Conventional religionists might live in a consoling fairy world but they know that their meat-body "personality" is going to die.

Atheists and dim-witted materialists "live" in a one dimensional iron cage (Webers iron cage) which reduces everything to meat body grossness. And they know that their meat-body is going to die.

Both are possessed by a hell deep fear and trembling---of death.

This essay describes the response of these two ideologies to the overwhelming fact of death.

1. http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm
2. http://www.aboutadidam.org/dying_death_and_beyond/index.html

This reference describes the baneful limitations of the materialist ideology.

1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html

This essay how scientism eclipsed big (false) religion as the "official" arbiter of what is true and real in Western culture.

1. http://www.dabase.org/ilchurst.htm

Plus an essay titled Right Human Life Must Transcend the Materialist "Culture" of Death at:

1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/newsletters/toc-february2004.htm

Sorry Ho Hum. Don't agree with you at all when you said........

"Both are possessed by a hell deep fear and trembling---of death."

To fear your own death is illogical. Death goes hand in hand with life. Some live long, some die young, but the end is always......death!

I will confess to being mildly concerned about how I'll die. There are some truly horrible ways to die, but of death I have no fear.
Aime.

Bravo! Good article.

Ho Hum,
Talk to a nurse who looks after dying folk.
Religious people often panic because the moment of truth is near, and their "fath" often abandons them to misery.
Look also at insanity stats. Religion is linked more than athiesim.

The Infinite soul model is a lot better than "unexplainable God and infinite heaven".

Atheism is the obvious response by hopelessly flawed humans who think they should determine what is right and wrong. It is the created ignoring or worse still thinking they know better than the Creator.

runner, how can I possibly think I know more than the creator, if I don't believe in the creator? How can that be?

As for determining right and wrong, well, evidently religious people thoughout history have had exactly the same problem.

It's as if you haven't actually read the article at all, or absorbed anything it's putting forward.

Which is precisely the problem, and I think, the chief assertion of the article. Religious belief seals itself against logic via the use of faith, that's why in order to truly examine the possibilities in this world, you've got to start from a standpoint where 'faith' over reason is rejected.

Oh, how I love that Holy Bible.
I listen to it all day on my Walkman.
It gives me hope and the Holy Spirit within me (Whom I can feel all of the time) confirms the truth of it being Gods Word.
I get healed and Comforted and strengthened as I listen.
As for atheism? Whats that?
An opportunity for locust mankind to call himself king and to tear up the earth and convert it to filthy, rotten money to spend on his pleasures.
Athiesm is why the earth is dying. No respect for what God Created.

Gibo

Many people, including many atheists, love and respect the environment; this wonderful and amazing planet. Many people, including many atheists, work tirelessly on ecological, charitable and other altruistic causes. We, atheists simply don't need a belief in some superior deity to live and revere life - I think this is what religious have such difficulty with; that we can be compassionate, even spiritual without a supernatural belief system.

In other words, we do good because we want to, not because we think it will gain us some after life.

So listen to your bible recording all you want, Gibo - it doesn't make you a good or decent human being - just a superstitious one.

Time over, atheists such as the individual writing your arguments on critical reflection of the concept of 'God' associate the belief with arguments about the religion. Christianity is not the basis of war!, the majority of world's millions of christians are peaceful and encouraging human beings. The individuals who you talk about in your article are in fact extremists looking for a banner under which to claim their fight. I am sure if you bothered to research your information you would find that just as many Christians as Atheist would be against the sort of extreme violence you comment on. The fact that you have bothered to refer to Dawkins in your article highlights the quality of your research, or should I say lack of research, many books, and refutations have been written of which Dawkins refuses to challenge.

The answers to life are not handed to us on a 'silver platter', being a Christian often raises more questions than anyone could ever answer, rather it is a lifelong journey where one does formulate own self concepts needs and morals. It's known as free will, the one thing God gave all of us.

Further my worldview would still be the same even if I werent christian, so yet another flaw in the article.

As far as examining myself, I am required to do it more so as a Christian than as a person with no internal social controls or desires,

True religion doesnt dehumanise those with different beliefs, instead it offers those with different beliefs, love and support and hope of internal change, your argument here is also flawed.

Your claims about global church aid requiring participation in the churches doctrines and practices is an appauling one, some of the worlds most generous churches, show God's love through giving, WITHOUT REQUIREMENT, again propoganda is no replacement for research,

your choices of 'Information' fail to justify your cause, Atheism is what it always has been, propganda produced by the misinformed.

Try researching a little better and you might just believe yourself

Some interesting observations Ryaninsa.

>>...being a Christian often raises more questions than anyone could ever answer, rather it is a lifelong journey where one does formulate own self concepts needs and morals. It's known as free will...<<

How than can you tell a Christian from an atheist?

You see both as wrestling with the questions, formulating their own "self concepts needs and morals", using their own free will. How do you then differentiate between them?

>>Further my worldview would still be the same even if I werent christian...<<

Same question. How are you then different, if you reach the same destination, whether you journey as a Christian or as an atheist?

>>As far as examining myself, I am required to do it more so as a Christian than as a person with no internal social controls or desires<<

How so? You have already pointed out that both are using the same toolsets, i.e. their own free will, unhindered by any preconceptions or preconditions. How does that equate to the need for you to do more self-examination than an atheist, who has no external doctrine to use as a guide?

>>True religion doesnt dehumanise those with different beliefs, instead it offers those with different beliefs, love and support and hope of internal change<<

Hmmmm, I think you had better check this with Boaz. Last I heard, he was absolutely convinced that Islam is a factor in dehumanization...

>>Atheism is what it always has been, propganda produced by the misinformed<<

Atheism does not proselytise, and is therefore supremely uninterested in propaganda.

Check it out.

You missed it Johnny R.
I said The Holy Spirit confirms the truth of Gods Word. So many people come unstuck when it comes to Gods Spirit. They simply cant seem to get their minds around the vastness of God that He sends His Spirit to hundreds of millions of christian believers and that The Holy Spirit is living in each one doing what is needed in each one to bring them to holiness (proper loving living).
Its true that the athiest can have some feeling for the Creation but he cant love it with the passion of Gods Spirit.
The major problem today seems to be the third world countries. They are bent on destroying everything in order to get what we got, by destroying what we destroyed, to get what we have.
And all the while we are still destroying whats left of what we originally came to destroy, just to get more. Asia is killing the world at the moment. China is gobbling up everything everywhere...and theres too many of them to stop it and they are not listening to sense or wisdom as they devour. Thats why God Will soon stop it. The Book of Revelation is all about that stopping.

Gibo. We got what we got, by exploiting the "third world".

Hence why you enjoy such a good life! Now the "third world" is demanding payment for what you got!

And so say all of us........onya Kelly well done

"that He sends His Spirit to hundreds of millions of christian believers and that The Holy Spirit is living in each one doing what is needed in each one to bring them to holiness (proper loving living)."

Yeah I'd really noticed how well that works, christians are so much more ethical than others. So much more tolerant. So much more informed and wise in their thinking (he types with his tongue firmly pressed against his cheek).

Gibo, you need to get out more, turn that walkman with the bible tapes off and start seeing how the world works and what kind of people those Holy Spirit filled people are in the workplace, on the roads and as neighbours (or as OLO contributers).

If the Holy Spirit is bringing hundreds of millions of christains to holyness his or her performance pay is going to be pretty small for the last couple of thousand years of work.

Maybe he or she will do better over the next couple of thousand years.

R0bert

Ryaninsa, I think I am tolerably well informed about Christianity, with a degree in theology, a completed course for the Presbyterian ministry, and a first class MA in philosophy with the major paper on philosophy of religion. I have read the Bible repeatedly (though not recently). Yet I am an atheist.

Since you attack the motives of atheists, let me say that I have no interest in turning others to atheism--though if people put up bad arguments against it, or poor arguments for it, I sometimes comment. Rationality matters. So does truth.

But I am strongly interested in the discussion of moral issues (including political ones). When others are genuinely concerned to find the truth about such isues, it is possible to have a useful and often delightful discussion with them in which we learn from each other, whatever religion they adopt. But if they think that they can solve issues by quoting a religious text, they are just wrong. The New Testament, the Torah and the Koran contain too many mistakes--moral, factual and logical--for them to be treated as infallible. Nor do they solve all issues. (What should be done when a woman is bearing a hydatiform mole? What should be done if a pair of conjoined twins are dying, yet one can be saved if the other is separated, when the separation will kill the latter?)

Yet those religious texts also contain insights. They repay thoughtful, critical study. But not if you leave your mind behind.

Like Dawkins, Kelly O’Connor stereotypes theists as either force-fed on their beliefs, or completely thoughtless, or both, or worse. The stereotype exists, but it’s just one of a number of types that exist among, say, Christians. I would have thought this is so obvious, and the article therefore so prejudiced and worthless, that it’s a pity it saw the light of day.

The number of posters praising it concerns me, because it suggests that they too are operating from a position of prejudice.

For example, as Ryaninsa suggests, the “silver platter” point is true of some theists, only some. Evolutionary theory is no less a silver platter than the Bible. It is referred to on OLO just as often.

True, some theists are opposed to self-examination. Some atheists are similarly opposed to it.

For someone like me to be told that there is “no grand plan for my life” is threatening, but no more threatening than for an atheist to be told that there is one.

Yes, some missionaries proselytise. I think we now know that some atheists are also strongly inclined to do this.

Prejudice doesn’t advance the discussion. We have seen better articles.

Pax,

Kelly O'Connor said: Ever hear of Bill Gates?
Yes, Kelly. Ever heard of Bill Gates' unethical dealings?

Apis said: "Yes, Kelly. Ever heard of Bill Gates' unethical dealings?"

Yes, Apis. Ever heard of the unethical dealings, actions and motives of Christians (among other Theists)?

My own quest has yielded the meaning that there is no meaning and funnily enuff l still dont feel like offing myself or not bothering. Or wallowing in the inherently self refuting meaningless of nihilism. lm on the ride, had no choice in the matter, will step off whenever my time is inevitably up. Given the inevitability of its end lm quite confortable with the idea that there is no inherent point to it all, only what the mind can dream up. If that means a head full of unproveable speculations, delusions and illusions to paper over the mundane truth about it all, then that'll do quite nicely. But truth and absolute reality are certainly worth pondering, helps pass the time with renditions of meaning for the meaningless.

Ever thought that you dont have to look for reasons where there are no reasons. That all that exists is the moment, the now, everything else is a contrivance, so just get on with it, in what ever way gets you through your delusional, fantasy infused pursuit of illusion between here and whatever might or might not be at some point that hasnt arrived, that only exists in your head?

Ever thought that existence of a soul into an afterlife is a grand delusion contrived by a massive yet insecure ego that must validate the non-exisent 'self' thru projection into eternity. That attachment to one-self, through the elaborations of ego are driven my the hazy fog of emotion, mainly fear. The fear that one-self has no inherent existence.

Get over one SELF, dont take it so seriously and let go of the SELF validating meaning that ego needs, by definition, to maintain its little facade.

Evolution? Nice theory. Perfectly beyond emperical validation. Very convenient open endedness. Logically incontravertable to boot. Ever thought that what is perceived as 'evolving' is little more than the remnants of causation, that evolution points starkly to impermanence, that everything arises and passes as a result of its causes and thus all things lack inherent existence.

That CHANGE is the ONLY phenomena you can bank on.

How is evolution "Perfectly beyond emperical (sic) validation?"

Scientists validate it on a day-to-day basis.

Just one discovery of an out-of-place fossil would be enough to invalidate it (though of course, more realistically, you have to first prove that the fossil isn't a fake, and didn't got where it was through some freaky but explanable set of circumstances).

We can and do even make predictions about the future with it: e.g. that microbes will evolve to resist anti-bacterial agents.

Interesting article but it gets off to a bad start in the first sentence:

"The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries."

This is a "straw person argument" and it trades on the abiguity of "mythological belief".

Defenders of various faiths tend to think that their beliefs are NOT myths, (though I do not share their view). The very act of providing an apologetic for a religious belief implies that the apologist thinks that the belief is somewhat real- ontologically or metaphysically, and so, since real, there is evidence and warrant for the belief. Others ought to believe it as well.

On the other hand, critics of religion think that religious beliefs ARE myths, in a perjorative sense. Since religous beliefs cannot be true, then they must be false.

Somewhere in the middle are those who think that the essence of religion consists of myths and useful stories. (Think of Joseph Campbell). For these, "myth" hasn't a derogative sense. It is of no concern whether stories are true or false. The value is in the message and the meaning that the myths convey.

So, what sense of myth does the author intend?

Occam, "It is of no concern whether stories are true or false. The value is in the message and the meaning that the myths convey."

It is of great concern when followers insist that the stories are literal truth and that others need to follow the message in those stories. When they make threats (and target children with them) of an eternity of pain and suffering if their story is not accepted and followed.

The meanings don't fit all circumstances but some by insisting that there stories are the TRUTH try to make them fit all circumstances.

There is value in learning from myths and stories but those who insist that their stories (and there alone) are true are a risk to all.

R0bert

The reason why people don't flock to be atheists isn't because they need the crutch of religion, but because a consistent atheism doesn't fit the everyday experience of life.

To be consistent, an atheist would need to understand reality in strictly materialistic terms. Reality would be thought of as an intricate arrangement of atoms, organised according to material causation, such as natural selection.

What this materialism means is that free will is an illusion, since everything we do would have a material cause and would therefore be pre-determined. If science were sophisticated enough, it could (in a purely material universe) predict future choices and events.

Life could not be, as Kelly O'Connor claims, "magical" or "mysterious" - it's noteworthy that she, as an "atheist", experiences life to have these qualities - either she has fallen for an illusion or else her atheism is untrue.

Most people do experience the purely material side of existence, but they experience a spiritual side too. When we look at something and find it beautiful, we don't experience this in materialistic terms as a physical response connected to an advantage in natural selection - we experience it as true in its own terms - that there really is a quality of beauty which points to something significant and meaningful.

I find it interesting that when you read books by even the most bellicose atheists, they can never keep consistently to a materialist standpoint - in discussing life they always fall back to qualities and experiences which an atheist ought, logically, to consider as illusions at best.

And yet they expect everyone else to do what they themselves cannot do.

Mark Richardson wrote:

"Most people do experience the purely material side of existence, but they experience a spiritual side too. When we look at something and find it beautiful, we don't experience this in materialistic terms as a physical response connected to an advantage in natural selection - we experience it as true in its own terms - that there really is a quality of beauty which points to something significant and meaningful.'"

If you substitute "an emotional" in place of 'a spiritual' you can fairly accurately express how this particular atheist functions without needing to believe in myths and fairy tales

If there is no diety,that does not make religions irrelevant.Many horrid things have been perpetrated in the name of religion.Religion however has bluffed many ordinary people into being honest.Now honesty is one of the cornerstones of a successful economy.Look around the planet and see the reality.An economy can tolerate a few at the top being dishonest,but when everyone is on the take and seeks not to work,an economy faulters.Even though China is a booming economy,it has a big corruption problem.This is probably being held in check to a degree by the iron fist of communism.Indonesia has enormous corruption problems.Islam doesn't seem to have saved them.It could be due to the confusing signals this religion poses,eg you can lie to those who perceive to be your enemy.But the Christian religion has help make western civilisations very successful.The existence of god is irrelevant,it is about the ethical and moral stuctures that premote fairness,good will and work ethic that counts.

Atheism has evolved as an opposite to theism,and therefore as a belief system,has a long way to go in matching religions in providing building blocks for civilisation.That is not to say you can't be ethical and atheist at the same time.Human beings have evolved with certain parameters on their behaviour,if it wasn't the environment,it was a self imposed structure such as religion.Laws may limit our behaviour but they do not premote ethics or social harmony.Atheism needs more structure and depth before it can be considered a credible belief system.

Well done PAX,

simply and nicely put. to others, dont ever confuse Islamist extremism with real Islam faith or Christian faith, those who have posted previously and picked up on my comment about faith not being a catalyst for war, pay attention!! its not about faith for the extremists, its more an identity, bit hard to go to war under the banner of no belief, right atheists?

Theist or atheist - we can't really choose what we are. I can no more believe in a god than I can fly - despite a Christian upbringing and education I have never been able to regard the Bible as anything more than a work of literature with god as a principal character in the tale. I just don't understand how the 'good' bits can be cherry picked out of the Abrahmic religions and the ghastly bits ignored - so I suppose that would make me a bit sympathetic to fundamentalists except I regard the whole thing as illogical nonsense. God as presented in the Bible seems a violent and vindictive entity who controls through threats of dire consequences and then goes for an image makeover in the New Testament.

I take strong exception to the claims that atheists cannot appreciate the finer things in life - what arrogant rubbish. There are many glorious things in the world, and I can enjoy them without reference to, or belief in, any deity.

Well, if Kelly read a Holy Bible she would know.
You cant read it and not be touched by God as you do, unless your heart and mind are almost dead.
Actually if you read it, and look at the world, you will see what is says in the New Testament is actually happening.
A short list...
1. crime gets out of control in the last days prior to the endtimes...2 Timothy 3 (click on it),
2.in the endtimes a truly nasty world leader called "the BEAST" (Revelation 13:16-18) grabs control of the people and insists they wear his microchip/mark on either the right hand or forehead. You cannot buy or sell without the microchip/mark, within the scope of this microchip/mark system, yet God says we are not to take it but resist the system because it belongs the "the BEASTs" master ...satan (the dont take it is in Revelation 14:9-11). The microchip is in its early days as "initial propaganda" right now,
3. there will be a great increase in wars, earthquakes, famines and diseases in the last days. The wars are spreading like wildfire... thank you militant Islam and greedy dictators everywhere. Youve seen the earthquakes, and the famines and the diseases (Luke chapter 21).
Its all happening... and the only escape in the end is through Jesus. Have you done a study on the rapture...the day The Lord comes for His followers and leaves the rest for the great Tribulation? Read 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. A good website is <signs that we are in the endtimes>. And if youre rattled... you can always invite Jesus Christ into your life and get born again. "Everyone who calls on the Name of The Lord will be saved"...Romans 10:13. If you look... and dont live like an ostrich... you will see the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in your lifetime. I think its great! The death of atheism!

Candide, if everything is just matter in motion, then how do you explain why some things strike you as being glorious and others don't? Matter doesn't carry standards within itself, so why should one configuration of matter be deemed more glorious than another?

Some people try to supply materialistic explanations along the lines that organisms have developed in ways which enhance survival and reproduction. Therefore when a man perceives a woman to be beautiful, he is really responding to her physical symmetry and therefore to her reproductive health. This does provide a materialistic explanation for a man's experience of female beauty - but can the process still be considered "glorious" when understood this way?

And do explanations based on survival and reproduction persuasively explain all the things in life that we actually do experience as glorious? If I spontaneously and unselfconsciously experience nature as glorious, is this really to be explained in terms of survival and reproduction? Or is my response to nature an apprehension of something more to reality than pure materialism allows?

I am an atheist, despite a christian education, and because, like many others; I simply cannot believe in a deity that demands supplicants and worship. That is not a being worthy of respect. A truly supreme being does not demand obeisance, unless it is a control freak, which means it can't be superior ... and so on.

Of course I experience joy in the wonderful world around me, it is a fundamental part of being alive. However, just because I delight in the beauty of a sunset, or revel in my lover's body, doesn't mean that I should worship some deity.

Surely the point of life is simply to live without hurting others (as much as is possible - it is so easy to offend) and maybe by learning a little wisdom along the way.

Therefore, human beings do not need to comfort themselves with fairy tales if they are confident and mature within themselves. Religion has served its time (if it ever had one), now the human race can simply grow up.

Fractelle.
God doesnt demand worship. He just wants us to stand with Him and His Saviour Jesus Christ against the Lucifer/satan ex-arch angel who started a huge rebellion (one third of the angels) against Him to get the Throne.
Bitterness with life shouldnt be taken out on God. His Kingdom was at one time great threat and its all being sorted out here through Jesus Christ for souls of men and women.
Bitterness means satan got to you and was successful in keeping you from your Heavenly heritage.
He cared enough about us to offer us a way out through His Son on the Cross...John 3:16. All we have to do is to go to HIM.

Candide, Looking at the Old Testament, to find the “violent and vindictive” God you mention involves a process of “cherry picking” exactly like the process the atheists like to condemn. To find God in the Old Testament – or the New, for that matter – you have to take it all in. Ain’t easy, but for a theist it’s worth the trouble, of course.

Haven’t noticed anyone say an atheist can’t appreciate the finer things, but perhaps I missed it. We all have senses, so we’re all bound to notice most things. Mind you, if the “finer things” have something to do with God, then I suppose it’s a different matter.

On the other hand, some atheists say that theistic “blinkers” stop theists from seeing the glories of the world! Since theists have eyes, it strikes me as a silly suggestion. Anyway, looks like we’re all claiming superior vision.

Meanwhile, it seems that “fairy tale” has replaced the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the standard atheist putdown for the theist. Never seen a group of people develop jargon so fast. It will be a litany soon. Ah well.

Fractelle, For what it’s worth, I think that worshipping God is more or less unavoidable once there’s the slightest apprehension that He’s actually there – and that, despite His fierce, jealous love for His beloved Israel in the Old Testament, He is love. Remember, love is fierce. The difference Jesus makes is that it’s no longer a closed shop: we are all invited into that fierceness. And, even those who decline are loved – God loves so chronically.

Pax,

AJ Philips said: "Yes, Apis. Ever heard of the unethical dealings, actions and motives of Christians (among other Theists)?"
Yes, AJ Philips, but they don't get held up as paragons of virtue.

Sorry, but my enjoyment of things does not depend on any deity - some things are just pleasing to me. They may not be pleasing to others - if there was a deity surely the same things would evoke the so-called 'spiritual' response in everyone. I think in ages past I could have been an animist, as the natural world gives me great pleasure. Now I am perfectly content with a rational scientific understanding of the world, and am comfortable with the knowledge that this changes over time. I certainly do not see everything as just a bunch of atoms, though there is something wonderful about the fact that we are more air than matter, even though we seem so solid. I am also entranced by the fact that in every glass of water I drink there is hydrogen that came into existence during the Big Bang and I am partaking of something that is as old as the universe. A deity has no place in my response to the world I live in.

One of the greatest prophets of the modern era is Albert Einstein.The simple equation E=MCsquared said so much.Einstein showed that matter,time, energy and space were all inter-dependant.These are non ordinary realities that defy our concepts of mundane existence.Einstein himself was not religious in the traditional sense,yet he was in total awe of what he had discovered.Agnostic perhaps,but no atheist.Stephen Hawking is very religious believing in the Christian faith.Who would dare call him a fool?
I think that both sides of this debate have it wrong to some degree,there is no proof of a fatherly figure who will protect us,but science continues to discover a world way beyond our notions of reality.Let's move with the development of our consciousness and leave notions of eternal bliss in playschool.

Religion is not just simplistic fairytales,it reflects a long history of cultural evolution regardless of diety.God is not the question or the answer.What do the atheists propose to replace thousands of years of moral and ethical evolution with,to ensure the survival of civil society?I for one,see serious decay.

Apis,

<<Yes, AJ Philips, but they don't get held up as paragons of virtue.>>

You've gotta be kidding me!

Considering virtue is the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong, they're certainly held up to be paragons of this by many.

Arjay,

Morality has improved over time despite religion. For example, how do Christians now know what parts of the Bible to cherry-pick as the good bits considering some of the horrors condoned in the Bible? It certain wasn't wasn't the Bible itself. Otherwise we could still be burning people at the stake, or using all sorts of creative torture devices, demanding that heretics recant and accept God.

America could very well be about to have either it's first female, or black president, and here you are waffling on about decay. Should we go back to oppressing women and people with different coloured skin? Perhaps imprisoning homosexuals would help with this so-called decay?

WWII was arguably won by Alan Turing because of his cracking of the Enigma code. He was imprisoned in a day-and-age that you seem to think everything was grand, and simply because of homosexuality. He later went on to commit suicide. This wouldn't happen nowadays. Yet here you are, trying to tell us that there is “serious decay”.

Everyone, from every generation, has always thought that there was “serious decay” Yet Secular societies slowly seem to be getting better, and better (with the occasional setback). So your claim that there is “serious decay”, and that religion can somehow prevent, this is pure stupidity, ignorance and narrow-mindedness. Your world-view is seriously out-of-date.

I've quoted this before, but it looks like I'll have to quote it again:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

You know, Arjay, one day, you will pass on and the world will keep turning. Society will slowly become more and more moral (overall) as religion fades away to nothing with the ever-increasing proof that it is false, completely unnecessary and regressive.

Therefore, the last paragraph of your post demonstrates a very simplistic, narrow and old-fashioned view of the world that we now know to be wrong.

Candide, I can’t tell if you’re replying to me, but I didn’t say your enjoyment depends on God. See what I said about us all having senses.

Arjay, You say “God is not the question or the answer”. I think that’s only true if there’s no God. If God does exist, it’s possible but difficult to leave Him out of one’s thinking.

AJ Philips, You speak of secular society as though it’s simply an atheist idea and that atheism should take credit for whatever virtues it possesses. But, secular society includes theists and religions – and, for better and worse, their influence on the society. Further, there are many religious people who think theocracies (even run by their religions) are wrong, that religion should not exercise direct terrestrial power, and these religious people prefer and support the secular model.

Or, do you dream of a society which actively prohibits theism and religion, and all other forms of “irrationality”? And, are you saying here that such a society will be a moral improvement on the secular model that permits theism and religion and other forms of irrationality?

Pax,

I dream of a world where people have a level of self esteem that doesn't rely on 'superior beings'.

Of course banning religion doesn't work, any more than forcing non-believers into religion. Freedom of thought is paramount. And freedom of thought does not align itself with religious dogma.

I think that for a long time atheists simply tolerated religion, but since 9/11, we have witnessed the very worst that dogmatic belief can produce. This is why religion terrifies us and why there has been a plethora of books by the likes of Dawkins.

As for more moderate religious - how do you know which bits to cherry pick? For example, Arjay likes to cherry pick the bible for the bits on homosexuality to bolster his homophobia. Others like to cherry pick the bits to justify subjugation of women and others to deny female ordination.

If you believe you are religious, then how do you explain the terrible things that your deity has done to innocent people? If you don't believe those sections, then why believe any of it? Philosophy offers morality and ethics without the superstition and what must be complete suspension of disbelief when one considers the impact of science on our knowledge of life. Do any of you religious watch David Attenborough?

True maturity is a level of confidence to take responsibilities for one's actions and if there is a supreme deity - well I expect she is mature enough to understand.

So Christianity doesn't encourge violence? Here's some of the actions committed by Christians recently.

2005-06-18: Romanian nun crucified to death during 'exorcism'
2007-01-11: Preacher sets fire to 'sinning' members of congregation
2007-07-15: US Catholic church admits liability in over 500 cases of sex abuse
2007-11-30: Jehova's Witness boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons
2007-12-08: US 'Godtalk' host arrested over child porn
2007-12-11: 'Deeply religious' Christian kills four at mega-church and missionary school
2007-12-14: Man stabbed to death by Christian in row over creationism.
2007-12-28: Rival priests fight with brooms and stones in Bethlehem.
2008-01-08: Texas man kills and cooks girlfriend on orders from God.
2008-01-26: 'Conservative Christian' accused of stalking and threats to rape.
2008-02-03: Catholic Church seeks to conceal details of child sex abuse cases in Milwaukee.

From http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard

Every individual and every organisation has one or two imperfections, Jon J

I'm sure if these people make a good confession then everything will be OK, and things can get back to normal.

Erm, what was normal again?

Can't theists just accept that atheists cannot believe in a supernatural deity?

I completely agree with Kelly, that atheism is a necessary starting point for the journey for the quest for meaning.

But, just as there are people who believe in a deity who either keep on examining the self and life or who just thoughtlessly do as they are told, so are there atheist who search for meaning or just go through life without much thought to this at all.

Gibo, stop listening so much to a recording of the bible, a politically motivated collection of stories compiled in the age of the Emperor Constatine. And especially, stop listening to other people's interpretations of said multiply translated stories.

If theists indeed believe the bible to be divinely inspired than trust that divinity to reveal its message directly to you, not via another flawed human being. Especially the book of Revelations

I cant give up listening to the Bible yvonne.
It gives me so much hope.
I used to read sci-fi and I knew much about Charlie Darwins dream, evolution, mainly through that false vision magazine National Geographic...millions of years is their lie...then I gave my life to Jesus one day in prayer and His Holy Spirit entered me and it all made sense.
The Word is the truth.
One doesnt need to join with the wonderers, wanderers and the day dreamers...the truth is in the Holy Bible.

Hi yvonne,

The 'everyone REALLY believes in God' argument is fairly common Christian propaganda. You can see why -- as soon as Christians admit that it's possible for SOMEBODY not to believe in God then it raises the possibility that one day THEY might not believe in God, and that's very traumatising. It's much more comforting to cling to the collective delusion that everyone is really thinking the same as you -- they're just not saying it aloud.

That's one reason why 'coming out' as an atheist and saying it aloud and loudly and as often as possible is important; it makes it impossible for believers to go on deluding themselves like this any longer.

Fractelle, Your dream works fine if there’s no God. Philosophy on its own is fine, if there’s no God.

I know you’re not into banning religion: I was speaking to AJ Philips. I’m as horrified as you are by, say, 9/11 or the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem by the First Crusade. Also embarrassed (although it’s too weak a word) as I am myself religious. But then, I’m embarrassed by all human evil, as I am human and capable of much of what we hear about.

I don’t cherry pick from the Bible. Some theists do, as do some atheists including Dawkins. I try to engage with the whole of Christian scripture, including the often torrid Old Testament (see post Saturday evening), just as I try to engage with the whole of God. It isn’t easy or comfortable. However, I can’t, and don’t wish to, shake off my belief like a jacket: I believe in God, and I make the best of the complex, messy story of God’s dealings with humanity.

I too believe in responsibility. I believe God expects it of us. In behaviour terms, mature theism probably resembles what you have in mind.

Jon J, I think everyone already knows that some religious people sometimes do awful things. On your site, under the list you grabbed was the following heading: “Outrages against themselves or others committed by atheist groups, officials or lone fanatics”. There was no list under it. Is this an error, or a gag, or is there a serious belief that atheists don’t commit outrages? The “more moral than thou” conceit of atheists is getting a bit much, isn’t it? Certainly, it more than rivals the corresponding conceit I’ve encountered at churches.

Yvonne, Yes I can accept that atheists cannot believe in a supernatural deity. It’s the supernatural deity that has trouble accepting it. We are under instructions to spread the word, but I think we have to be very careful (respectful, considerate …) about how we do that. I know a lot of evangelistic behaviour is actually wrong because of the way it’s done.

Pax,

JonJ, it's not that everyone believes in God, but that no one experiences life in purely materialistic terms, as a strict atheism would demand.

Atheists always point to elements of religion that are distant from ordinary life, such as biblical miracles, but they don't look at aspects of their own belief system which are also removed from the way people ordinarily think about and experience reality.

Hi, could anyone instruct me what is procedure of publishing an article, because I wish to do so. Thanks.

Browsing through some comments and the article itself, I can definitely say that in general you are as much right as wrong. (what is right and wrong?)

I believe that lots of people actually need to comfort themselves with imaginations of god and rules.

Some of the arguments in opinions, state that religions have created wars and racism. How about new argument that atheism have done this same or worse? I do not believe that it is quite as easy. How about leaving religion aside and just analyzing the issues. Let me make an issue. If there is going to be started WWIII just because two or more groups of people cannot find conflict resolution or a compromise about their claims where from or where to god came down on earth or other way round or so. I know you disagree with an idea of right or wrong, but I say , this is Wrong! this is fanatism, immaturity, irresponsibility.

But if the neighbor on your left makes holly day on friday, and on right in saturday and the one across the street on sunday. And they all live in peace and harmony with each other and with you. Can you say it is wrong? can you say that they do not need what they do? Perhaps if they did not do that, they would be real pain for you and each other.

I can accept that you do not need fairy tails, but your children do need. It is interesting that children around the world learn not on science books, that is just pure and divine truth if you believe it is, but on fairy tails. It is interesting that later in their lives, their parents do not need to translate them that in truth the animals do not talk nor have human behavior etc.

Don't you think that it can be similarly with religion?
Have you thought that atheism can and is treated as one of religions?

Goodthief,

You're reading too much into what I said. A style of rebuttal often used when someone has made a good point.

Secular societies many not be a purely Atheistic virtue, but without Atheists (or Agnostics), we possibly wouldn't have them.

<<Further, there are many religious people who think theocracies (even run by their religions) are wrong...>>

I'm well aware of that. But one point you're missing, is that many of Theists support the Separation of Church and State, because they fear the State controlling the Church, not the other way around.

<<Or, do you dream of a society which actively prohibits theism and religion, and all other forms of “irrationality”?>>

Don't be silly.

<<And, are you saying here that such a society will be a moral improvement on the secular model that permits theism and religion and other forms of irrationality?>>

No. I was saying that morality isn't dependent the existence of religion. But it's certainly quite arguable that a world without religion would be at least a little more peaceful, as we would then have one less motive for war and terror.

AJ Philips, you have missed my point, but to rub your nose in it would be churlish.

Best article I have read in a long time. Well thought out and places the onus where it belongs, back on our shoulders and not hanging it all on some poor old God who is probably totally fed up with the wallys who can not think past a two thousand year old pile of rotting goat skin.

Well done O'Connor and I will be watching to see if you have anything to say about the age old problem foisted on us by religion...overpopulation.

Beware of men who wear dresses, cloth hats and big dangly blin's!

G

“We are under instructions to spread the word, but I think we have to be very careful (respectful, considerate …) about how we do that. I know a lot of evangelistic behaviour is actually wrong because of the way it’s done.” (Goodtheif)

And the godly wonder why the ungodly, having put up with that uninvited intrusion continuously and incessantly for centuries, are just now responding to the godly’s most recent upsurge of organized world-wide evangelism?

> Missionaries who traverse the globe “helping people” often do little more than proselytise ... <

Well, to paraphrase slightly this proselytising author's own words, perhaps they also think that "it is not viciousness which compels them as Christians to speak out against atheism. It is with the hope that they can help those who live under the ever-looming spectre of god’s absence to stop accepting the illusion of freedom and truly experience it."

I have read some Christian rantings about unbelievers but nothing comparable with this piece of sweeping statements about religion. The author obviously has had experience with a lot of poor souls - of which there are many among Christians as well as among atheists - but she does not seem to have met an educated Christian, not to mention Christian philosopher or scientist. It somehow makes me doubt that she read Viktor Frankl or even Carl Jung.

>Religion is unique, though, in the sense that it literally dehumanises those with different beliefs, similar to the way that racism does<

This article is a good example that religion is not unique in this.

AJ Philips, Yes some theists are playing defence when they support separation of Church and State. My only wish is that this fact not be used to stereotype all theists: that would be unreasonable and inaccurate.

colinsett, I agree about “unwanted intrusion”, but remember I made the point myself. Mind you, I think we can all cope with being lobbied to some degree. If we can’t, then we dare not ever speak to a stranger, or allow a stranger to speak with us. However, some evangelising Christians clearly take it way too far.

In recent times, so have some evangelising atheists. For me, this has been both irritating and illuminating, because it’s put me in the shoes of the evangelised (the affronted and intruded on).

George, ditto.

Pax,

Goodthief,

<<Yes some theists are playing defence when they support separation of Church and State. My only wish is that this fact not be used to stereotype all theists: that would be unreasonable and inaccurate.>>

Yes, notice I said "many" not "all".

goodthief,

<< I think we can all cope with being lobbied to some degree. If we can’t, then we dare not ever speak to a stranger, or allow a stranger to speak with us. >>

I agree completely. However, it is one thing to "lobby" by trying to explain your world view to a "stranger" who does not see the world your way, and another thing to denigrate the stranger's world view because you are unable to see the world his/her way, like the author did it here with religion. It is one thing to say that spoken Turkish sounds TO ME like an incoherent sequence of voice bites (because I do not speak that language), and another thing to say Turkish IS an illogical, incoherent or what language.

One problem Kelly, it has never been comfortable to be a Christian.

While the concept of a human god is flawed,do not discount the achievements of those in our past who believed and exelled way beyond ordinary reality,giving us the physical comfort and consciousness of the present.

Face it, none of us knows for sure and that is what gives life it's edge,thus passion.

Kelly’s arguments:

-Christianity is mythological which implies the events recorded in the New Testament did not happen.

-Accepting the Christian truth claims is adolescent i.e. to be a fully fledged moral agent, religious claims to truth must be ruled out from the beginning.

-Humans are value creators, values are not discovered.

-Religious commitment is equivalent to the abdication of our duty to be intelligent, i.e. Christians do not think for themselves.

-Explicitly religious truth claims are “dogmatic” (in the pejorative sense of being antirational). Antireligious truth claims are not dogmatic.

-Atheists are distinguished from religious in that they are willing to scrutinize their beliefs.

-Christianity teaches human desires are dirty.

-Christian belief is an exercise in self delusion and is held contrary to the evidence.

-God’s presence is a “looming spectre” which restricts human freedom. His presence must be extinguished to experience genuine liberation.

-Christianity causes violence, holding Christian beliefs dehumanizes non-Christians. Evangelisation is an act of violence and is only ever used to disguise its true motive –power and greed.

-Ulterior motives characterize charitable works carried out by religious people.

-God is an “imaginary dictator.”

-There is no ultimate meaning of human life, only existence and whatever activities a person fills it with.

-Religion was a crutch to help us achieve our current level of development, it was merely a booster rocket to propel us into orbit.

-There are no answers, religion prevents the search for these non existent answers??

I would join the author’s crusade against Christianity except that she conceives a degenerate version of it.

Arguing with straw men is not the honour she ought to pay to the rationality she so highly values.

To be fair I think she is rejecting an inherited religion of her upbringing. Its true an authentic human life dedicated to truth is not one lived out of the inherited values of one’s parents, they have to be made our own as individuals.

The God of our childhood expects us to break inadequate models of Him as we grow, but we go too far when our iconoclasm becomes calumny.

Godbless Kelly

"...Society will slowly become more and more moral..."

Go tell it to the Pakistanis, Burmese monks, Sudan refugees, Iraqis, Palestinians, victims of senseless shooting in unis, victims of rape and child abuse on a large scale never seen before.

Not only is AJ ignorant of the facts going round him, probably evolved the wrong way!

OK, so, people in the main have stopped beleiving in God. Which means people therefore believe WE are God.

If we are God (completely free to self-determine) then what is it we wish to determine? How does man's wish for ourself factor in the rest of creation. Should it, even?

"...OK, so, people in the main have stopped beleiving in God. Which means people therefore believe WE are God...."

Sorry, Kevin -- no. There is NO God. None, Nada, Nix, Zero, Nothing. Not us, not anybody. You will never understand atheists until you can understand the idea that God does not exist. If you can't understand it then you can't possibly even argue against it.

As for the ever-growing Outrage Scoreboard (http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard), if anyone can find me documented evidence of outrages or violence committed over the same period by atheists, I am happy to put them up too. But I suspect the religious outrages will still outnumber them by an order of magnitude at least. PS: simply being rude to believers doesn't count.

Jon J

Why don't you read again what I said. You assume I believe in God. In the main, throughout history, people have believed in God.There is a difference between saying God exists and people believe God exists. For most people to no longer do so suggests a fundamental change in our collective consciousness.

The question is, can we now look at life with a sense of responsibility. Or, does the centuries of toiling the Earth, getting to know how it works intimately, count for nothing?

Jon J,
You are more likely to go overboard in the name of something you believe in than in the name of something you do not believe in. If you are inclined to become a fanatic it can only be because of something you believe in, not because of a belief you reject. There are many beliefs, not only religious, you can be fanatically attached to.

For instance, you are not likely to be intolerant if you just DO NOT THINK there is a God as e.g. the Christians understand Him to be; you are more likely to be intolerant if you FIRMLY BELIEVE (e.g. because of your understanding of what is evidence) that there is no such God.

Many more of 20th century atrocities were committed in the name of Fascism or Communism than in the name of anti-fascism or anti-communism, although most of the Communists were also anti-fascist and most of the Fascists were also anti-communists.

Some religious people adhere fanatically to their beliefs, like some atheists - e.g. Nazi or Stalinists but not only those - adhere fanatically to their beliefs. In both cases the emphasis is on "some".

Sorry George, but the Nazis and the Churches had a close relationship.

Both German state churches are also known to have used slave labour during World War II, but only the Catholic Church has denied any blame and refused to join the national compensation fund. Documents imply that the churches' forced labourers were sent to death camps when they were no longer useful and that they also knew about the death camps for the babies of their workers, yet said nothing.

Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933.

The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world.

Consecrated in 1935, the Martin Luther Memorial Church still stands in Berlin. Originally the Church bells and altar contained the swastika, but later removed because of post-war law that outlaws swastikas in Germany. Nevertheless, the church still retains many of the Nazi symbols and icons, including a muscular Aryan Jesus, Iron cross, statues of Nazi stormtroopers, and a bust of Adolf Hitler.

During the 30s, Nazi party members made up two thirds of the church attendance, where they also baptized their children.

Note that Hitler greatly admired Martin Luther (mentioned in Mein Kampf), and considered him one of the greatest reformers.

There is a difference between anti-Judaeism and anti-Semitism but probably not enough to have made a difference when it really mattered the most.

More recently some Nuns and Priests have been convicted of actively participating in the Rwanda genocide so I don't think that beliefs necessarily result in any special type of morality.

Forget to include this trivia -

Communism describes an economic and social belief system, based on the concept of community ownership rather than individual ownership. Despite assumptions to the contrary, it says NOTHING about promoting atheism or eliminating religion.

Although there were certainly persecutions against Russian churches and individual clergy in the early 1900s, the powers of Communism did this out of political concerns, not for religious or atheist reasons. (Stalin actually reintroduced the Russian Orthodox Church).

Other socialist and communist countries, especially South American countries, still embrace Christianity, especially Catholicism. China still remains largely Taoist/Buddhist/Atheist and rather intolerant due to it's strict adherence and paranoia.

Virtually all books that attempt to connect atheism with communism have come from religious organizations or religious authors who have an obvious bent against a rival and competing belief-system. Communism competes against religious dogma because it itself describes a dogma.

Finally, Karl Marx came from Jewish parents but his father embraced Christianity and the entire family were baptized as Protestants.

Stalin was raised by a deeply religious mother, he attended a parish school, and later entered a theological seminary where he began his radical communist thinking.Much of his temper and intolerance matches that of the religious teachings of his day.

I wonder how much of our personal beliefs and assumptions are determined by others and how much is actually due to free-thought?

wobbles,
I cannot see what has all that you wrote to do with what I was saying. I hope other readers understood me better. Fanaticism and hatred are two different things but they are closely related. I have to admit that, now that I read your post. Whatever the truth value of your diatribe, item by item - it is a oversimplified presentation of a complicated problem that is, as I said, unrelated to what I was saying about fanaticism - you must have made a very bad experience that triggered this reaction, and for this I am sorry.

I for myself have personally experienced WWII only as a child, however I had a first hand experience of what followed in the countries that came under Stalinist rule (that also included blaming the Church for all the ills of this world). Faith, directly or indirectly related to organised Church, was often the only thing that sustained us, and I know the same was true for many also during WWII.

Had I not felt sorry for you I would have stopped reading after your first sentence. Since as a Christian I have learned by now not be offended by anything, it is easier for me to try to understand other people's frustrations.

"I wonder how much of our personal beliefs and assumptions are determined by others and how much is actually due to free-thought?"

Indeed, this is a question you should try to answer first of all for yourself.

It's been a while since I glanced at this thread - isn't it just the case that the minute you take your eye off the ball...

Martin Ibn Warriq, what a fascinating list of straw men you have created. I've only picked the really devious examples.

>>Christianity is mythological which implies the events recorded in the New Testament did not happen.<<

Nope. Mythology does however surround some events recorded in the New Testament to the extent that it is reasonable to believe they did not happen. What we can't know is which ones may be factual and which may be simple story-telling.

>>Humans are value creators, values are not discovered<<

So the difference between creating and discovering is... what? If I articulate a value that says that for the good of society, murder is a bad thing, have I discovered it as a result of my experience, or have I created it?

>>Religious commitment is equivalent to the abdication of our duty to be intelligent, i.e. Christians do not think for themselves<<

Not necessarily. It is possible to be intelligent, and at the same time to have the ability to close off avenues of enquiry on the basis that you have already made up your mind. Many of us do this extremely frequently on non-religious issues. Think Ford vs Holden. Essendon vs Collingwood.

>>Christianity teaches human desires are dirty<<

Many Christians have taken it upon themselves to do adopt this view. Is this pure coincidence?

>>Christian belief is an exercise in self delusion and is held contrary to the evidence<<

In a sense, that's exactly right. I'd express it more gently though, since religious people (not only Christians, I might add) have a very selective view of what constitutes "evidence".

>>There are no answers, religion prevents the search for these non existent answers??<<

Codswallop. If anything, there are too many answers.

What is missing is an agreement that there is one, right, answer. And you do have to admit, that most religions actively discourage their followers from finding out that theirs might not actually be "the one".

Christians stand with two thousand years of darkness and bafflement and hunger behind them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQiyltvIcEQ

Philip Tang,

<<Go tell it to the Pakistanis, Burmese monks, Sudan refugees, Iraqis, Palestinians, victims of senseless shooting in unis, victims of rape and child abuse on a large scale never seen before.

Not only is AJ ignorant of the facts going round him...>>

Not only did I mention that there would be the occasional setback (earlier), but notice that none of the people you're talking about live in secular democracies?

But, Philip, we've already been through all this in another thread, haven't we?

<<...probably evolved the wrong way!>>

Another topic I've raised with you is the tactics used by Creationists when they feel threatened - ad hominem attacks is one of them.

George,
Apologies if you think I over-reacted.
I don’t know if it was the facts I presented or the way I presented them that you found offensive but they were indeed mostly facts and not opinions.

Perhaps, like you, I should have included an emphasis on “some” and not suggested that was representative of the whole picture.

However, unlike you I was born just after the War but my immigrant Russian/Polish parents spent the last half of WW2 interred as prisoners in a German labour camp where they experienced many things.

The attitude they passed onto me was that people should not only know the truth but are entitled to know the “whole truth” about that era – not the often romanticised and simplified Hollywood version we are subjected to. They vainly hoped that this would prevent such horrors happening again but were obviously mistaken.

However, I can't blame them entirely for my beliefs.

My own contribution to my attitude is to be aware of any organisation (political, social, or religious) that loses its way and places itself above the interests of individual members of that organisation.

I think that's pretty reasonable.

wobbles,
<< if it was the facts I presented or the way I presented them that you found offensive >>
Neither, nor; as I wrote it was your first sentence, but never mind. This time there is certainly not one sentence in your post that I could object to.

I had no first hand - not even second hand like you - experience of the Nazi horrors. My parents, living in a Central European country, were - not being Jewish - sufficiently unimportant to come into the Nazi (or their collaborators’) limelight. However, I had my experience with the Communists, although this certainly could not be compared with what your relatives went through. I was thrown out of the university (because of my “religious superstitions”) and had to work manually for a couple of years, that was all.

A couple of decades later - when for some reasons I was trying to recall these events - I could remember many names of people who helped me, but could not recall the name of the person who was conducting the interrogations etc. And I was very happy about this lapse of my memory. Of course, I am not talking here about justice, only about a mental disposition that I think is healthier than being absorbed in hatred that is seldom rational, and can easily involve “innocent bystanders“.

I read a lot about the Holocaust, etc. but perhaps no book impressed (and shocked) me so much as Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning”. A psychologist, allegedly comparable to Freud and Adler, and Holocaust (Auschwitz) survivor gives here a matter of fact (as seen by a psychologist) description of the hell those people had to go through that he was a witness to and, being a psychologist, could have a deeper insight into. Notwithstanding this, the book ends with the following observation:

“After all, man is that being who has invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however he is also that being who has entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips.”

I’m happy you agree Pericles. You should’ve read Kelly’s article though, its from this that these silly arguments are taken.

On your various arguments let me ask:
What parts of the NT do you accept? How do you personally know myth from biography? How familiar are you with the genres? And for those that you consider myth can you provide evidence?

The difference in meaning between creation and discovery is about as clear as two english words can be.

>>Many Christians have taken it upon themselves to do adopt this view. Is this pure coincidence?<<

It would have to be coincidence given the consistent teaching of Christianity. Christians read that we’re made in God’s image, and that Creation is intrinsically good – only people of a Gnostic bent believe all desires, and the material world, are dirty and evil. Christians won the debate with the Gnostics early on.

Disobedience distorts human nature – its from this that our desires become disordered. Virtue is the victory in the civil war between ordinate and inordinate desires.

Explain how atheist definition of evidence is not selective please.

>>Codswallop. If anything, there are too many answers.<<

I agree, Kelly doesn’t.

Your last sentence is confused. Do you mean someone of religious commitment ought not speak as if their beliefs are true? Islam has the death penalty for apostasy are you confusing Christianity and Islam? It is from within the Judeo-Christian civilisation that we have freedom of conscience, religion, and speech – nowhere else.

Assuming you’re saying Christians don’t bother about the rational grounds for belief let me challenge you. If you were honest you would be able to articulate Christian belief, show why Christians think they’re correct, outline the historical evidence for Christian claims, and do justice to the arguments for the existence of God.

In this way you would avoid the suspicion of hypocrisy and demonstrate that you don’t just dogmatically assert your suite of beliefs. Judging by what you have written in here I’m confident I’d make a better case for atheism than you.