"I think the West has done particularly well and that is because the religion that causes so much harm in the third world has been tempered by Christian faith that alone understands the danger of religion.

Since it was the religious who crucified Jesus, we are dead to that kind of religion."

Gee, I understand it all now! It is theo-babble at its best.

But at least it recognizes 'the danger of religion'!

Dear Peter,

<<When theology was barred from our universities>>

Is that true? It's sad and shocking news to me that it became illegal to open a department of theology in one's university. When did it happen?

<<I agree with you that religion is the problem>>

It's the LACK of religion in those claiming to be religious which is the problem.

<<Since it was the religious who crucified Jesus, we are dead to that kind of religion.>>

Were they in fact religious? I think they were hypocrites!

Dear David (AFA),

<<Ah, solipsism,>>

What do you call thoughts and feelings that are neither objective nor subjective, but in between, shared by a subset of people, but not by all?

---
I now refer to your response to Peter:
<<If you are a religious person, why is that so? I’m not and even if there was a god, I would not change how I live. What is the point of slavish obedience to such a creature that you do not know if it exists or not. Good or bad fortune happens at the same rate to believers and non-believers. The only point I can work out is fear of hell, hope for eternity of bliss and some kind of big-daddy comfort for this life. Just think about the eternity of bliss for a moment. Boring comes to mind very quickly.>>

I believe that Peter would agree with me that God is not a creature. I add that He doesn't even exist. What's commonly perceived as good or bad fortune has nothing with actual goodness or badness (besides, believers are not necessarily religious and vice-versa): The only good is God and one is a religious person when one loves God and goodness for God's sake, not because they get any personal benefit: otherwise one is only bartering, trying to do business with God - and that doesn't count as religion. The truly religious says "Thy will be done".

Dear Banjo,

<<but as the existence of "God" is a question of faith,>>

No, existence can be verified or refuted by science. Faith is not interested in existence, in fact it's almost the opposite.

<<I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me have your own blessing instead.>>

Very well, I bless you, may you find joy in all you do - I and my Father are one, So'ham!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_%28Sanskrit%29

<<am sure your god is a nice person and pleasant company, but that's not exactly where I would like to be heading. My idea of heaven is a little different.>>

God is not a person, but certainly you will find His company better than any heaven. I am glad you have no intentions of going to heaven since it's only a honey-trap.

<<Please forgive me if this offends you, but I have fairly simple tastes and do not aspire to eternity.>>

The meek shall inherit the earth.

Dear David F.,

<<One can have religion without God. God is a human invention>>

It is meaningless to speak of anything "without God" since there is nothing but God, but I understand what you say: yes, one can have a religion without a concept of God and yes, the Jewish/Abrahamic god is a human invention (at times a useful one).

<<I do not feel that the mumbojumbo of Peter’s religious myth contribute to making anything meaningful.>>

The Sabbath (being the actual object of Genesis 1, instead of natural creation) is very meaningful.
A relationship with a person who represents God for us (Jesus in Peter's case) is very meaningful.

<<Existence is of value in itself.>>

Then you go on to describe how YOU enjoy it. Without you, it would have had no value.

<<Life and what I can experience is enough. I do not need to create a Creator.>>

I fully agree. You don't need to create a creator (though others may find it useful) and you are perfectly capable of experiencing God without one.

Peter,

No one is more disappointed than me. To have to bring up the basic arguments ad infinitum and defend them as a never-ending story is more than frustrating but it is the nature of religion that rational argument takes some time in overcoming the emotional hold of religion. But going by the growing non-religious demographic in Australian it is slowly working.

Religious people reading what an atheist might have to say can dismiss it with all kinds of weird and wonderful excuses such as ‘the priest, Imam, bishop or Pope knows even if I do not’. Of course, those leaders of faith have no more idea than anyone else. Any atheist making sense must be influenced by the devil, are cleverly lying or are doing something along those lines.

Degrees of harm by religion when comparing Christianity to Islam for instance are just degrees and the affected really don’t care about the degrees. They care about the suffering.

If religious people wholesale start balking at the pedantic-theological stands made by religious leaders, and I’m speaking of Australia, then maybe atheists will diverge away from lumping them all together. Therefore, as that is showing only miniscule signs of happening, atheists have no choice but to keep thumping away at the basic point that religion is a problem. And why do we do that – because at the moment, it is.

If religion expects to influence politics and the lives of everyone, then it has to prove its gods exist. It is that simple. Subjective religious experience is not proof to anyone except those experiencing it. It is not transferable to others. If the faiths can’t do that empirically, and they can’t, then the only ethical thing for them to do is to stop influencing children that they have the ‘truth’ and let politics work on the democratic principle, not the theocratic one.

In Australian, when religions en masse start calling for the official separation of church and state, then we will know they are serious. Until then, they will be treated as they are - ideological enemies within democracy.

David

Sells: You forget that natural science only arose in the 15th C and all religions, including Islam began before that.

I didn’t forget because it isn’t true. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to 99% accuracy about 2,300 years ago. Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire in 371. This ended the spirit of inquiry in that region as people had to believe rather than think. Christianity was an enemy of science. Hypatia was a neo-Platonist philosopher and teacher who discovered that the orbit of the earth and other planets is an ellipse – something that Kepler rediscovered about a 1,000 years later. Hypatia was murdered by Christian monks in 415. She refused to adopt their superstition, and St. Paul declared that women shouldn’t teach. Some historians consider Hypatia’s murder the start of the Dark Ages. In 1553 Servetus was burned at the state in Calvin’s Protestant Geneva. He questioned Trinity. He also discovered pulmonary circulation . In 1600 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Catholic Rome. He postulated that our solar system was only one of many and didn’t see God as the Catholic Church saw God. Galileo was under house arrest. Meanwhile science continued outside of Christendom and revived in Europe as Europe began to question Christianity. You might read about the history of science.

It matters not which was first – science or religion. They are different ways of thinking, and religion is inadequate to explain natural processes although it claimed to do so.

Furthermore all religions did not begin before the 15th century. Anabaptism, Bahai’I, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Methodism, Humanistic Judaism, Unitarianism, Falun Gong, Sikhism, Quakers and many others have sprung forth since then. You might read about the history of religion.

Sells: “ dangerous cults like scientology. “

The Church of England stems from Henry VIII wanting a divorce. A trivial reason to set up a religion. Scientology is as legitimate as Anglicanism and just as silly. To Hypatia Christianity was a dangerous cult.

AFA David:

In the US religious people have supported the separation of church and state.

Dear David (AFA),

<<If religion expects to influence politics and the lives of everyone, then it has to prove its gods exist.>>

In other words, prove that 2+2=5. Why not ask them to eat fire and drink ink instead? In another age people were asked to prove their innocence by withstanding the inquisition's torture-machines. It's like issuing a public tender with the requirement that the successful candidate must be 1xx cm tall, weigh yyKg, have a certain eye-colour and a name starting and ending with 'D'.

Existence is your specific pet. It is your private choice to give it so much importance and allow it to determine your decisions in life. There's no problem with that except that you expect others to also follow your idol and base their choices in life on that same pet of yours. The difference between your intolerance and the inquisition's intolerance is therefore only a matter of degree.

While you want to have everything decided on your home turf, God's existence or otherwise (the later being the case), which seems such an important topic for you, has nothing to do with religion.

<<let politics work on the democratic principle, not the theocratic one.>>

Democracy is a bad joke. In democracy for example, a lustful majority can legislate, "as a natural extension of taxation and welfare and their role in achieving equality and fairness", that all married men must share their wives for 2 nights a week with those who have no, or not as attractive, partners.

Democracy thus allows ignorant, lustful, greedy and covetous masses to deny others that which is most dear to them - and for religious people, God is dearer even than their own family, body or life.

<<In Australian, when religions en masse start calling for the official separation of church and state, then we will know they are serious.>>

As a religious person (so I hope I am) and to preserve the purity of religious spirit, I call upon all other people of God to call for and work towards the official and practical separation of church and state.