"But your faith in the good lord Jesus Christ specially blesses you with the gift of reason? I think you might be stretching the truth there Trav"

Tony, why are you putting words into my mouth for me?

"So let's see your rational proof of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. This should be good".

What's your definition of "rational proof"?

If you mean "an argument that should convince all rational people", then there is clearly no rational proof of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. But I don't know anyone who claims that there is, and I don't know of any reason why we should expect such a thing, so that doesn't tell us much, does it?

So I gather that you are an Anglican deacon but accept neither the Apostles' nor Nicean creeds. If you accept that there can be no evidence of an immaterial god, and posit no material god, you are not "on the side of the atheists" - you are one! Atheists, as atheists, have no interest in the specifics or generalities of the Christian religion any more than any other. The issue that defines and limits atheism is simply the belief in supernatural beings.

I do not think that any educated person denies the Bible is a great literary and ethical work, but without the endorsement of a god it simply falls into the category of historical works with an ethical content, of which there are many from Sumerian times, through Cicero, to the present.

While I personally find your beliefs quite attractive, they are hardly those espoused by your Church or Christians in general, these according greater literal truth to the Bible. As an professing atheist your position would seem rather awkward, although I appreciate the Anglican Church has a very illiteral form of Christianity.

Finally, why in these discussions is the Bible the only religious work referred to - what about the Koran, the Vedas and the Tripitaka (among many others)of equal interest. Given your idiosyncratic definition of truth, it will equally be present in these.

Dear Peter,

You are indeed up to something here:

The obsession with questions of existence is essentially a modern phenomena. Existence is the domain of science and is indispensable for engineering, but as you correctly observed, it has no bearing on religion or faith. Historically, those churches which attempted to "prove" God's existence in order to increase their influence, fell into the temptation of materialism and have only themselves to blame for the repercussions of trespassing into science's domain.

The idea that "God is a supernatural being", or indeed the idea that God should be a being of any sort at all, is an affront to God, attempting to diminish Him to the stature of existence.

I would like to reword your worthy question:

"whether the gospel is true, is whether the sayings of Jesus and the import of his acts and death are true. “True” in that they are ultimately important for us to see ourselves as we are and as we might be"

What we truly are, is God! That is what's ultimately important for us to see and know ourselves as, so the question becomes:

"Does the gospel lead us to realize the Truth, that we are God?"
"Does the gospel help us connect and ultimately unite with God?"
"Is the gospel religious?"

Excellent, keep up the good work and may God continue to lead your steps!

Peter, I don't recall seeing you there at the conference on the weekend and would have been overjoyed if you had attended. Had you been there you would have noticed that there was virtually no fixation on the question of the existence of a god or gods (Is this question ever addressed at your church?).

Atheists already accept that, without evidence, there is actually no god, only material reality. The purpose of gathering together in these kinds of forums is to discuss the widespread negative repercussions that ignorance and superstitious beliefs have on human existence. Should you wish to become a "virtual attendee" I would be glad to send you a copy of the DVD when it is released. You can then comment from a position of knowledge rather than ill-informed assumptions.

If I'm wrong and you were actually there then you weren't listening.

(David Castles....aka Priscillian)

It is my opinion that theists and atheists alike should simply get on with the task of living and contributing to our society. Just as Mr Sellick questions the worth of atheists fixating on proving that God does not exist, one can easily point the same finger at theists who fixate on proving that God does exist. There are some in both camps for whom these accusations are fair and accurate; there are others - I suspect the vast majority - for whom they are inaccurate and unfair distractions.

Perhaps there is a place in the world of science for the examination of the notion of God. Perhaps it belongs in psychology instead. The reality is that most who enter into the argument have no proof, largely because neither case can be proven absolutely (with our current knowledge base).

In the meantime, those who are undoubtedly well-intentioned theists waste their time trying to prove that God exists rather than doing His work. And some atheists who are equally well-intentioned do exactly the same (well, the opposite, really).

If there is a God, I doubt he is a God of scholars and academia. He is a God of the people, whose welfare he aims to protect. Mindless squabbling distracts from this.

If there is no God, then our lives are dictated by what WE believe is best for our society - ultimately, protecting our own welfare. Surely, then, we have common goals and are divided only by a point that cannot be determined with certainty?

Perhaps it's time for the theists to go about living good lives and praying quietly for the atheists to achieve some sort of enlightenment, and for the atheists to go about living good lives and smiling with amusement at the theists' quaint views. We could get a lot more done in a spirit of cooperation.

Fair enough Otokonoko, Let us start co-operating by requiring the enormously wealthy churches pay tax like the rest of us and give back all the land donated by the state over the last 200 years.