To SteeleRedux.

Wouldn't it have been easier and more direct to just say what you meant by cultural Christian, instead of once again trash talk certian groups of Christianity. OzSpen has a point about your undercutting attacks on Christians. It's a regular and constant thing. I assume you do this to make a point that you're better than them, or that they are lesser then you (same difference). In the end though it obfuscates any point you would have had and puts you in a worse position then what you accuse Christians to be.

To Loudmouth,

Glad you agree with the concepts of innocent until proven guilty.

Regarding the morals of atheists though, I'd have to say atheism has no morals. It has no philosophy for that matter. Though there are common types of atheists, I'd perfer people identify themselves with what they actually do believe, instead of just by what they don't believe. Otherwise you have to assume atheists believe in nothing (because they claim no other identifying label), or they take for granted their beliefs and values that come from the religions around them that they so loudly say they don't believe in.

It's a pet peeve of mine when someone hides behind nothing to really identify themselves with, and then takes opurtunistic and sarcastic potshots at anyone who has identified their core values and beliefs. Probabey simular to the pet peve you might have for me or anyone to misuse or mistype a word. Not suprised, but still annoyed and resigned to it.

That said sorry for the mistype. It will likely happen again, with any other word. I usually don't have the time or the energy to carefully proof read everything to correct all the potiential errors.

NNS,

Of course, atheism by itself has no moral philosophy except a belief that one should not and cannot rely on anything supernatural, i.e. on thin air. But apart from that, atheists are as capable of developing - indeed, must develop - alternative and solid moral bases as anybody else. In fact, we spend our lives searching and wondering, since we have no 'rock', especially one which says 'just believe, don't question'. That's hardly likely to provide anybody with an independent moral base.

Yes, it's never-ending and can get pretty lonely. But that's our 'cross' :)

Joe

loudmouth2,

<<we [atheists] spend our lives searching and wondering, since we have no 'rock', especially one which says 'just believe, don't question'.>>

At least you are prepared to admit your atheism has 'no moral philosophy' except it must exclude the supernatural. When will you wake up to the fact you DO HAVE a moral philosophy and that may be a combination of relativism, pragmatism, etc. However, the morality is created by the atheist and as such it is humanism in action.

<<Since we have no 'rock', especially one which says 'just believe, don't question'.>>

There you go again with another example of your straw man fallacy. Some Christians may be in the 'just believe, don't question' category but I'm certainly not one of them. Without evidence of God's existence and the verification of the historical Jesus, I would not be a Christian.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon

.

You wrote :

« Rape would be an accusation like any other crime would be, but because it's emotionally charged more then most other crimes, just the accusation would be enough to charge a defententvas guilty. »
.

I agree that rape is emotionally charged. But I do not see it more emotionally charged than many other crimes such as, for example, child abuse, domestic violence, murder, etc.

You note that “just the accusation would be enough to charge a defendant as guilty”.

That’s the standard procedure for all criminal trials, NNS, whatever the crime happens to be. In criminal trials, “accusations” are called “criminal charges”. People are brought to trial on charges of rape or sex offences exactly as they would be for any other crime. But the fact of being charged with a crime does not imply guilt as you seem to suggest. Guilt must be proven – whether "presumption of innocence" applies or not.

The main difference between sex crimes and other crimes is that sex crimes have the lowest rate of conviction of all crimes. According to one study, the conviction rate for rape in Australia is 7% – which means that 93% of rapists walk free. The conviction rate for all sex offences was 13%. A study in Victoria found that the conviction rate for rape in that state is only 3% – 97% of rapists walk free.

Naturally, I share your concern about the risk of innocent people being condemned for crimes they did not commit.

But, the fact of the matter is that justice has been far too heavily weighted, far too long, in favour of sex offenders. The role of justice is to protect victims, not criminals. It is headed in the wrong direction. The scales of justice are totally unbalanced.

The reforms I advocate could redress the situation. As justice becomes more effective they would have a dissuasive effect on future potential sex offenders. The crime rate would decrease proportionately to the increase in the conviction rate.

And fewer court cases – fewer judicial errors.

.

certainly listening to the god deniers pathetic arguments regarding moral relativism compared with the authority of Jesus Christ does put things in perspective a little.

Dear NNS,

You carry on with; “Wouldn't it have been easier and more direct to just say what you meant by cultural Christian, instead of once again trash talk certian(sic) groups of Christianity.”

I'm not sure why I should be explaining what a cultural Christian is every time I use the term. Thus far you are the only person who seemed to be caught out by it and as soon as that became evident I corrected the record. Indeed directly above my reply to you was a full definition of it.

However in reality erroneous assumption by yourself are not my responsibility.

As to the charge trash talk utterly without basis I'm afraid. Where have I done that here? Sure I am happy to rail against exclusionary teachings. I am utterly sure the group Ozpen linked to would not regard Catholics as true Christians either. And for Ozpen himself to claim “According to the Bible, 'no strongly cultural Christian' will enter God's kingdom” is to speak on behalf of God, to dictate his will, which ultimately is blasphemy.

What he is allowed to say is that in his opinion the bible clearly suggests that “'no strongly cultural Christian' will enter God's kingdom”, but no more.

One of the charges laid against cultural Christians in Ozpen's link was “Focusing on Jesus’ love and acceptance to the exclusion of His teaching on hell, obedience, and self-sacrifice”. That charge could equally apply the other way. That an unseemly focus on hell, obedience and self-sacrifice also removes people from the true message of the Gospels and the right to call themselves true Christians. Might I suggest that both yourself and Ozpen are skating on pretty thin ice where this is concerned. In fact the whole American styled, evangelical, prosperity gospel spruiking, overly judgemental lot of 'born again' so called Christians may well face a reckoning themselves one day.

Anyway it would be interesting to hear whom you exclude from the Christian group of true believers. Are Catholics Christian? Are Jehovahs Witnesses? Are Mormons? I consider them all part of the Christian family, do you?