"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.