The problem is that the article in itself proves nothing. It admits the pain of our short existence, and our discomfort in explaining death to children, but then the fact remains that we are no closer to actually answering the big questions. In other words, you are attempting to psychoanalyse WHY we are wrong, rather than proving THAT we are wrong. It's an old logical error, but still a very effective and sneaky one.

CS Lewis once had a term for this, it's called "Bulverism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century."

Some atheists have trouble being consistent. Here’s a fine example from Brett Walker:

“Spare us the sermons.” And then he says two seconds later, “try to leave a better world behind when you go.”

Well, which is it? Are we allowed to sermonise or not? If not, then why is he telling us what to do? And who is he to impose his moral code onto me?

For that matter, why should I leave the world better when I go? If Walker agrees with his fellow atheist, Peter Atkins, then people are ‘just a bit of slime on the planet’. We are a curious accident in a backwater. What does it matter when we all disappear down a meaningless, cosmic plughole? Why should I bother leaving the world in a better state than when I found it?

Perhaps I’m just one of those critics with invective in my spleen who Walker predicts will try and drown out his core message. So what was this message in his core? Well, if I’ve got it right, it was something along the lines of not being a squib (like he was honest enough to admit that he was) when telling the young ones about the reality of death; that religion is man’s failed attempt to face the reality of death.

If this was his point, then it lacks something critical. Death is universal, so why (by Walker’s reckoning) is not religious faith?

The very opposite is true. There is a life after death, and many have come to accept this when they squarely face certain realities. When staring at death, the man on the cross next to Jesus said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” When seeing the manner in which Jesus died, the Roman soldiers said, “Truly this man was the Son of God.”

Absolutely Dan. There is no morality, no moral force, no imperative whatsoever other than pure hedonistic pleasure if there is no God.

If I'm to be "flushed away" into nothingness, what do I care about the world or anything? I might care enough about Australia's state and the region my kids grow up in for their sake, but that's just pure sentiment because they too will one day be flushed away. There simply is no morality. We are just the top of the food chain. While some here have referred to fundamentalist suicide bombers, they've forgotten to admit that some of the worst war-crimes in history have been conducted in the name of fundamentalist Atheism in the likes of Marxism, Stalinism, Pol Pot, etc. But we'll just forget that shall we?

So, from all accounts, on this godless hypothesis, I would go with the Apostle Paul and "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die". But Paul didn't leave it at that did he, because he personally met the risen Christ and it rocked his universe.

Thanks to everyone who bothered to read the piece before offering their thoughts – even the crazies. For one thing you help to prove my point!

To the others, can I suggest you read it with both eyes open and see if it resonates at all. Then try responding using proper sentences. Does wonders for your credibility.

Finally, to those who feel it is their duty to defend the faith or push their own brand of absolutism why not try preparing an argument and submitting it for publication?

The one thing I’ll say in support of Magnum PI’s little brother (Peter Sellick) is at least he does that – no matter how impenetrable his prose.

Cheers
Brett
AKA

How many times have you been asked a question
"If God is omnipotent, if God can do anything,
then can he draw a square circle?"

"Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?"

Questions like these are examples of incomplete logic.
Once you know the trick, they are easy to refute but as I researched it, I discovered that
these kinds of questions point to a deeper problem,
a problem pointed out by a mathematician named
Kurt Godel pointed out in 1930.

Then along came Kurt Godel.

We realize now that Kurt Godel was one
of the most brilliant mathematicians of the 20th century.
Time Magazine recently even named him one of the top 20 scientific
minds of the last 100 years. And even back then he was
recognized as a man with a good head on his shoulders.

He decided to tackle the problem from a mathematical
perspective, using something called modal logic.

What he discovered rocked the mathematical world.

In 1930, he demonstrated that any logical system
sophisticated enough to make the statement
"1 + 1 = 2" contains within itself propositions that can
not be proved to be true or false.

In short, he showed that every moderately complex logical system
has propositions which must be accepted on faith. You can't
work the system unless you trust certain parts of the system,
and you can't prove why you should trust them, except that the
results work.

Even Godel didn't realize the full extent of what he had done.

What it means is this: physics, math, biology, chemistry - no
matter which scientific system you name, you are talking about an
essentially faith-based system.

Science requires persons to relate to each other in specific ways.
In order to communicate itself in an intelligent way,
science requires faith.

Is this a problem?

Not if you know what faith really is.

Steve Kellmeyer

This is an abridged version, see the entire article at www.bridegroompress.com

Cotton

grn said

"I've known plenty of religious people, both good and bad. Funny though that militant athiests are invariably intolerant, sneering tools."

What about militant religious people though - so in the interests of fairness you are not comparing apples with oranges.

My understanding is that the afterlife or another life (reincarnation) was the whole premise of religion ie. to provide an incentive to live a 'moral' and good life. Which of course relies on a belief (misguided IMO)that humans are not intrinsically good (or bad) or cannot form societies in the interests of the common good without the influence of myths and legends and then later religions.

It is interesting that religious folk will argue plausibility in regards to evolution or science but cannot see how overtly hypocritical this stance is with reference to their own worldview.

I don't want to die too early and have no fear of death but more of how I die. Being a bit of a wimp I would prefer no pain. The fact is we are born, we live then we die. The incentive is to live a good life and hopefully leave the world a better place for future generations.