Interesting how all the 'smart' ones want to compare Christianity with Islam and yet not one of them would be willing to live in an Islamic country under Sharia law. They would not be allowed to display their God hating and sin loving ways in those countries. Still I suppose the most dangerous place for anyone these days is in a mothers womb thanks to secularism.

runner,

I wouldn't want to live under strict Christian law either, and I know many christians who wouldn't either. You are confusing a system of governance with a religion.

Absolutely.

>>I wouldn't want to live under strict Christian law either, and I know many christians who wouldn't either<<

For a start, you'd have to determine which version of Christianity is to become law. That alone would produce enough dissent which would ensure a christian State is never established.

But runner's observation is already based on a falsehood.

>>Interesting how all the 'smart' ones want to compare Christianity with Islam<<

"Interestingly", runner, it is most often Christians who want to compare Christianity with Islam. No atheist I know could give a proverbial damn about either, in their raw form. It is only when they become militant and start to make/break laws that we become involved.

And goodthief, I think stickman has said most of what needs to be said on the topic of belief. But I must take direct issue with one of your statements.

>>You seem to be saying that someone who says “I don’t believe in God” is not uttering a belief. I don’t know how to respond to this. I think this is agnosticism. I’d say atheists say “I believe there is no God”<<

I specifically did not use the phrase "I don't believe in God", so please don't set it up as something I "seem to be saying". I did however use the phrase "I believe there is no God" - which takes it into atheist territory - to make my point that construing this as a belief in itself is contradictory.

You even make my point for me:

>>This is a belief, even though it’s a belief which, on its own, doesn’t really go anywhere<<

That it "doesn't really go anywhere" should provide a clue. How can there be a belief that "doesn't really go anywhere" - even in your book, this must on its own disqualify it.

I'd be interested to hear the basis for this opinion, too:

>>I think people like Dawkins would impose atheism if they could<<

If this is code for "ban laws based purely on religious interpretation", I'd probably agree. But I don't think that's what you have in mind.

stickman and Pericles, if you’re still around, sorry for the delay.

A good deal to respond to here.

When I say “I believe God exists”, I utter a belief. When asked, “Which version of God? What does it matter? How has ‘God’ asked you to live your life?”, I respond by expressing my other beliefs about God.

So, when an atheist says, “I believe there is no God”, that person is uttering a belief. When asked other questions, the atheist will answer by expressing other beliefs which make no reference to God, and God won’t be heard of again in that conversation.

This is how I’m using the word “belief”. I’m not using it to mean “belief system” or anything like that, but simply the apprehension of a fact – for me, the fact that there is God, for you the fact that there is no God. If I were an atheist, I too would not wish to be defined as such: I’d rather be known for my positive, substantive ideas, such as evolution. Similarly, I would not normally be known as a theist, as that alone doesn’t say very much about me, whereas the word “Christian” (for better or worse) says a good deal.

Meanwhile, I share your interest, stickman, in making society better. I’ve even tried a few times to put the deeper matters aside, so we can “all” focus on that. I tried to get people to agree to humanism as a starting point. Didn’t work: many atheists online are evolutionists and could not agree that human beings are especially high in value.

Pax,

(cont)

I’m a bit taken aback by “Your post reeks of loathing” for the new atheists. Simply because I describe Dawkins as “strident” and “arrogant”? This means I loathe him? It means it so obviously that my post “reeks”? Surely you don’t mean it. I would have thought that the most superficial reading of The God Delusion would lead to the conclusion that Dawkins is strident and arrogant. I can’t see how the conclusion is to be avoided. It’s enough that he uses the word “delusion”, implying that people like me are mentally impaired. He annoys the cr@p out of me, but it doesn’t occur to me to loathe him. My last para a few days ago was devoted to decrying hatred: I’m agin’ it. Several atheists I’ve spoken to agree about Dawkins, and they’re embarrassed by him just as I’m embarrassed by some pretty alarming or ridiculous Christians. These atheists regard Dawkins as strident, arrogant and correct (about God and about religion).

Yes, I believe Dawkins would impose atheism if it were possible to do so. He would call it “insisting on reason and rationality”. However, it doesn’t matter whether or not I’m right about this. I don’t like him; you do; fine, we needn’t get in a twist about it.

As for the arrogance of [some] religious people: this is old news, not controversial as far as I’m concerned.

To explain why Dawkins’ arguments are wrong – or even just one of them – will take time. But, perhaps I should have a go at it. First, I’ll say his main problem is his unexplained assumption that empiricism (observation) is the only legitimate or acceptable path to a belief or knowledge. If he could establish this, he would have a basis for calling people like me irrational. He should either establish his assumed basis or stop using the word “irrational”.

Pax,