigencies we face.

I have no time for "belief"; it's "mental starch" and antithetical to thought. Thought is benign and humble in essence, though prone to existentialism, a feature of thwarted idealism I think; belief is potentially malignant and intolerant.
Both belief and thought are potentially hazardous, should be indulged with caution, and shouldn't prevent us from acting rationally in the world according to the "material" conditions we are subjected to.
Idealism adds another dimension to life, but it's a mixed blessing, endowing life with meaning and illusion.
These are not assertions, just thinking.

Saltpetre
Thank you for loving Atheists. :)

I love you too. In fact many people don't think about the religious aspect when they meet people in real life. Excepting of course some who appear not quite right eg. those who are into end of the world prophecies and people who think they are Jesus - there are a few of these more radical sects around but they are not the norm.

People either like you for who you are or they don't and who would judge anyone other than by their behaviour.

As an atheist I am thankful I live in a modern secular (traditionally Christian) community because we are at least given safe passage without fear of persecution. I cannot speak for all atheists (we are not an established group) but I would imagine many atheists would live in no way differently to Christians, differentiated only by a belief in God (being mindful of the usual variations of human behaviour).

Trav,

Also, I never had the words available to say so above, but I'd be glad to know your <thoughts about the specific point you raised re: God's appearance of being uncompassionate towards the plight of those who are suffering. I didn't go into it here as it was only one example you chose to make your point (but if you want to discuss my thoughts on that I would be happy to do so)>

Squeers,

Sorry, admittedly I did not respond to that particular definition of "thinking" that I gave. I simply gave 3 definitions that fit my view. Perhaps we have been talking over the top of each other by using different meanings in our terms.

[Also, in my stated view the essence of thinking "is" uncertainty; remember my quote "nothing is certain except nothing is certain"? I'm arguing we can't have "complete certainty"; if we could, thinking would be redundant, no?]

In my understanding, thinking is an act, therefore being a thinker is being someone who engages in the act of thinking. It seems that you, however, are equating being a "thinker" with an epistemological stance of skepticism and agnosticism about claims. Therefore, your definition is actually presupposing a methodology (ie: be uncertain about as much as possible) for the act of thinking and that particular methodology will inevitably, or probably, result in certain conclusions.

Therefore it seems to me that you are making a category mistake here- thinking is an act, NOT one particular epistemological view that may arise from indulging in that act. Given the insurmountable gulf between our differences in the definition, perhaps we should end the discussion about thinking and being a believer.

Regarding suffering, a few brief thoughts:

1. I'm skeptical about the ability of our finite minds to know the intentions of the mind of the infinite God which is what one must claim to know if they make statements like "If God were like this, then the world wouldn't be this way". In other words, you could say my belief and respect for the idea of God's infiniteness and our humane finitess both trumps and transcends my belief in specific aspects of God's nature.

(Cont'd)

2. Belief of the Christian variety provides the Christian believer with resources in the face of suffering. If the Christian God DOES exist, then he suffered the most excruciating and humiliating form of death possible. Therefore the believer can be comforted by knowing that his God understands and stands alongside him in the face of suffering.

3. The claim that suffering and evil objectively exist can actually provide support for the claim that a moral realm objectively exists. This can in turn provide some kind of support, however strong or weak, for the idea that God exists.

4. Building on point 3, a related point: The existence of horrific human evil can provide support for the Christian view of the "fallenness" of humanity. Humans have, at times throughout history actually enjoyed the suffering of their fellow humans and done this for their own pleasure. This would seem to far, far outstretch any kind of evil which is necessary for survival and continuation of the species, which theoretically should be roughly or approximately the most evil we would see if we are simply atoms and molecules under a naturalistic Darwinian paradigm of reality. The existence of horrific human evil for enjoyment sits well within the Christian idea of the fallenness of humanity, and not quite as well with naturalism.

5. Evil is necessary for Christianity to be true, as Jesus "took on the sins of the world". A big part of the sin problem is the inherent evil of humanity. Therefore, in one sense, Christianity actually is more coherent in a world where (some) evil exists than in a world where evil doesn't exist.

I am not claiming that these are completely satisfactory answers or indeed that they will satisfy you Squeers, or anyone else. They are simply some of the thoughts that bounce around in my mind when I consider this issue. I am simply an ordinary person who maintains that it is possible to be a thinking, reflective person and reasonably believe in God and that there are people in this boat.

That's interesting, Trav:
"you, however, are equating being a "thinker" with an epistemological stance of skepticism and agnosticism about claims. Therefore, your definition is actually presupposing a methodology (ie: be uncertain about as much as possible) for the act of thinking and that particular methodology will inevitably, or probably, result in certain conclusions".
Of course I don't say believers in a biblical God don't have thoughts, but that they're thoughts are always "dedicated" to that narrative and so their thinking is restricted. According to my idea of thinking, that's not it--and it's not a matter of "be[ing] uncertain about as much as possible", but not being able to be certain--though I admit you could defend the idea in many ways.

I wrote a book review recently on a very curious text called "Dialectic of Enlightenment: Critical Theory and the Messianic Light" (first time published in English). The author, to quote myself, "regards all humanly-conceived and “dogmatic” dialectical “reconstructions” [thought, basically] as both delusional and non-redemptive in their speculative apotheoses", recommending instead a "protological-eschatological perspective of meaning-disclosure [that] guides but also transcends all theory", saying "That perspective can neither be constructed theoretically (in terms of a speculative idea of cultural disclosure) nor be realized practically".
In essence he's agreeing with Hume--that human reason is irredeemably prey to various influences and fantasms--though not that, a la Hume, we should look for stability in empiricism, but find in the "gospel of the Messiah".
There's a strong tradition of scepticism about the validity of human reason (that us Galahs on OLO would appear to support :-) and the author makes a strong case for his exegetically anchored reality, but finally I find his bleak and passive Calvinist rubric, rather than free thought, rather pointless--why did God give us brains if we're just here to play out Bible stories? And free thought is literally an expression of freedom.

Time permitting, I'll continue, but please feel free yourself and not to wait your turn..