Not surprised by the lack of interest in a convention on 'nothing'. Nothing is what atheism is; does nothing, says nothing. Call yourself an atheist by all means, but nothing further needs to be said.

Your still dragging along behind the eight ball Uncle Pete. Atheism is no longer a tool in the devils arsenal even.
It's homosexuality now.
It's wreaking havoc.
This is the new weapon against the Christian faith. It's divisive, pernicious and aggressive.

But you (sort of), go along with that one don't you? Equality and all that stupid lying S*

Diver Dan,
Your post is offensive and I am not your uncle.
Peter

maybe there is hope that some are able to see through the nonsense of pseudo science that these atheist use. Anyone denying a Creator/Designer needs to walk around with their heads in the sand. Obviously these new atheist have a moral problem with the truth they hate (Christianity) not a rational problem.

An accurate analysis. It looks like there will need to be two 'Wests' in the future, a multi-cultural, rationalist West. And alternatively, a multi-racial Christendom West. Each will be like best friends but have their own laws and values.

I think diver dan's short comment was a lot closer to the identifying the problems than Sells article.
I had a female friend come around the other day, she said she went out clubbing not long ago.
Told me "All the blokes are doing it with their best mates now', it's completely normalised".
Made some joke about every straight guy having to take on two women...

In reality, if homosexuality has become normalised and SSM becomes legalised; if the public support equality, and this is the basis of our society; then by default the church that opposes homosexuality becomes extinct because it's views make it technically bigoted and discriminatory, completely incompatible with the social norms of today's liberal society.
And a church that supports homosexuality, well how much of the bible are you willing to burn to keep the Catholic business afloat and the cash rolling in?
Give up all that money and power?
Someone has to pay for the pedophile parties right?

You've been voted out pal, by brainwashed feminised millennial libtards who been subjected to too much safe schools and women's talk.

One more thing -
"My intention in outlining the characteristics of the serious atheist is to help the Church see what it is up against, that to rely on the easy fruits of evangelism among the downtrodden and weak may be applauded..."

Why would or should that behavior be applauded?
It seems similar to a pedophile grooming a potential victim.

If the downtrodden and weak are the best you can do and you can't crack the big nuts then you're outlook doesn't look too good, no offense.
I think you're fighting a losing battle and you need to repackage and invigorate your product on it's own merits somehow to make it more appealing and popular again.

Well Pete, don't apologise for your offensive post. I'm not offended at all.

But after all these years, it's nice to finally receive a few responsive lines from you.

I think that I failed to understand this article.

Is the article's main point that some (serious) atheists are more deeply religious than the average Christian, including clergy?

This is indeed a possibility, but if this is the case and the said atheists (despite their failure to use the correct terms) do so well and already walk with God, then why would you want to evangelise them?

I would really appreciate an answer.

Armchair Critic
"SSM becomes legalised; ; then by default the church that opposes homosexuality becomes extinct "
The Church will NOT approve of priests marrying his altar boy, that would be atheism.

The ticket sales were down, because the keynote speakers and their preferred topic, were nearly as interesting as flat beer already acquiring a vinegar after taste and stale cheese doing its best impression of serious green mould!

Take the last first and wash it down with the second, just to understand how uninviting intellectually flawed, creator denying, atheist fundamentalists really are!
Alan B.

I think you put up a good case for atheism Sells. Those people who attack the idea of atheism don't seem to realise what a broad church we represent. Most of us have been brought up within the rather narrow confines of one of the diverse Christian denominations, but have come to realize that it is all based on fiction. This particularly true for the Roman Catholic church with all its saints, dogmas and rules, many of which are observed in the breech.

David

Yuyutsu,

The most important difference between atheists and Christians is not that they believe/disbelieve in a supernatural being but that Christians know that they are sinners and atheists do not.

Alternatively, Christians do not count themselves righteous but, I think that many atheists do.

It is also not about who is religious. If you have been attending to my articles you will know that I believe that Christianity is the end of religion. Atheists may be more religious than Christians because Christians are not supposed to be religious at all.

Religion was nailed to the cross, as was power politics etc because it was the "church" at the time and secular power that framed Jesus for blaspheme. One cannot go back. Religion is not the answer but faith is, even if it is something we cannot do.

Rhubarb, rhubarb,rhubarb all the way down?
Which "church" is Sells talking about when he claims/pretend that "the church" needs to counter the claims of atheism?
Depending on how you define individual demoninations, sects and sub-sects there are now over 30,000 separative and separative churches, each in their own peculiar way claiming to have a (or the) "correct" or even only understanding of the nature of Truth & Reality.

But do any of them have anything to do with Truth & Reality or is "the church" just the historically dominant Western "religious" cult.
And "where" is the "kingdom of 'god'"?
And what if both atheists and the usual dreadfully-sane exoteric religion share the same fundamental mis-understanding about the nature of what we are as human beings, our relationship to the World-Process and to The Living Divine Reality?
And what if the ideology of scientism and conventional exoteric-religiosity are both part of a very powerful humanly created SCAPEGOAT "machine" (of death)
These 6 references address all of these points.
http://global.adidam.org/books/religion-reality
http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/legitimacy-science
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-3.htm
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/three_great_myths.html
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/there_is_a_way_EDIT.html

Sells

If you are confused then may the Lord help your Anglican taxpayers.

You say " .. the problem of the missiology of the Church in late modernity. How does the Church speak to these people .."

"Christians are not supposed to be religious at all. .. Religion is not the answer but faith is, even if it is something we cannot do."
-
Missiology ? " Today missiology is taught at many Christian theological schools.." Rocket man knows what he's talking about, at least he's logical.

Here we go:
"And no, I didn't bother to take missilology.
But were there missiles that could go mach4 with the accuracy to take down an sr71 all the way back in 1966 and the 70s

Rocketology
NASA's Space Launch System
- Someday, the story will be told of humanity's greatest endeavor, the bold stretch across the harsh void of space to reach for another world, ...

- the globe of the eye - is not included, per se, in the subject of orbitology.. But we know that a general ophthalmologist is not automatically also an orbitologist; for, to be such, he/she must also possess those additional medical and surgical skills and knowledge that pertain to the intraorbital process with which he/she is dealing.
Orbitology. is the study of planetary motion and its applications to satellite programs".

Dear Peter,

Thank you, I was relieved by your response:

While some might technically consider me an atheist, I do know too well that I am a sinner.

While I understand and acknowledge that nobody can wilfully escape sin on their own altogether, I also believe that with effort, one can reduce their level of sin, turning from a big sinner into a smaller sinner. The final bits of sin, however, can only be removed by God's grace. One way to look at it, is that God, by His mercy and grace, inspires us to seek Him and become a better version of ourselves.

Yes, absolutely, we could live on faith alone, but how many of us actually do? You just mentioned that we cannot force faith to happen, so what good news have you for all others? Should they become despondent? While for the best among us, total faith produces immediate salvation, a combination of partial faith along with other components of religion can still bring us to God gradually.

Perhaps Christianity is the end of religion, but how can you become a Christian? A true Christian is rare indeed!

A Zen story: http://users.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/wantgod.html

==-==-==-==
Wanting God
==-==-==-==

A hermit was meditating by a river when a young man interrupted him. "Master, I wish to become your disciple," said the man. "Why?" replied the hermit. The young man thought for a moment. "Because I want to find God."

The master jumped up, grabbed him by the scruff of his neck, dragged him into the river, and plunged his head under water. After holding him there for a minute, with him kicking and struggling to free himself, the master finally pulled him up out of the river. The young man coughed up water and gasped to get his breath. When he eventually quieted down, the master spoke. "Tell me, what did you want most of all when you were under water."

"Air!" answered the man.

"Very well," said the master. "Go home and come back to me when you want God as much as you just wanted air."
==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==

Dear David,

«Most of us have been brought up within the rather narrow confines of one of the diverse Christian denominations, but have come to realize that it is all based on fiction.»

If you are happy to enjoy reading fiction books and watching fiction movies just for the fun of it, surely you would not object to benefit from fiction when it comes to serious matters.

What's wrong about adorning God with fictional attributes so long as it helps people in both their life and worship?

You may legitimately argue that this-or-that denomination does not truly help people, neither to become better versions of themselves nor to keep their attention on God, but then the blame rests on the denomination's leadership rather than on the useful technique of fictitious attribution.

"What's wrong about adorning God with fictional attributes so long as it helps people in both their life and worship?"

You probably make a good point there, but the following reference shows just how misconstrued religion can get.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2017/06/the-catholic-church-hierarchy-a-cabal-of-power-that-moves-under-the-guise-of-benevolence/

David

Dear David,

«the following reference shows just how misconstrued religion can get»

Obviously disturbing and the Catholic church is unfortunately known for centuries of temporal control and/or collusion with temporal authorities.

The question is whether any religion is still left within that church, for how can you blame religion for the crimes of what remains a religion only by name?

Atheism has done us a disservice.
It attacks religion, and does nothing to support society.
The Church is losing against perversion.
Every other species of human has become extinct, and we now see the way it can happen to us, through attack on our society from within.
We need religion to evolve into a protection for our species, by development of our natural esoteric life.
Our efforts should be stimulated, not weakened, by the weakening of the god principle, and the attack on our society of the highly organised perverts, which our political leaders, in their disgusting ignorance, have welcomed.

Our society is in a dangerous state

Leo Lane,

Atheism is a response to a claim, not a worldview. You apear to be complaining about something else entirely.

When you can provide evidence for your god, perhaps then you can start ridiculing people for not believing in it. Until then, I don't see how gullibility could ever be preferable to a healthy scepticism.

Hey Yuyutsu,
"The most important difference between atheists and Christians is not that they believe/disbelieve in a supernatural being but that Christians know that they are sinners and atheists do not."

That's not necessarily true, and I'll explain why.

A Christian person would write things off as 'Gods Will'.
A Non-Christian person might see the same thing as a 'Man's Will'.
- So Christians actually have ignorance of Man's sin built in.

You don't have to be religious to be a good person.

Sells earlier referred to his crowd as saved - quietly proclaiming himself as 'better than others'
- Don't count your chickens, you ain't passed Judgement Day yet.

What make's you think all you have to do is 'believe in Jesus' and you get free entry to the promised land.
What if you become all seeing and all knowing in the afterlife and heaven or hell is how you have to live with what you did in life?

What if there is no real forgiveness?

Jesus spoke in parables right?
The one sin that cannot be forgiven is blaspheme against the holy ghost.
What if the holy ghost is your conscience and the real lesson is not to go against your conscience?
An eternity of living with the results of your own choices in this life and how they affected others, willful ignorance, sins and all.

Don't be so ignorant and self righteous, dear Christians.
Nobody knows what heaven and hell are, if they exist.
Better to hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Christians aren't necessarily any closer to true consciousness than anyone else, they can be just as ignorant of things; and if not more, in many cases.

Dear Critic,

These questions should be addressed to Christians, not to me since I don't qualify.

I just view Christianity as one valid path to come closer to God.
And so is striving to be a good person.
Which of the above two religions is more effective? I think it varies from one individual to another.

And why can't an event be God's will and Man's will simultaneously?

' Don't be so ignorant and self righteous, dear Christians.
Nobody knows what heaven and hell are, if they exist.
Better to hope for the best and plan for the worst.'

ignorance is bliss Armchair (not). Jesus Christ told exactly what hell was like. Either He lied or told the truth. True heaven is not described in detail. Don't use pathetic excuses for ignorance. Choosing to disbelieve is a choice afforded to everyone. To make out we don't know what hell is like is to call Christ a liar.

Quote from the article.

[He may concede that the Judaeo/Christian tradition has been the basis of our civilization and he may applaud that, but it is not for him.]

I like that idea. I think the alternative of a serious Christian who can look at the world and say "not for me," regarding something in the world would be a positive outlook.

As for this kind of nonchalant attitude. I've had it pointed out to me once that atheism isn't about what a person believes. But instead that they identify themselves based on what they don't believe. (This observation from an atheist who doesn't call himself an atheist, because it doesn't tell anything about him or what he does believe). it's an intresting point, and I think most who identify themselves as atheists do so because they have a bone to pick with religion, or religous people. Those who don't might acknowledge that they are atheist (because the term identifies a lack of belief), but they don't label themselves as atheists.

The best way to reach them I think would be kindness and good service.

There are those who profess fo be Christian, but who also lack kindness. That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. My late partner's sister falls into that category. So does Billy Graham's son Franklin. After the massacre in the club frequented by gays, his comments were that his only regret was that the shooter didn't kill all of them.

There are those on this forum who also come under the same heading.

David

Not so competent in the art of thinking, are you, AJ?
Atheism is part of many philosophies, and is a philosophy per se. It is much more than a reaction to a claim, if it can be described as such.
Which god do you identify , in addressing me, as “your god”, and what is the basis of your “identification”.
God is not a fact to be proved by evidence. God is a belief, to be developed and sustained by faith. God supports Life, and is opposed to detriments to life, such as perversion, cruelty, oppression, and the like. He exists in the belief systems of his adherents

Leo Lane,

Atheism may be a part of of many philosophies, but it is not a philosophy itself.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

<<Which god do you identify , in addressing me, as “your god” ...>>

No specific god, necessarily (although I think it's safe to assume you believe in the Christian god).

Why do I need to identify a specific god? They're all equally implausible.

<<God is a belief, to be developed and sustained by faith.>>

Well, I think we're pretty much in total agreement there. Which is why atheism is the more rational position to hold. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something.

<<[God] exists in the belief systems of his adherents>>

Only there? So, are you saying that you don't think He's real? If so, how can He do all those things which you attribute to Him?

AJP, you say:” Why do I need to identify a specific god?”
You don’t. I asked you about a baseless statement you made, and you responded with this pointless question. Why did you purport to identify a god, particularly by a baseless statement?
Why do you think it is safe to assume anything about my beliefs? You know nothing about them.
You say:” , how can He do all those things which you attribute to Him?”
What things did I attribute to him, and where did you find my attribution?
You ask:” are you saying that you don't think He's real?”
I did not say that. I have not asserted the existence or non-existence of a god. The relevant factor is belief.Adherents are satisfied, and gain their results from the beliefs they hold. Faith is not an excuse to believe, it enables the building and development of beliefs. The perverts have come out in front for the moment, but there is a long way to go.

Good question, Leo Lane.

<<Why do you think it is safe to assume anything about my beliefs?>>

Because you ridicule atheism, which means you must be a theist. I think it’s safe to assume you’re not a Muslim, and given your praise for Christianity in the past, I doubt you’re a Jew. So, it looks like you're a theist of the Christian variety.

Or are you one of these atheists who calls himself an agnostic because he doesn’t know what atheism is, nor realise that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive? Given that you once referred to an article using creationist arguments as “a good article” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323261), I can only conclude that it’s the former, as only a creationist could be stupid enough to think that any of the arguments used in that article were “good”.

Please correct me if I’m wrong about your beliefs.

<<What things did I attribute to [a god], and where did you find my attribution?>>

Right here:

“God supports Life, and is opposed to detriments to life, such as perversion, cruelty, oppression, and the like.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19410#345175)

<<Faith is not an excuse to believe …>>

I didn’t say it was. I said that faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something.

Anyway, none of this explains how atheism is a philosophy or a worldview. Clearly you have no idea what atheism is.

<<... [faith] enables the building and development of beliefs.>>

I guess so. And evidence destroys it or renders it no longer a faith.

<<The perverts have come out in front for the moment, but there is a long way to go.>>

You are yet to demonstrate that gay people are perverts. Remember?

Sellick writes: "Because many are not tutored in the characteristics of idolatry and its consequences they tend to place hope in technological advance. Witness the hysteria over the launch of a new IPhone."

The implication being that christians are immune from hysteria. I suggest that it is rather foolish to try to differentiate between atheism's hysteria and christianity's prim, well controlled inclination toward enthusiasm. In more general terms, it is equally unwise to advocate for a faith/spiritual frame of mind as being a shield against hysteria. In significant ways such a mind set has been the epitome of hysteria.

He writes further: "...for them the world is contingent. Life... could be wiped out...given a large enough meteorite straying into the earth's path."

In the most outer reaches of the segue I request that we give the name of our home, our ark, in a demonstrably respectful way by capitalising it. We capitalise the names of our accompanying planets. The only exception in our vicinity is the moon.
Divine intervention to divert the Earth-destroying meteor or asteroid really is a pathetic demonstration of bowel-clearing fear and sense of helplessness that christians adore. A divinity, not knowing the difference between a bat and a bird, can hardly be expected to know the difference between a meteor and a meteorite either.

And further: "We in the Church look upon the world and its human turmoil in despair. There is no reason that serious atheists would not do likewise and make the same analysis of human failings.

No! The analysis of a serious atheist would not be the same as ye of the church would make. Atheism as a conviction that gods are spurious confections cannot be and never has been a rallying cry to face an enemy, nor to foment turmoil, nor to encourage the collection of postage stamps. Whereas christianity...

USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) - Wikipedia

The USSR anti-religious campaign of .. 1921–1941 .. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism.

birds and bats.
Adaptations: Feet: Swimming. Ducks, geese, and swans all have webbed feet. The primary use for webbed feet is paddling through water. Here's how it works: as the bird pulls its foot backwards through the water, the toes spread apart, causing the webs to spread out .
neither fish nor fowl: having no specific characteristics or category, not easily characterized. The phrase, which was originally “neither fish nor flesh nor fowl,” appeared in slightly different form in a 16th-century collection of proverbs as “neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring”: fish for monks who ate no meat, flesh for people who could afford meat, and cheap herring for the poor.

one that does not belong to a definite class, party, or category : a nondescript person or thing; also : a person without convictions

The Tory peer, said: ‘The whole system has to be looked at afresh because at present it is neither fish nor fowl.’

Trying to satisfy all constituents, it has usually come down right in the middle - not a good place to be, neither fish nor fowl.

‘Now they are neither fish nor fowl and fewer students are taking them’, he said.
1.Bats
2. Birds
3. Ducks
4. Fish , the monks knew that.