Enaj
I am happy to discuss things with you and I respect you. Indeed, I respect that fact that you have taken the time to respond to my comments. However, respecting a person is different to respecting their ideas. If someone's ideas are wrong, then it is uncaring to allow them to continue believing those ideas. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences.

"I expect people to ..." Indeed. I understand your point of view. I was merely pointing out that this expectation is no different to someone else expecting you to follow their moral code. You are saying that people SHOULD act in a way that agrees with your moral code (at least in some instances). Just don't pretend that you aren't expecting others to follow your moral code.

"Religion has always benefited..." Repeating something does not make it true. To claim that religion has ALWAYS benefited the powerful is not supportable.

"No-one has ever fought a war to spread athiesm; communism maybe" Semantics. Inherent in the spread of communism was the intentional spreading of atheism. That was part of WHY they invaded other countries; To remove what they thought was the pathology of religious belief in order to progress society towards their vision of utopia. Most of communism derives from atheism.

"I don't believe their faith is wrong....and just because I don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong"
As you are a 'secular humanist', That means you believe that the supernatural doesn't exist. If you believe this, then by obvious implication you believe that anyone who thinks the supernatural exists is wrong. I am not saying that something IS right or wrong, but merely that you BELIEVE it to be wrong.

"... you can even evangelise, if you must, as long as you give me..."
Here you go again. You are saying I SHOULD act in some way. You are trying to impose your beliefs in me in that respect. Your beliefs are not neutral. You need to realise that.

Grey instead of playing your little game of semantics and pseudo philosophy with the posters to this forum I am interested in your opinion of Ben-Peter Terpstra's review of 'Faith of the Fatherless - the Psychology of Atheism'.

Are you able to put forth your views on this topic?

Thank you

Grey,
It is encouraging to read your posts! I have noted that whenever a post comes up that happens to support "God" or the "Church" the evangelists for the defence of atheism are attracted to it like flies to a BBQ. It obviously arouses their anger or passion, and they attack the messenger rather than the message. Is there something in their psyche that arouses their passion, and their defence of atheism? I wonder if it is that they have no positive ministry to hurting people like we have in the church.

I belong to a Church that has in attendance a Doctor atheist and secular humanists who is impressed with the ministry done by the Church in the community. He sends his patients to this Church for emotional and spiritual support. He still has not come to faith, but he realises it changes people to positive fulfilled lives

Neither the athiests or the traditional religions have the answers.In evolutionary terms,we have just decended from the trees.Our intelligence is in a very infantile state.We know so little and seem so sure of everything on both sides of this debate.

The real debate from a human view is that can we have ethics and trust as in the past with the subjective rewards and punishments of religion as opposed to the cold hard reality of athieism that leaves us with only survival of the fittest? There is no doubt that those who believe in a god seem to cope better than most.What is spirituality?It has no quantifiable means of measurement.Is it really just our aspirational self?

Is it better to believe in a lie and find some solace from this uncompromising universe,than to believe in a reality that could lead to alienation of self from the empathy we should feel for others.

I have yet to see proof for the existence of a god but also sense the athiests don't have the answers either.

The book is about militant athiests, not normal, healthy, have-a-few-beers-and-watch-the-cricket athiests. Surely people who are militant about anything are more likely to be nutters than people who just get on with their lives.

Personally, I tend to think that being militant about your belief that something doesn't exist (a god, for example) is more than a little pathetic.

It depends on what type of god one believes in. If it is the Spirit and mind behind the design and unity in the diverse universe then we have a precedent to meditate upon. Our own mind is a sample of the design and nature of the Creator mind, and is able to perceive order or regular patterns that make some sense. If there is order in the chronology of the human life and we give it a purpose, eg to support and socialise and build good relationships with others as a species then this indicates a purpose in the design. The mind that put this design in place is God. God is not mine exclusively, you have to meditate upon what is the purpose that will fulfil your life and positively enhance the life of those around you? This introduces a moral choice, so to enhance another has a sense of rightness about it. God is not some giant spatial being, God is Spirit in whose image we have some affinity. The question is are we here by design or by accident? What is the first cause that designed the nature of reality?