Martin Ibn Warriq,

There is the possibility of infinity, which none of us can understand. It may be the way things are. Stuff may or may not have existed for infinity if infinity is even the correct term. But who really cares? My atheism doesn’t depend on the answer to this question.

Children should not be threatened or promised anything for accepting or rejecting the infinite idea and don’t look now, but they are not.

The problem atheists are more concerned with is the gigantic leap religionists take from a first cause argument to gentle Jesus, or Allah, or Zeus. The second part of that problem is the state being involved with inflicting this nonsensical leap into the minds of children backed up by supernatural threats and promises, none of which have any evidence in support.

These threats and promises work on the immature minds of children and the evidence for that is abounding.

David

What can be said for such sheer anti-intellectualism? And you and your kind want to be taken seriously as contributors to debates about education policy?

You've just admitted that you're prepared to follow Big Bang cosmology and the cosmological argument to the necessity of a transcendent cause of all that is - a cause astonishingly powerful, and creatively intelligent, something more like a mind and therefore personal than anything else we know -completely contradicting atheism. It establishing the background ontology of the traditional monotheisms. And you say "who cares"?

Admit a God [First Cause], and you introduce among the subjects of your knowledge, a fact encompassing, closing in upon, absorbing every other fact conceivable. How can we investigate any part of any order of Knowledge, and stop short of that which enters into every order? All true principles run over with it, all phenomena converge to it; it is truly the First and the Last. And you say it doesn't affect your atheism? change the probability of a Revelation from this 'first cause'?

I wish I could say this is atypical of the thought of fashionable atheism, it brings me no comfort that such vapidity is given any respectability at all. It marks a very dangerous decline in the quality of our religious discourse. The best advise for you, and people like Dr Dois is to remain silent, go away and do the necessary thought and come back when you have the capacity to positively and constructively engage in such weighty matters.

Martin Ibn Warriq,

Probably better if you dismounted from your high horse for a moment and answered the comments I posed instead of jumping on anything to satisfy your own self-righteousness. In typical religious style you weave and twist away from what is important to humanity so you don’t have to face uncomfortable reality.

Yes, you want religious discourse as long as it waffles about nothing. As soon as the waffle is removed religion is hopeless and really has nothing of importance to say.

That is the danger of religious indoctrination and you are a fine example of it.

David

Martin Ibn Warriq,

Sprouting about anti-intellectualising matters not a jot if you are not going to use the rigour of intellectual process and you are not.

Here is how it is done. All parts of a problem are put on the table and answers sought. Here are a glaringly obvious few for you to start with. You must have missed them in your rage when replying. Never mind, I’ll try again.

The established existence of a first cause god does not change the nature of the universe so who cares. This statement still stands.

Rationally document the tremendous leap from an alleged supernatural first cause to any of the gods purported to exist.

What evidence do you have that validates one, some or all of 34,000 religion and 4,000 gods invented by humans?

The very fact that there are so many brings into question human reliability to be honest about this. What precautions have you taken to make sure that your version is correct and all others wrong?

Those who flew the planes into buildings considered their version to be correct as do others who bomb abortion clinics.

It is more the case, than it is not, that a person takes on the religion of cultural upbringing or circumstantial situations. Should this be factored in? If not, why not?

Teaching children that they are going to be tortured forever in hell is one way to influence belief in woo even though there is no evidence for that idea. Is that ethical?

Martin, before one starts accusing people of being anti-intellectual, one must understand what that means.

I expect rational answers not mired in strawman statements or our interchange is finished.

The 2012 Global Atheist Convention takes most of my time but I will look in occasionally.

David

David,

Respectfully, if there is a creed that needs scrutinising it is your own, you've just admitted that theism makes no difference to atheism. Your global atheist confreres would be interested to learn that! Though perhaps they are closet theists too?

FWIW, as an act of charity for perhaps the two other readers who are as profoundly confused or unable to use google. I'll give a few search terms.

Textual science – reliability of New Testament
Textual science Christian v Islamic scripture
Difference between Christian and Islamic revelation
Meaning of the word counterfeit, preparatio evangelica, true myth
Historicity of Resurrection
Historical v mythological religions
Intellectual humility, rational justification, fideism
Cultural contingency of religious belief inc. atheism and genetic fallacy
Doctrine of Hell and God's omnibenevolence

That's a beginning.

Though I'd like to think it would help, I don't think I'll look in occasionally.

Hoping you have a great impact at your conference,

Sincerely,

-M

Martin Ibn Warriq,

I will assume you are being intentionally obfuscatory. If I’m wrong about this, the only other choice is you have poor comprehension.

Failure to answer the questions I posed indicates the former. (sigh)

Here are some more.

What is my “creed”?

Is it my “creed” or is it some creed pertinent to all atheists?

Please enunciate clearly what the “creed” contains. A link to its written form would be good.

I pointed out that the existence of a first cause god would not change the nature of the universe. If the universe is not changed then that is deism and not theism. You know this but still have to contort the language to suit your own ends.

And what are those ends?

Well, that is made abundantly clear by your list of theistic interpretations of reality or better put, unreality. Very telling and what is more so is that placed at the bottom of the list is the main reason you adhere so incoherently to your religion.

Yes, it is the common factor that fifty or so years of being an atheist and being in the AFA for a very long time has conclusively shown me to be true. It is the fear of an imagined hell and the ability of humans to use mental gymnastics to prevent ever ending up there. It is the religious version of the Stockholm-Syndrome.

What is so terrible about this is the dread is so great that sacrificing the minds of children to the same mental terror is promoted with impunity.

And don’t worry about the 2012 Global Atheist Convention coming up this April; it will be a magnificent experience for those with open minds. I do mean open minds that are not so open that brains drop out.

David