That's a fair enough argument, Priscillian. I've expressed my views on taxation of churches elsewhere on this forum, in threads actually related to the topic. You might actually agree with them. I think it's a bit of a red herring here, though.

newtus..""The issue that defines..and limits atheism
is simply the belief..in supernatural beings.''

i know god is seeable...in nature[thats gods nature/natural=god

this SUPER*natural..
what is this..vast unseen..'super nature*..
that both 'defines and limits..the athiest?

[the nurture's inherant in nature
/good life/living/grace mercy charity]

david/priscillan/quote..""Had you been there
you would have noticed..that there was virtually no fixation""

lol

""on the question of the existence..of a god or gods
(Is this question ever addressed..at your church?)....""

no athiests doings
are like children saying dumb things..in ignorance

""there is actually no god,
only material reality.""

says the blind man in a dark mind[room]
just before the dawn..[looking with closed mind as well as closed weyes]

god[life/love/logic/grace/mercy
are all arround us...explain them..[but you cant]
just like evolution is a neat lie..till it comes to 'lol'..evolving a new genus

somehow..nature/nurture=supra nurture..dun it
but science cant do it...lol

science is deciete[like placebo affect]
sometthing the mindless can believe[without studying too much]

the faithfull..trusting in nurds
faith in science=athiest..as in bassed in theory
you lot should rightfully be atheorists

"""The purpose...widespread negative repercussions
that ignorance and superstitious beliefs have on human existence.""

lok at your own delusions first!
EXPLAIN EVOLUTION INTO NEW GENUS
or stand recvealed..your weak faith..in a theo-ry

""You can then comment..from a position of knowledge
rather than ill-informed assumptions.""

your mates..THEY DONT GOT PROOF NEITHER*
evolution [of genus]; macro evolution..is fraud!

your own inability to explain...refutes ya own claim..to science

failing to present proof
lol..your taking your..faithlessness...on faith
you dont know..they dont know...so what do you know[or rather WHAT CAN YOU PROVE!?]

nuthin*
just blind athiestic faithlessness...spoiled children
letting peers..think for you![irony noted][but mindles sheep follow any new belief..[its the latest fashon]..

in time more will demand PROOF of concept..
not just clever wurds

[as they mislead gods children
away from the father]

Under One god,
This question of "evolving a new genus".
You have lost me there. Can you explain to us what you mean by this please?
You obviously have a grasp of evolution theory that I lack.
Using plain English with normal formatting and punctuation would help.

Peter Sellick I think misses the point. Attempts to make atheists into monsters who are not as equally interested in values and making the world a better place for all, are however futile and unworthy in these sorts of discussions.

I would say have faith in your own beliefs rather than feel the need to dismiss others' views as having no merit or value. Why not argue the merit of your POV and why it is important to you, rather than dismiss the choices of others. Especially if those people are living their lives probably not altogether very different to yours in deed even if not in words.

There are lots of discussions among atheists other than the question of the existence of God which is not a futile one, just one among a myriad of other worthy discussions.

Otokonoko
Wise words as usual.

Dear Newtus,

"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!"

Then so be it.

If you adhere to strict technical definitions, then I am in the same boat as Peter Sellick. We are both religious (although he is Christian and I am not) and atheists, which shows that there is no contradiction - you can be an atheist AND a good Christian and/or religious person at the same time.

You must admit, though, that we are a strange kind of atheists - fixated on God, doing our best to come closer to Him and having no interest in the toxic rubbish discussed at the atheist convention.

I have no reason to believe that Peter Sellick would be adverse to scriptures other than the bible. The Anglicans I know are very interested in every spiritual teaching they can find.

>>you can be an atheist AND a good Christian and/or religious person at the same time.<<

But only if you use some strange new redefinition of atheist or religious that nobody else uses. Which means that nobody else actually knows what you're talking about or what points you may be trying to make.

Cheers,

Tony