Formersnag,

It might come as a bit of a blow to your ego to learn that no one is trying to convert theists into atheists. There are sufficient of us, that we no longer feel that we have to apologist for not believing in the supernatural.

The things that irritate us is firstly theists who believe that because they have god on their side, they have the right to meddle in everyone else's affairs.

Secondly the same idjits feel their religion gives them the patent rights to morality and ethics and the right to determine these issues on everyone's behalf.

Finally the same idjits dredge up some pseudo science and pronounce to the world that that they have proof of a) creation vs evolution, b) god, and that they are prepared to debate this with real scientists.

As an atheist myself, I am content with my ethics and morality based on reason instead of doctrine, and science backed by peer review.

Craig with his reanimated 16th century philosophy dressed up as science wants to debate Dawkins. Dawkins has better things to do with his time than dignify this with a response.

“The things that irritate us is firstly theists who believe that because they have god on their side, they have the right to meddle in everyone else's affairs.”

Shadow Minister is making a very important point. It makes no difference to me if a person believes or does not believe in a God, that is an individual’s prerogative.

However, when a religious organisation or a non-theistic ideology such as communism gains political power, they prevail on the civil authorities to make laws favouring their ideology. Laws relating to compulsory worship (e.g. not driving a car on the Sabbath, or closing shops on a Sunday), laws regulating to sexual behaviour between consenting adults, laws relating to what is eatable and what is not (Friday was a at one time fish day).

Imposing these rules on outsiders is bad enough. But should a member of the congregation transgress then all sorts of psychological and even physical pressure is applied to the “sinner.” The priests and elders may form themselves into a quasi-judicial body, where accepted Western rules of evidence do not apply and punishments may be severe and barbaric.

In the days before modern medicine a compound fracture of the femur from “spearing” was a death sentence. In the media we read of horrific punishments awarded to women in some Muslim countries.

This is the unacceptable of face of religion and religious belief.

Many orthodox regard the beliefs of "American Folk Religions "as "Heresy".
'Religion' covers a big, heterogeneous range of belief systems. Having some sort of 'belief' covers most of the total human population.

Arguments premised on the, mostly unstated, assertion that the term 'religion', solely equals things like American folk religion belief structures e.g 'creationism' or the beliefs of analogous sub groups in other faiths e.g 'mutilating women', are arguments based on a very unscientific approach to 'Clade' - the science of Classification grouping - that is unforgivable in a scientist.

He is sampling a narrow skewed group and using it as though it was a broad sample group. If he was a sociologist he would have failed first year.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220742

Bugsy, "but i disagree" is not enough, while i accept we are both intelligent & disappointed, "denial is not a river in Egypt".

a question, who do you vote for?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220745

Poirot, the "capitalist base & modern practice" of which you speak was introduced into the land of OZ by leftists for the specific purpose of destroying christianity, family, society & creating poverty.

They speak glowingly all the time about the "reforms of the Hawke/Keating era" which also included Whitlam & all the others in the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, socialist Alliance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc5E6pvDv2Y&feature=channel_video_title economic reforms

http://www.mailstar.net/xTrots.html more eCONomics designed to creat poverty

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236# social religious reforms

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-covert-comrades-in-the-alp/story-e6frg6zo-1225887087909 they are in OZ as well as the USA

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm applies to OZ as well

a complete explanation of everything that has ever gone wrong in the land of OZ over the last half century, enjoy.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220750

Shadow Minister, JH & Mormon door knocking annoys me too, up to a point, namely i politely, quickly inform them i am not interested & they politely go away, which is somewhat different to an Islamist blowing up a train or bus i happen to be on. BTW, it is alleged atheists who want to bring muslims here, why?

Furthermore the PC, Thought Police are not christians but atheist communazis meddling in everyone elses affairs.

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236# or try this version

Ever since primary school taught me English my senses have been assaulted by PC idjits telling me everything about everything, what an evil bastard i & all men are. Have you never lived in Australia since 1970 when Germaine Greer published her EVIL book on witchcraft.

i agree communazi idjits do feel their NEW religious dogma gives them rights to determine M & E issues on everyones behalf.

Finally yes, these same idjits have been dredging up pseudo science to pronounce atheism/communazism proofs of their doctrines.

As a christian i am content with my reasoned M & E based not on doctine but life & god's eternal truths, whereas your chosen OLO name suggests that your M & E comes from political party doctrine.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-287163572862203022#docid=7924466177269730495

Oh, it's not enough?

Oh dear, what am I to do.

Who do I vote for?

How rude (and irrelevant).

Squeers
"Nietzsche is hardly the last word and in any case falls into the same trap as Hume, denying the validity of the very a priori reason he deploys in denouncing it; he is Cartesian, though he's in denial. Hume lionised empiricism in the act of transcending it; there is no empiricism without a priorism"

Nietzsche was well aware of this problem. But he isn't Cartesian, neither is he a "hardcore" empiricist. For Nietzsche the world is forever becoming and never is, meaning, maxims are forever being destroyed, created, reinterpreted, imposed, and eradicated. The term "naturalist" and not "empiricist" would better describe some of Nietzsche's positions. Where he sides with the naturalists and not the Cartesians is where he sees the human being as a type of artist instantiating these maxims based on personal hidden unconscious mechanisms (psychological/physiological), and not, as the Cartesians would claim that the mind can directly intuit the world as it really is.

Squeers
"I'm tempted to agree that all maxims are nothing more than human creations, but let's not be hasty. We arrive at this conclusion because we have no hard evidence that maxims are anything but human inventions, and yet some of our verities are absolutely intuitive--the elegance of physics, the preciousness of innocence, or the sublime beauty of the blue planet. It's virtually axiomatic that these things should be protected. Are these feelings merely culturally constructed? I don't believe they are, they're too deeply and spontaneously felt."

These intuitions could have developed over time for evolutionary reasons: survival, utility, preservation.
They seem mystical because their origins are an absolute mystery to us. I would suspend judgment on what these intuitions are before putting in the plug of "it must be god".