.

Oops! I forgot to take the "s" off that link. Let's try this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1k8B-qw040

.

.

Not to mention, also, all those poor souls who continue to join the ranks of Isis or Daich (the so-called Islamic State) and blow themselves up for the good cause in the promise of “afterlife … them and others around the world.

My goodness, George, I don’t think a pair of quotation marks is good enough explanation !

.

Is Christianity true? No doubt, there are people interested in discussing that question.

My experience is that they readily divide into three groups.

First, there are those who say no. The Bible isn't true and hasn't got much to offer us. But they still have opinions on the matter and might read and comment on the article. For example, Pericles might fall into this category.

Second, there are those who say yes, the Christian faith is true in a certain manner, but perhaps not the traditional interpretation. The Bible contains truth, but there's a kind of disconnect between their faith and the real world. God is not capable of miracles or interaction with the rationally minded. I put Sells in this category. I find some of his comments vague and meandering.

Third, there are those who say that the Bible is true. It contains a clear message of God's character and his interaction with people through history. They state with conviction the traditional creeds: 'Maker of heaven and earth', 'born of the virgin Mary', 'crucified, dead, and buried', 'raised again to life', etc.

I believe the third group more properly represents the Christian mainstream, and are part of the growth sector within the Australian church. Current surveys say that Pentecostals (with their traditional, fundamental beliefs) now make up the largest number of all Protestants who are actually attending weekend services, second only to Catholics.

The problem I have is that Graham Young has now stated that he is not allowing submissions from this third group on the main OLO page. He has effectively censored input from this significant sector of the Australian community, claiming that those who believe God has acted in specific miraculous ways within history are irrational (i.e. not worthy of his website).

So for whichever of the three groups that you may belong, who may want to discuss what mainstream Christians say or believe, please know that the stuff you read on OLO, supposedly one of the more open and freer of all Internet forums, is editorially skewed and biased towards certain positions.

Blessings,

Squeers,

Explicit atheism is a cultural phenomenon, yes. So is agnosticism, for that matter.

<<I don't believe in God and it's not an issue for me, but I don't say there isn't a God. And as an agnostic I'm persuaded one can't know.>>

Okay, so you’re an agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism). So am I (depending on how one defines ‘knowledge’). I don’t usually bother with attaching the ‘agnostic’ bit, though, for two reasons: first, the same could be said about Russell’s teapot and leprechauns, but I don't bother making a point about my agnosticism there; and second, by making a point about my agnosticism, I perpetuate the idea that the question of a god's existence requires more certainty than any other claim. Technically, we can’t know a lot of things; according to some, we can’t know anything. However, if there is a god up there, then it’s obviously not very interested in communicating with me, so I’m not going to bother wasting energy on entertaining the possibility of its existence.

That being said, your stance is far more similar to those you really have a problem with (e.g. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and the late Hitchins) than you actually realise. None of them claim(ed) to know either. The reason they often speak of may have its flaws, but to say that its “politically enslaved” is an over-simplification and, I think, and exaggeration. I would say that reason is “culturally influenced” but even then, that ignores the non-social environmental influences, and the biological influences (described by evolutionary psychology and behavioural genetics) that also contribute to our thoughts and behaviour - which may somewhat negate or exacerbate the effects of cultural influences.

To the mystics’ horror, the way we think, feel and behave is very much the result of a complex interplay between our biology and our environment. The nature/nurture debate is over. What is debated now is precisely how these two factors interact to create the behaviours that they do. There is the very real possibility that free will is merely an illusion.

Dear Squeers,

<<Yuyutsu, When atheism does manifest as hatred for theism, I suspect this is due to the conservative position theists tend to take on a raft of issues.>>

I tend to agree. It is not a happy state of affairs, besides, atheists can be at least as religious as theists.

<<but them I'm also wary of the social libertarianism that would banish all mores and mimic capitalism culturally. This is how I think of liberal rationalism: blindly rationalising "free thought" and "free choice" (as if they existed) as universal virtues; dressing up a degenerate culture in the finery of these airy raiment. What I see is naked and ugly.>>

I'm afraid you lost me there. Perhaps I lack some background information because I am unable to make sense of this knot: how is Christianity related to Libertarianism? And how do both relate to liberal rationalism? Then too, what makes you claim that we have no free choice? Please explain these in simple terms that I can understand.. Thanks.

Dear Banjo,

>>I don’t think a pair of quotation marks is good enough explanation<<

It was not meant as an explanation since I do not see what is there to explain if one does not believe in the spiritual/divine dimension of reality that cannot be subjected to scientific investigation. Why do you have to resort to sarcasm instead of simply accepting that you do not share this belief? As for the “My goodness”, relax, I don’t want to convert you, and you cannot “learn faith” like you can learn a foreign language, though even then you would have to start from scratch.

Those who believe in afterlife (ok, without quotation marks) believe in that extra dimension also of their own existence (independent of the physical, hence space and time) and interpret or try to interpret this belief differently, based on the bible or other scared text or cultural (e.g.Christian) tradition as Peter pointed out, and some, as I mentioned, seek also scientific interpretations. Like you cannot visualise a photon only as a tiny ball or a wave, which it is neither, so the believer cannot “visualise” this state, or dimension of his/her identity, only as something he/she will experience “after” he/she dies.

Whether we like it or not, there is no satisfactory ”explanation” of afterlife beyond these various interpretations, so one has to either believe or not, and settle in the ensuing world view orientation.