Incoherent nonsense!

What utter rubbish.

I must admit that the way most non believers lives gives more proof to the devil than God. Funny however that at funeral time they all want everyone to believe they are in heaven. After thousands of years of trying to deny God all we have is the hopelessly inept and flawed fantasy of evolution in trying to explain our existence. Their really is nothing new under the sun.

How bizarre. This implies that I need to research something in order not to believe. I don't like eating chicken's feet which is a material item that I have tried and now choose not to eat again. God is perceived as a non 3D element - I choose not to acknowledge such thing in my life. Atheism is the norm. Society/culture adds religious elements.

Christianity is a lie and has always been so. The basis of Christianity is the old scapegoat theory where you take an innocent being, animal or human, praise it and lavish gifts upon it. In some way this transfers sin from the one doing the praising to the praised. When the object of praise is sacrificed the sin dies also.
In the Christian version original sin came about because a woman disobeyed God, and original sin is passed down through the female line. The object of praise, Jesus, could not be free of sin as claimed because he must have, according to Christian dogma, inherited original sin through the female line. If original sin is true the purity of Jesus fails. If the purity of Jesus is true original sin fails. Either way Christianity cannot be true.
The Christian churches have always known that its dogma was a lie. That is why in 1854 Pius the ninth issued a papal decree saying that by a special act of grace Mary had been declared free of sin from the moment of her conception.
What this hideous piece of retrospective church legislation did was to;
1. Give Mary an immaculate conception eighteen hundred years after she died.
2. Give Mary absolution for being a woman.
3. Confirm that all other women, singularly and collectively, are responsible for all sin and suffering in this world.
Christianity is not a religion. It is a legal system. It is one of the three Abramic religions (with Judaism and Islam) that owe there origins to Abram, and each claims to be God's lawyers on Earth.
Christianity does not teach the teachings of Jesus, it uses Jesus to claim legitimacy for legal power it does not have.
Son of God or not Jesus once freed from the prison of Christianity Jesus had a lot to offer. This include;
Woe unto you Pharisees, you are the keeper of the way of knowledge. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow others to enter. And the key lies rusty in the lock.

Sells,
The God you describe is not the God of the Old Testament.(Does the OT mention a Trinity?)
If you do not accept the God of the OT Don't call yourself a Christian.

Irony heaped upon irony. The writer of this article accuses atheists of putting up something other than the true god and then knocking it down; the writer then unblushingly puts up something other than atheism and then knocks it down. Very poor stuff indeed. I'd get a better argument from my sixth-formers.

Peter, call me a simpleton but doesn't your entire argument rely upon a leap of faith (or 2)? That being the case aren't you basically just saying "I believe in X and if you don't agree, more fool you"?

If you want to engage in a debate with adults then try 'fessing up about the position you are coming from.

You fall back on scripture to support your views. The bible is not proof of much that I can see, apart from the capacity of people to write scary stuff down.

Stev and 37thfloor may seem a little unkind but I suspect they are just summarising what I am (and a few other readers are) thinking.

Interesting to note that the doctrine of the Trinity didn't become 'official' Christian doctrine until the Council of Nicea convened by the Emperor Constantine in about 325 AD. Many references to it come from John's Gospel which is generally regarded as the least reliable of the four Gospels.

Also interesting is the occurrence of versions of Trinitarianism in other religions, most notably Buddhism. 'The Lost Buddhas' exhibition at the NSW art gallery recently contained several Trinitarian exhibits, for example.

All of which says that the history of ideas is fascinating but that we should be careful about attributing divine support to any idea.

hmm. i do wonder if sellick has a day job, but i didn't mind this article so much. his playing with the word "atheist" is pretty arrogant and pretty silly. But if sellick really wishes to extract the supernatural and the apriori correctness from christianity, then i don't object much to what's left. i like christ: it's christians which give me the willies.

though i do wonder what is really left. it seems to me sellick's column is much more difficult for would be christians than it is for would be atheists.

More convoluted sophistry from Sellick, undoubtedly recycled from one of his sermons. Somebody should tell him that atheists don't believe in any gods - his version of the Christian god is but one (or is it three) of the innumerable deities that humans have invented in order to explain the universe, prior to the development of modern science.

Yawn - I imagine there was much snoring in the pews when he delivered that one.

Not another Sellick article! This one particularly full of bilge.

Listen Sellick, every atheist is different in everything other an absence of belief in any deity. No God, no Zeus, no Ra, no Vishnu, nothing. Just us. We don't need a supernatural prop to get through our life. And we don't hold a common set of beliefs about other things, if atheists of my acquaintance are anything to go by.

As far I am concerned your discussion about your God is no more real than a discussion I might have about the nature of Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings. Interesting, but fiction. And if I want to observe that the God of your Old Testament is a vindictive, cruel character and that the New Testament presents an unconvincing change of heart by a repulsive being who inexplicably becomes all touchy-feely, that is my prerogative as a student of literature. Zeus was pretty horrible too.

Another round of applause for Sells. What a beautiful post-modern narrative! It now seems that (among many other statements of the faith) the apostles creed, long the mainstay of catechism lessons, is out and (inter alia) 'educated' triune worship is in.
The problem totally unaddressed in the essay is simply that there is not one iota of proof for any of it. It is no more than an enslaving fairy-tale - a ridiculous 'feel good' one at that - and is simply perpetuated albeit reluctanly by constant adjustment and modification in accord with our ever expanding knowledge of the world as revealed by consistent scientific analysis.

I feel I owe you an apology, Sells.

I've realized that every time I've posted a comment about one of your articles, my comments were based on wrong assumptions. I assumed that, as a Christian, you must necessarily believe the same sort of things that I believed back when I was a Christian. But it's became plain that you don't.

Having gone back and read some of your earliest articles on OLO, I have a lot more sympathy for your position. I may not be ready to renounce my agnosticism, but I am starting to get a glimmer of how a rational person could believe some of the stuff you've been talking about.

And I should also thank you for pointing me in the direction of a few interesting books, like Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained", and especially some of the stuff by Don Cupitt.

However - I suspect that the majority of people who call themselves Christians do, in fact, believe in the sort of objective God that the athiests are talking about. So I'm not sure it's accurate to say that they're aiming their arguments at the wrong God.

Cheers!

I am astounded at the lack of understanding believers have about atheists. This ignorance is on full display in this article, which seems to be to be amazingly obtuse and incoherent. Atheists do not accept the concept of a god. The concept itself is preposterous - it has no basis in reality, no evidence. It's that simple really. It is not enough just to be born into belief and accept the cultural indoctrination handed out by the particular family and society a person finds themselves in. Atheists need to be able to see how the belief relates to reality. If some sort of god - Ra, Vishnu, Jesus, whoever - were to provide any sort of evidence, then I daresay all atheists would revise their views. Every human society has had some sort of consoling myth. Christianity, in its many often contradictory forms, is more successful (in terms of numbers) than others have been. It remains to be seen if it goes on as long as other belief systems. It is successful partly because it addresses specific human fears and prejudices. It also proved politically useful at the time of its establishment. In some parts of the world it is still politically useful, which keeps it going. In Australia, where it is less useful, it is fading away. The sheer natural wonder of the universe is enough to be going on with and far more complex, beautiful and sustaining than anything found in that atrocious book called the bible. We do not need any supernatural explanations any more as a species, now that we have grown up.

Sellick,

All the time I thought I was an athiest simply because I found no reason to believe, I never realised that I had gone through all the tortured reasoning to reject belief.

I don't reject JC as a fraud and trickster, simply because I take the bible incl genesis with a pinch of salt and not as an accurate historical document. Even the new testiment was written generations after he lived, and is mostly based on heresay.

Athiesm is not an active rejection of christianity, more a disinterest.

Now he's peddling falsehoods, only supernatural belief is impossible to prove true.

Why don't we delete the phrase "advancement of religion" from the section of the Tax Act for exemptions, and make this lot pay their own way in society for a change. Charities would continue to be exempt, but churches, well perhaps not.

Already churches pay no motor rego, get NSW road toll cashback, no council rates, no waste charges to council, concessional water and energy charges, no stamp duty on property transfer, no stamp duty on motor cars the list goes on.

This means most of us who aren't into religion are forced to pay for it as all tiers of government tax and charge us to the hilt to cover the shortfalls in revenue caused by purple parasites.

Is this guy insane or something. Biggest load of gobbledegook ive ever read.
I read it 3 times and still cant get what he is going on about.
God doesn't "exist"? If your god/s "are not beings in the ordinary sense of being or persons in the ordinary sense of persons" then what the hell are they? Sounds like spooks to me
So who exactly are you christians praying to? What role does prayer play in your life mr sellick and why do you do it?

Seems to me you are having your cake and eating it too. Is Jesus the son of god? If so then god must exist. If he isnt then he is just another man. This trinity business sounds like some sort of scam to blind people with BS and hope they will just accept that their "betters" understand it. From the writings of mr sellick its obvious he is struggling.

His last comments seem to mark him as an atheist himself who just follows some bloke named Jesus. Nothing supernatural or fantastic just the man Jesus. Is he still alive somewhere? Life after death etc. Who do you pray to and why? Can he answer your prayers? Can he intervene and do miracles? Sounds pretty supernatural to me.

If he cant do anything/dosent exist somewhere then it would seem pretty weird to be doin all that prayin and worshippin! hmmm

I'm one, an atheist... I have a lot of problems with the generic atheist too, as in I think most of them are just resentful to a god they claim isn't there or religion and its politics or a society/family that forced them a god/religion onto them. I think most atheists are actually followers of the humanist belief.

In this sense the humanist does create a false *god* to fight against. What they are actually fighting is religion and its politics... Which has nothing to do with atheism as humanism is a social movement as is religion and politics.

I am an atheist and support most religions in society, as I think the human beast needs a belief system and a religion will mostly be what they choose. So I support the less harmful ones, and fight the negative ones. This is nothing to do with being an atheist, it is just my moral and social beliefs.

Dear Daviy

I'm afraid you have just infringed Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance act with the words "Christianity is a lie".

You therefore hold all Christians up as idiots,and as those who believe a lie. That is to hold up to public contempt and scorn and is illegal.

You can say "I believe it is false or that you 'believe' it to be a lie" but you cannot say "It IS... a lie".

Please take care in what you say to remain on the right side of the law in future.

The atheist is usually just an agnostic. For an atheist's position to be viable..they would indeed have to have checked all that is in the Universe to establish 'There is no God'.

Hence.. "Atheism" is a faith position based on very limited factual information.

Oi you!

That is so true! so your an agnostic too, hey, Boaz?

For an theist's position to be viable..they would indeed have to have checked all that is in the universe to establish 'There is a God'.

Hence.. "Theism" is a faith position based on very limited factual information.

Eheh, just stirring man... you know I care for your right to be Christian... but hey that legislation is a tragedy isn't it... bloody PC Victoria...

Boaz_David
If anything can be demonstrated to be untrue then it can be called a lie without worrying about any act of parliament. Christianity is based on two premises that cannot be both true at the same time, and therefore can be shown to be a lie. I notice you come in on the legal side not the factual evidence.
I never said I am an Atheist. My position is that I am opposed to legal systems pretending to be religions. Are you the person who, in another discussion, put forward the proposition that Christians followed a higher law than the law of the land. It was just that they appear to follow Australian law because it is similar to Christian law? Before you set yourself up (with the other Christians) as being God's lawyer why not ask if God needs a lawyer.

BOAZ_David,

When you claim a person has just infringed Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance act with the words "Christianity is a lie", are you acting as a legal expert?

If so, I hope you are not charging a professional fee or you could be up before the Law Institute for providing erroneous and misleading advice.

Please go and read the Act again (assuming you've ever read it in the first place that is). This inaccuracy following on your recent claim that a baker broke the EO Act for refusing to write offensive words on a cake demonstrate you have as little knowledge of what the law says as you do about kirpans, the Quaran and Middle Eastern politics.

I have not read any of the recent books that attack belief in God because I sense that they say nothing new.

As an academic I have to say that this is, without doubt, my favourite line. Why engage with literature, or heck, why read it, when you can dismiss it out of hand through assumptions. This is exactly the type of dodgy logic that pervades the church and most organised religion.

I am a staunch atheist and always have been and yet, at my conservative religious high school I won the prize for religion when in year ten; the reason? I decided that if you are going to disagree with something you have to know what you're disagreeing with- so I read the bible cover to cover- cute little read in parts- delightful fiction.

See unlike this hypocrite I actually believe in measured reasoned thought and argument- not spurious claims based on an admitted lack of engagment. ABSOLUTE MORON.

The thiests believe in God without any proof whatsoever.

The athiests don't.

Here is how the OED defines "atheism":

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

Boaz's comment "The atheist is usually just an agnostic. For an atheist's position to be viable..they would indeed have to have checked all that is in the Universe to establish 'There is no God'.

Is equivalent to saying "The Christian is usually just an agnostic. For an christian's position to be viable..they would indeed have to have checked all that is in the Universe to establish 'There is a God'.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Does belief in God require the suspension of logic? It would appear so.

Sells, I'm not sure I am following your reasoning. When you say
"Of course, those on the side of God’s existence pointed to the marvellous complexity of the universe, of nature and the human body which produced the argument from design much loved of creationists. But that only made matters worse because this made God necessary for the existence and order of the world and again God became trapped in mechanism."

How does God being necessary for the existence of the world make God trapped in mechanism?? Honestly, I just can't see the flow of logical argument here....

Impersonator, you've suggested that Sellick is a "moron" for "dismissing" the new atheists.

Firstly, he didn't "dismiss" anyone, he merely mentioned them in passing, presumably due to the massive amounts of attention they've received recently.

Secondly, I take issue with your implication that Sellick shouldn't make the comment that they "say nothing new" in relation to his viewpoint without reading the work himself.

So, Mr.Academic, if you enjoying "reasoning" so much why don't you answer the following: Which claims do the new atheists make, which have not been made elsewhere already, which are in contradiction with anything from Sellick's article?

Trav:

as for referring to me as Mr.Academic- well its actually Ms.Academic. Exactly what sort of gender assumptions underpin your worldview?>

More to the point, the onus of responsibility does not rest on me to provide evidence regarding your claim- if the author decides to write on a particular issue, then the onus is on him to do the leg work- not me.

It's up to YOU to prove that he needs to do the legwork in the first place. That's your contention, yet you haven't proven it.

Grey.
At last an intelligent question, thank you. But it is also a difficult one. The medieval nominalists, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham protested that if God were free then he could do anything he wanted. This lead to the doubtful conclusion that he could make good bad and bad good if he had a mind to. The objection to this is that if God is love this make him act against his nature. The OT is very careful to preserve God's freedom, especially from human expectations. The key text is of course the name he gives to Moses from the burning bush, "I am who I am", or "I will be who I will be" which is the translation of YHWH. God is the one who will do mercy to whom he will do mercy, he is outside of the expectations of human beings.

Thus if God becomes the first cause or the designer of the universe he loses his sovereignty and becomes part of the mechanism. This essentially closes the gap between God and his creature and leads to Spinozism in which God and the creation become indisinguishable.
It also leads to the idea of providence, the idea that God holds all things in his hands. This does not take into account how we experience the world, the great Lisbon earthquake shook the faith of many. Nature is not under the control of God it has its own reasons.
You will notice that I am using objectifying language about God, as I mentioned in the article there is no other way. But we do so knowing that we are not talking about a conscious being but an historical event.

Here we go again! Peter Sellick publishes another article and at the sight of his name a hundred knees jerk. Some of the previous posters have obviously not read the article carefully, if at all. Others simply spit venom and don’t even attempt argument. Yet others automatically trot out grievances or favourite opinions that have nothing to do with the content of the author’s article.

Nevertheless I can discern in the frustration of a few posters a genuine wish to understand what Peter is trying to communicate. Perhaps their problem is more to do with the language of theological discussion, which is outside of the experience of so many people.

All I can say, Peter, is that your article makes sense to me. (Maybe that’s partly because I’m not one of those Christians whom you say “think about God in an objectifying way”.) I hope some of the more vituperative posters will one day try to consider your article dispassionately, slowly and deeply. They may then, like Rhys Probert above, make some pleasant and valuable discoveries.

"I have not read any of the recent books that attack belief in God because I sense that they say nothing new."

In other words "I am making bald and offensive assertions without the slightest shred of evidence whatsoever and I have no interest in seeking any."

Ho hum...

The article was too convoluted to make much sense. However it raised some questions for me.
If there are many different religions with their own gods, and each assume that their god is the only god - then who is really right? If we acknowledge that other people have their own gods and religions and we are accepting of this, do we therefore concede that there are indeed many gods? If you don't accept this and assume your god is the only god, is this not illogical considering the the influence of culture, socialisation, geography, history, etc that result in the adoption of a religion?

The Bible has been around for only 2000 years or so. We have been in existence for many thosands of years prior. Therefore are all prior beliefs and gods deemed redundant simply because Christianity evolved to be the religion of that time? Does this mean that there may well be another 'man' who appears with a compelling belief or story and this manifests into another compelling book or belief system? It all seems pretty fluid and subject to evolution.

Peter -- you theologians like spiritual exercises, don't you? Here's a spiritual exercise for you.

1. Form in your mind a clear and coherent picture of the place in the Universe held by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

2. For the words 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' substitute the word 'God' throughout.

3. You now have a complete grasp of the atheist viewpoint.

See, it wasn't that hard, was it?

Seriously, your articles are getting increasingly incoherent and your refusal to accept contrary evidence is taking on a shrill and strident note. I wonder if, like so many other intelligent believers, you are heading for a complete crack-up due to your failure to reconcile your cherished beliefs with ordinary common sense. Time for a reality check?

You can be sure that whenever a religionist such as Sells starts talking about the "trinity" he wouldnt have a clue about Real God as the Indivisble Sphere of Radiant Conscious Light. And that he is trying to justify the naive childhood "creator-god"--the parental deity.

As for me my favourite childhood trinity were Curly, Larry and Moe, that is the Three Stooges--lots of laughs there. And the Three Little Pigs, which is really a very wise teaching story.

The "trinity" to which Sells is a fully paid up subscriber, and which completely governs every aspect of our "culture" too, is the tripartate presumption of being a separately defined meat-body personality, completely separate from all other meat bodies, completely separate from the World-Process altogether, and completely separate from Real God, the Divine Conscious Light.

God as separate, entirely other, and thus objectified. The world as separate, entirely other, and thus objectified. And my meat-body as separate and thus objectified and separate from all other objectified meat-bodies too.

Where there is an other fear spontaneously arises.

In other words Sells, and and all of us in our normal dreadful sanity, live in a fear saturated world.

What is more, the moment one objectifies anything, the whatever that is thus objectified becomes your mortal enemy, and you are thus at war with everything, and seek to control any and every thing thus objectified.

At war with The Divine Conscious Light, the World Process altogether, and all other human beings.

The "god" who is presumed to be other is not your refuge, sustenance or help, but your mortal enemy.

Meanwhile I also quite like the Hindu trinity: namely Brahman the "creator", Vishnu the mysterious preserver and sustainer, and Siva the transformer and destroyer. Siva acknowleding that everything is part of a never-ending process of transformation and decay---or that death rules to here.

The Christian "trinity" doesnt even begin to take the reality of death into account. Whereas as the key to right life altogether is to fully understand the meaning and significance of death, and to thus transcend ones fear of death.

1. http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp

For Crabsy, let me expand on what "incoherent nonsense" means...

Here is the Cliff notes version of Sellick's argument:

1. If God is omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere) then surely he must have an effect on the physical (material) world - even overturning physical laws at a whim. He can't just be a "prime mover" because then he is bound by physical laws he set in motion (and is therefore not omnipotent).
2. Sellick informs us that this is a straw man argument because only pagans (and most Christians) believe that God is omnipotent in this physical sense
3. Instead, we are told, God acts in the social world where God/Father IS (literally) love, God/Jesus IS grace, and God/Holy Spirit IS community (i.e. God doesn't SHOW love he IS love).
4. So a-theism (interpreted here as anti-theism) is to be anti-love or anti-grace or anti-community or more charitably to not believe in love, grace, or community. Given that most self-proclaimed atheists believe in love then they are not really atheists with respect to the Christian God but only chasing the shadows of the pagan world.

So apart from telling MOST Christians they are ill-educated in their own faith we basically have the propositions that:
1. Any act of love/grace/community IS God (or is that an act of God)
2. Don't expect God's omnipotence to manifest in the physical world (so much for all those miracles we hear about)

To which I can reply:
1. Any act of love/grace/community IS NOT God (see, I can assert things too)
2. Don't expect God's omnipotence to manifest in the physical world

Let's apply Occam's razor - if there is no physical evidence for God then we don't need God.

Sellick, what about writing an article on the Nature of God as you see it, rather than focusing on atheism and atheists. The atheist bit is a red herring into what you are actually saying, the real nature of God is not the pagan like God worshipped, by ‘many if not most Christians’.

It would be a very interesting to follow a vigorous thread between fellow Christians. Your differences are not with atheists, but with other Christians.

You state: ‘modern day Christians can similarly be accused of atheism because they do not believe in the God delivered to us by 17th and 18th century scientists/theologians’.

The traditional churches, with enormous bodies of scholarship are emptying,, but churches with a very simple concept of God, and a rigid reading of the bible with perhaps some bible study where a person with limited education ‘explains difficult passages’ as if dealing with some incomprehensible post modernist poetry, are filling up. To me that show that many prefer that 17th century God.

On another note: I cannot understand how you reconcile the notion of a personal relationship with God with the concept of God as I think you express Him. The Christians I know all claim to have personal relationships with God. He may or may not answer their prayers with a miracle, but that is explained away in a most facile manner.

I echo Anansi's request. I too would like to understand Peter's understanding of God. I am agnostic about the Universe. It seems to me that there must be a first cause and that maybe it has been for ever, but I don't think we shall ever be able to understand that. But putting this big issue aside as something that we can only be agnostic about, there is something about love in community which, though maybe only an epiphenomenon of human existence, is a pretty powerful idea. Is it this kind of idea that Peter calls God? This idea bubbles through the old traditions, scriptures, and theological formulations which sadly objectify God and thus mislead people. Peter obviously feels a need to use the scriptures and traditions in talking about this God because maybe those who have gone before were struggling to express the idea though in the theological terms of their day. I am not Christian but I think I can subscribe to the idea that the most worthwhile, powerful and enduring force or idea is love - universal good will. Is that what you mean by God Peter?

Clem, I think you are merely underlining the fact that religions of all sorts are human constructs, created to serve the needs of the societies in which they arise. Consequently there is no one 'true' religion, and far from 'God' being universal, isolated groups such as New Guinea tribes or Australian Aborigines had never heard of God or Christianity but had their own quite different and satisfying world view. And of course now we all know about everyone else's 'religion' it becomes apparent that they are just comforting fictions and more and more people realise that they can stand on their own two feet without the crutch of superstition and the supernatural.

I do get annoyed by assertions such 'God is Love', which try to hijack normal human emotions into the service of religion, and don't actually make any sense. There is only one thing that is love, and it is love itself.

Peter,

A real atheist doesn't waste his time reading the bible other than to gain material to have a verbal stoush with the god-botherers.

There is nothing dark about being an atheist. The whole idea of dead is dead is so much lighter than eternal afterlife which could be full of suffering depending on the whim of a god. Indeed the concept of a finite life forces you to make the most out of it and puts you firmly in control instead of living an unfulfilled life in fear of hell and damnation.

Perhaps you could write an article on an omnipotent god and freewill or perhaps explain the Calvinist concept of the elect that are predetermined to enter heaven.

Maybe the renaissance popes and clergy really understood Catholicism , party till you drop, to hell with celibacy and get the peasants to fund your lifestyle through taxes that promise them direct entry to heaven.

Altruism and goodness exist in peoples hearts because we have evolved to live in social groups, not because god put it there. Morals and the potential for good and evil exists in everyone; non-atheists don't have a monopoly on it.

Sellick,

Your article is again playing the "God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" against the "God of (some) philosophers and scientists", a distinction intelligible only within the Christian (and indirectly any Abrahamic) cultural context. We already had discussions along these lines and you know I see it differently. Nevertheless, thanks for a new insight into your way of seeing things.

However, this is not the point I wanted to make, but rather to ask - along with Anansi and Fencepost - why you had to include attacks on atheism, leading to the kind of emotional responses that you received (which does not mean you would not get them from certain people even if you restricted your article to a discussion of different Christian ways of understanding God).

In one another forum (on Dawkins) I found the following comment: "When someone explains to me what I believe and then step by step explains why I am stupid to believe it, I tend to get irritated. Dawkins comes across to me like that". Cannot atheists complain the same way if we pass judgement about their world view without trying to understand what they mean by the term "atheist"?

I know, it is not easy, because of the emotions involved. For instance, I learned from a thread on this OLO that most of those participating in these exchanges of views (and/or emotions) define atheism as "absence (or lack) of belief", just replacing the undefined (undefinable?) term "God" (as in “I do not believe in God”) by the undefined term "belief".

I was actually tempted to contribute here with a whole article analysing the possible meanings of the term "atheist", however I refrained from doing it for three reasons: the first, and least important, was that I did not want to receive the same kind of abusive responses that you keep on receiving; secondly, because one should first agree on what one means by “belief in God” (which is not as simple as it used to be when only the Judaeo-Chistian context was considered), and thirdly because of the recently discovered article http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2009-4.pdf. (ctd)

(ctd) That article includes, as one possible definition, also “lack of belief”. Unfortunately, the author is unable to keep his rational analysis of all available (and possible) meanings of the term away from his apology of atheism (which he defines as a rejection of the “belief in a specific god” of the Abrahamic religions) and criticism - even ridicule - of positions incompatible with atheism. Truly, this applies to most essays that involve religion, perceived positively or negatively: e.g. there are only a few descriptions of what Christianity is all about without an apology for - or denigration of - its tenets.

Besides, also Richard Dawkins seems to prefer atheism as comprising a positive belief: “An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand.” (The God Delusion).

To my understanding this is like when I believe that my house will not be burglarized, my credit card stolen etc. This is a justified belief unless (or until) I have a “life experience” that shatters my belief. On the other hand it can also be seen as the belief that I will never win a million in Tattslotto, hence I never buy a ticket. Even he/she who buys his/her ticket regularly has mostly only the thrill every week of a possible win, and these thrills are probably all he/she gets. But there is a hope, a possibility, that beside these thrills one day he/she will win...

This corresponds to two categories of Christians who reject Dawkins’ belief: the Christian who is over-cautious lest he be “burglarized“ and lives in fear, and the Chritsian who is thrilled “every week” hoping for a “big win sometimes in the far away future”.

Well, this is already apology, not analysis, so I better leave it at that.

george, you suggest that dawkins' sense of atheism is "positive". i'm not really sure what that means, but i note that your dawkins quote has a hell of a lot negations in it.

not that it matters. as you, and others, have pointed out the real question here is why sellick chose to pick an irrelevant and ill-defined fight with "atheists".

i suggest that sellick is simply a stirrer, and not a particularly pleasant one, not for any sense of good. his remark above of "At last an intelligent question, thank you" pretty much captures it. that remark was purely and simply a cry of triumph, that he'd pissed off a bunch of atheists, or "atheists", or whatever.

as i wrote above, sellick's article actually didn't piss me off. i just find the author, as usual, distasteful.

Everyone has a God. After the end of the Roman Empire, until the start of the adoption by the English of the Christian principles of government in 1215 at Runnymede,we call the Dark Ages. We are reverting back to the dark ages, because Atheists have made the State into a god,and expect the State to be able to deliver miracles.

There is no God, say the atheists, yet each and every day, one individual is making a judgment on another, all over Australia. This individual is acting as a god. I once told a devout Roman Catholic Judge, he was playing at god, sitting on a raised dais, dressed in pretty red robes, but not following the Rules laid down by Almighty God, in the conduct of a Supreme Court. He nearly had a stroke, but he did resign very soon afterwards, as the enormity of his sin was realised.

Atheists even when they go to Church, write Rules defining and regulating human conduct. Jesus made only two Rules, one was that a man can never be God Almighty, and the second was to love your neighbour as yourself. He did not judge the woman caught in adultery. he forgave her. In fact Jesus Christ calls judging, blasphemy, and condemns all who do.

Jesus set up a system, where two or three sitting together in His name can call on the Holy Spirit to be the judge, and avoid blasphemy. We call such a gathering a jury. The State Gods, atheists are compelled to worship, created since 1970 in Australia are all lawyers. Does that tell them something.I would say God Almighty has a sense of humour. S 79 Constitution was inserted to avoid blasphemy. The word used there is judges.

Sellick writes:

"I have not read any of the recent books that attack belief in God because I sense that they say nothing new. I sense that the God that is held up to ridicule is the same old tired product of the modern age obsessed as it has been with the material world."

Coming from an academic, it is surprising that you treat your peers with such contempt that you ignore their work and merely use your intuition to "sense" what they have written. Of course, this is not unexpected in those who call upon the supernatural to guide their thoughts.

This article is, I sense, hogwash, but I didn't get beyond the section quoted above.

Dear_Daviy (and your yapping (puppy?) supporter 'Spikey' :)

You blokes miss the suttle_nuance and sinister nature of the RRT.

The issue, as defined in section 9 is "motive is not relevant".

This is WHY I am adamant that the Act be ammended such that "motive" is AB-so-bladi-lut-ly always taken into consideration in any court case arising from a vilification complaint.

But for your information.. a read of the (erroneous, in my view)judgement of Justice Higgins in the Catch the Fire Ministries debacle will show that it does matter what you INTENDED that counts..but what is PERCEIVED!

But in the case of calling Christianity "a Lie" this is blatant... unambiguous and clear. It is vilification.

There are ways to put things which avoid the penalty of law, and these should be learned by all would be vilifiers.

Terminology is critical.

-"Christianity contains some irrational ideas in my view"

-"I find the violence and mass executions in the Old Testament to be abhoirrent"
-"I don't see how Christians can call themselves tolerant yet reject homosexual behavior"
-"Christianity contains many ideas which seem at odds with current science"

are all quite acceptable.

What is NOT acceptable nor legal is the statement "Christianity is a lie"

The reason this is illegal is that it does not differentiate between various branches of the faith (Higgins words) and it also encompasses ALL that Christianity represents. It does not single out specific doctrines or teaching.

Yes, you did mention some specifics later..but those specifics can be treated in isolation....they cannot be used to support the wrongful and illegal claim "Christianity" (in total) is a "lie"

If I had the time, I'd be willing to run this as a test case (along with Ruby Hamad's effort, which I've not forgotten)..but there are much bigger fish to fry :) at least Daviy is not trying to overturn Australia's way of life (that I know of) nor is he supporting terrorism, marriage, sexual abuse and divorce of children, domestic violence against spouses, nor the call to arms against all non 'his mob' to bring them under his mob's rule....

Wake up Australia, when a father is driven mad enough by the atheist system installed in Australia, to throw his daughter off the Gateway bridge, its time you mongrels who would make us all atheists woke up.

Further it is time the violence mongers who parade around VCAT, the Family Support Tribunal, the Family Court and Federal Courts of Australia realised that they are the problem, not the solution.

Many deranged fathers, put upon by the atheist system, denied justice in their eyes,simply retreat into a sullen resistance, refuse to pay child support or work,and virtually go on strike in protest against the lack of justice. Justice is a Royal prerogative. In my Christian Church, God is King. Jesus Christ did not want to be a King, so the Jews crucified Him. Unless a Judge is like Samuel, and anointed by God Almighty, he is an abomination.

Her Majesty never had the Authority to consent to the Family Law Act, the Federal Court Act, the High Court Act 1979, and install royal substitutes in Australian Courts. Lawyers love the cushy jobs and high salaries, but since they have sold their souls to the State for thirty pieces of silver, they exclude all who would challenge them in their lairs. It was not the man who threw that poor little girl off the bridge, it was the demons who drove him to it that should answer.

With the Trade Practices Act 1974, as amended in 1995, excluding ordinary electors from courts was made illegal. The lack of will by the Commonwealth to enforce its laws, and make its agencies obey the law led to the death of one of our little ones. Wringing hands will not do. Bring back honesty and integrity. A court with a jury has integrity. The Justice must then be honest.

Sells, I have not read your article as from the title I'm guessing you've not added any new insight into Atheism.

Think about it Sells I do believe in the existence of one more god then you do.

PtB we don't have an atheist system in Australia but a secular system. Get your facts right.

PtB, blaming the tragic death of that poor child on atheism, indicates you will steep to gutter level, in your attempt to give credence to your extreme religous belief.

BOAZ_David,

I can always tell when you are rattled and arguing on shaky ground - you resort to childish personal abuse. And you're not even very clever at it.

Not only do you get the specific law wrong but now you show your appalling ignorance of legal history. It's hard enough to prove the facts of a matter so how would you prove intention or motive? It is the effect of a person's actions that matters, not their intention.

You get worse David. Not content just to give wrong legal advice, you now claim that a learned judge got it wrong in a specific case. Could you tell us once again what your legal qualifications are please?

Repeating an error at law will not make it become true. Calling Christianity "a Lie" is NOT 'blatant... unambiguous and clear'. It is NOT vilification.

So offering gratuitous advice to 'all would be vilifier' on how to soften the blow of truth is just compounding your nonsense. Moreover, you have given us so much hatred of Islam on OLO to last us all a lifetime - and surprise, surprise, no-one has claimed that you have breached the law. If you are consistent in your interpretation of the law, you would would have been in breach more times than I can count.

spotbanana has nailed it.

The first comment was adequate for this article.

Boaz,

Sorry to dismantle your soap box, but your grasp of legal matters is extremely scanty.

The act you are quoting i.e.
“A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.”
Is there to prevent hate speech and not promote blanket censorship, and might at a stretch apply if I said all Christians were Pr*cks, but cannot be applied to censor criticism.

I believe that Christianity is a lie, but I have many good friends that are devout Christians and in spite of not sharing a faith share many values.

Peter the believer

Your attributing of the death of little Darcey to atheism is shameless and heartless, and completely without foundation. If this is an example of your Christian ethics, then the country is well shot of them.

I agree with most of the arguments that suggest this article is utter nonsense, but what strikes me most is Sellick's arrogance in assuming that atheists only have no belief in the Christian God. As has been pointed out a few times, we atheists don't believe in ANY God, god, or gods (or ghosts, leprechauns, fairies...)

Mr Sellick, I'm sure you 'think' you don't believe in my Celestial Teapot, but you don't realise that the Celestial Teapot is not really the Celestial Teapot that you think it is (nor do most CelestialTeapotists, sadly, as they're uneducated). Therefore, you're not really an aCelestialTeapotist. You poor, ignorant fool!

Oh, by the way BOAZ_David... Christianity is a LIE. C'mon get me, Vic Police!

I am not sure why anyone is even responding to this article which is full of loathing and hate.

I hope other Christians are not offended nor atheists of which there are vast differences within each group. Neither groups are so homogenous as to be generalised in this way.

There have been some pretty poor Sellick offerings, but in my view this is the most shrill and ineffective to date.

How can he, in this his umpteenth essay, fail so abjectly to land a single punch on his arch-enemy?

The positions he adopts in this piece sport only the merest patina of rationality, easily disposed of with a light dusting and a moment's exposure to sunlight.

"...this made God necessary for the existence and order of the world and again God became trapped in mechanism. This was a sure sign that this God was not the God that Christians worshipped because his entrapment in necessity robbed him of his freedom."

The wanton distortion of such a simple idea can only be the work of a saboteur.

Religionists of so many flavours accept - indeed rely upon - the concept that God created the universe. "In the beginning..." and all that. To turn that fundamental credo into a "mechanism" is a clever opening salvo, a prelude to mounting a full attack on the underlying belief structure.

Then there is this utterly preposterous allegation.

"To be a real atheist would be to find that this man Jesus is the enemy of life; to have a character that is pure darkness. To be a real atheist you would have to argue that the disciples of Jesus were bent on human destruction, were entirely self serving, and essentially mean"

Here Sells resorts to accusations that, quite frankly, wouldn't occur to an atheist in the proverbial month of Sundays. Jesus as "pure darkness"? Disciples "bent on human destruction"? Come now, Sells, this is the most transparent nonsense.

So, why such clumsiness?

It can, surely, only be the final stages of a highly effective conspiracy.

Is Sells after all merely a very clever, and highly sophisticated secret agent, operating under cover in the cause of New Atheism?

Could it be that Sells is about to reveal that his task all along has been to undermine and destroy the entire Christian belief system, and is now almost complete?

You read it here first.

I'll come clean straight out and say that I believe in God. I believe in a God who does not have a body; one we cannot see or fully understand. I've moved on from the idea of an old man who sits on a cloud and zaps people with lightning bolts. I am just comfortable with the idea that there is some intelligent body responsible for all I see around me. I can't prove that God does exist, just as science has not yet proven that He doesn't.

Even evolution is not proof that intelligent design never happened. If I was to bake a cake, I would work with the ingredients until I had a sticky, doughy substance. When I put it in the oven, that substance changes. It evolves from my cake mix into a cake. I still created it, and I knew what would happen, but what comes out of the oven is no longer what I put in. How does this link to God? Well, assuming that we evolved from microbial organisms, who can say with certainty that God didn't create those microbes? Something must have happened to bring them to life.

Now I'm happy for people to disagree with me. Life would be boring if we all agreed. What I can't stand is the way many atheists fling insults at religious people, assuming that we are naive and closed-minded. Really, in an age when we understand so much about the world, I think it is quite open-minded to accept that there may well be some intelligent design behind it all.

Likewise, I get a little annoyed when religious people insult atheists. We have no conclusive proof of what we say. All the miracles, all the scriptures and all the mysteries of the world may suggest that God exists, but they don't prove it. I have faith, others don't. It's neither a strength or a weakness. It's just a piece of luck that humans are sophisticated enough to generate their own worldviews and use them to give themselves peace of mind. I say 'live and let live'.

I wasn't going to waste time responding to this ridiculous attempt to defend superstition in the face of contradictory evidence, but since I've got a related, and excellent, article open in another tab, I'll post it: www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472

Otokonoko might find it interesting, since s/he seems to have a commendably open mind on the topic.

Well, it seems that I have struck a nerve and all I have been doing is affirming the faith of the church since the council of Nicaea in the fourth century. This council affirmed that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God and that the three persons are consubstantial. It seems that the atheists hate me because I cut the ground away from their ridiculous posturing and the Christians hate me because I accuse them of paganism. All I can say is that this bears witness to the appalling lack of theological understanding in both the secular community and in the church. But what can you expect from a society that has been trying to distance itself from the Christian proclamation for about 500 years. Despite all of the furor I am unrepentant. I do think that I have given a good understanding of the God that Christians worship and there has been little in these comments to change my mind. When you take out the simply abusive there is not a lot of substance. There have been many criticisms of trinitarian theology down through the centuries, where are they?

Peter Sellick (unbowed)

Peter the Believer, I congratulate you. someone suggested your post was gutter stuff, but that is wrong. your post sank so low, was so degrading to yourself, characterizing it is beyond the power of metaphor. you've become, i think, your own metaphor.

Otokonoko, I don't presume that christians, or other worshippers of gods, are naive and closed-minded. i presume that naive and closed-minded christians are naive and closed-minded. that is, if it quacks like a naive and closed-minded duck, then ...

and yes, there are naive and closed-minded atheists. but look at the article which started this thread. take just one of the quotes that pericles highlighted:

""To be a real atheist would be to find that this man Jesus is the enemy of life"

now tell me, Otokonoko, if you want to instigate a genuine dialogue, do you say something as naive and as closed-minding, and as plain bloody insulting as that? and you're surprised or censorious if people who identify as atheist are in response more than a little pissed?

sellick really oughta look in a mirror and do something about that beam.

Otokonoko, you have to admit that the article that everyone is responding to mentioned that to be a 'real atheist' you had to be dark and evil, as opposite of all that is good, who by his argument are believers in God, even the uneducated and unsophisticated ones.

Anyway, it is my view that the atheist hook is a red herring to divert attention to what he was really saying in his article. Most Christians believe in a 17th-18th century pagan god. But, most of the Christians saw 'atheist' and 'evil' in one sentence and went on a gleefull spree to sock it to atheists.

PtB for instance, as a 'truebeliever' just couldn't resist and displayed those terrible aspects of self-righteous arrogance and self-satisfaction so often associated with 'Christians', the anti-thesis of the humility that represents Jesus Christ.

PtB, can you explain to me how "I once told a devout Roman Catholic Judge, he was playing at god,..." is not judgmental? Why do you think that God needs your assistance in pointing out 'sinning' behaviour in others? As a sinning human being you should have your hands full with your own sins without focussing on others.

May I respectfully suggest that you read at least the gospels again? The Pharisees of his time have a lot in common with many of the noisiest Christians of today. It never ceases to amaze me how many who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ make statements to and about their fellow human beings that JC would never have. How dare you do that in His name? It pales into insignificance any comment an atheist may make.

With this, the second of my contributions to this thread, I’m about to give up because most of you spout off yet seem to have still not really read the article. I’m at a loss to understand why, as I sense that you are all intelligent and articulate.

Consider the excerpt, Bushbasher quoted:
"To be a real atheist would be to find that this man Jesus is the enemy of life".
You present this to paint Peter as “plain bloody insulting”.

If you study the text leading up to this statement you should see that Peter is pointing out that most – and perhaps all – of the people who claim to be atheists do NOT see Jesus in this way. He is not insulting you. He is trying to show that the “god” that atheists are refusing to believe in is indeed an invalid concept, a straw man, and so “there are no real atheists”.

Now you may well disagree with him: you may insist that you are in fact an atheist and show how his argument is wrong. But his argument is not based on insults.

As I said in my earlier post, when Peter Sellick’s name appears above an article a hundred knees jerk. Let’s have some more considered reading and writing in the thread.

Peter Sellick says: "It seems that the atheists hate me because I cut the ground away from their ridiculous posturing"

we don't hate you, we pity you.

Peter Sellick says: "I do think that I have given a good understanding of the God that Christians worship"

By your own admission, you are not describing the god that "many or most" christians worship so in what way is it a "good understanding"?

Peter Sellick says: "appalling lack of theological understanding...There have been many criticisms of trinitarian theology down through the centuries, where are they?"

I have a doctorate in economics - I could moan about the appalling lack of economic understanding in the general community but I wouldn't be so arrogant to dismiss a layperson's critique because it wasn't framed in the right "economic" language. FYI, theology has lost influence and adherents over the past 500 years because it is a FAILED offering in the marketplace of ideas (in the face of disconfirming scientific knowledge).

I do not use trinitarian critiques because most of them assume the existence of god in the first place and tie themeselves in knots trying to assay the nature of the deity (a bit like trying to ascertain how many noodly appendages are possessed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
ctd...

P.S.
In one sense, Peter's argument is a brilliant example of a motherhood statement. Define god as X, where X is something most people are broadly in favor of or cannot reasonably be opposed to - love, peace, understanding, motherhood, wealth, happiness, good...whatever.

After all, who could be opposed to such virtues - and here's the kicker - if you are not opposed to them then you must believe in god because we have asserted that god IS <insert favorite virtue here>. So as a syllogism:

God is Virtue (x)
All believe in Virtue (x)
Therefore all believe in god

Of course, it all falls apart if we reject the first premise for which Peter's only evidence is "the bible told me so".

The really brilliant part is that:
If "Love is all around us" in the words of the immortal song then - you guessed it - god must be all around us - he's omnipresent, and even better, if "love conquers all" then he is - oh my god - OMNIPOTENT! So the initial difficulties of an omnipotent/omnipresent god is solved. Such is the twisted logic of theology.

Spikey_you_first.

In one breath you say "it's consequences which_matter, not motive"

and of course that leads into what *should* have been obvious to your astute mind... 'if I (me) am offended by the comment 'Christianity is a lie' then it's a done deal.. there is a basis for a complaint.

It definitely is vilification because (based on the act) I 'feel' it to be so :)

One of the questions on the complaint form is "How did this vilification effect you"... well it could be in a number of ways..such as "I began to doubt long held cherished beliefs.. this caused me to lose sleep.. become very anxious.. unable to work due to self doubt, I felt marginalized, loss of confidence about myself, but also that I might be branded a liar or an idiot by those who accept this description of my faith etc etc etc" as one might creatively pen.

Make no mistake.. my legal qualifications are minimal in the formal sense, but I do read english :) and I also followed the CTF trial outcome and appeal process.. so my opinions are based on well established and documented legal proceedings.

STOKESONLINE.. as I once said to Ruby Hamad.. 'you have been warned'...and then..she did what you did "up yours" by your actions..and did it again.. well.. that's where an already guilty person confirms their guilt by twisting the knife after being warned.

If you think this is a trivial matter.. see this.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GiordanoBrunoinEEUU/message/69

That was the 'sin' and this was the punishment:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GiordanoBrunoinEEUU/message/69

Now.. calling a religious faith A LIE is vilification.. except of course unless you add the words "in my opinion" ....
But not only did you *not* do that..you used this forum for a middle finger salute in saying it as you did.

*warned* :) (want to try it again Stokesy?)

Shadow_Minister..you did the right thing "I believe Christianity is a lie" is quite legal. "Christianity IS a lie" is not.

Spikey..I've gone thru this process to the point where ABC lawyers were in court over the issue...I know the power of the Act.

Sellick, I have just re-read your article carefully and I have to say that from an atheist perspective it is still utter gobbledegook. You seem totally unable to appreciate that to someone who no more believes in a deity than in a second moon orbiting the earth, what the Bible, Old or New Testament says about God, Jesus and the Trinity is no more real than Tolkien's Middle Earth or Terry Pratchett's Discworld. I'm certainly not out there attributing dastardly motives to disciples or anyone else. I just have no point of contact with their beliefs.

I had the full works 'Christian' upbringing - Sunday School, Church, Church School - and I still have absolutely no sense of there being a deity or any sort. I don't know if you made up the title of your article, but to call it 'The Impossibility of Atheism' is like calling it 'The Impossibility of Anything I Don't Understand'. I accept your beliefs, even though I can't for the life of me understand them, so why can't you accept an atheist's ability to get through life without the crutch of an unprovable deity, and realise that many atheists have absolutely no interest in God, Jesus, the disciples (or in any other religions). They just get on with living the one life they have in their own way and are comfortable with the idea that when they die, it is over. Your article reminds me of my brother-in-law, whom I once overheard telling a fellow believer, 'Atheists must believe in God because they refer to him when they say they don't believe in him'. The news is, we don't.

Peter we don't hate you, this is one of the few places we get to argue with extravagant bombast. It is just good fun scouring the bible and religious history to point out their many contradictions. Just how do you reconcile Alexander VI with papal infallibility for instance. Or evangelicals and their focus on money - how is that for worshiping false idols?

If you want to engage in a serious discussion about atheism with atheists you should drop the theological jargon and communicate with us in lay terms.

Thanks for the link, Sancho. It was quite full on! The idea that religion and science are incompatible, as the article suggests, doesn't sit entirely well with me but I have to think a little about why.

And thanks for your thoughts, Bushbasher. You are right. Just as there are closed-minded atheists, there are many closed-minded believers. Those who are unwilling to engage in any conversation on the matter are doing little to advance their cause. I reckon that unwillingness to be challenged reflects insecurity in one's own belief. Rather not have to think about it if thinking may cause you to change your mind! There are people like that on both sides.

And Anansi, I don't entirely agree that the article paints atheists in such a negative light, but it certainly isn't flattering. It does seem to suggest that atheists don't understand what they are denying. I can see how this could offend - hell, I can see how it would be positively infuriating. While not all atheists go through a process of actively rejecting a deity, those who do go through that process undoubtedly spend time questioning the nature of the God they are rejecting. To assume that they see one model of a deity, don't like it and consequently reject all religion is a bit of a leap. As the undercurrent of the thread suggests:

1) Religious people who reject God do so consciously and because there is no model of God that suits them.

2) Many others simply have no need for a deity in their lives or see no reason why they should believe in something so intangible.

Neither is an ignorant process, so neither should be condemned. Neither makes the disbeliever a bad person. After all, there are many evil theists and many altruistic atheists.

While none of this dampens my belief in God, it does remind me that there is no point in condemning good people for having a different understanding of our world.

bushbasher,
>>george, you suggest that dawkins' sense of atheism is "positive" ... your dawkins quote has a hell of a lot negations in it. <<
I agree, that was a clumsy expression. What I had in mind was that he explicitly (sorry, not “positively“) states what an atheist believes to be the case (about reality), which one can agree or disagree with, rather than using expressions like “lack of belief” which one cannot agree or disagree with. Yes, I have learned that in spite of this many atheists prefer this definition in which “belief” sounds more like “faith“ which you also can have or lack but cannot agree or disagree with.

>>i just find the author, as usual, distasteful.<<
Don’t you think that some people might find such a comment and personal attacks on the author more distasteful than Sellick‘s attempts to present his views - although many people would probably not share them - without attacking anybody personally?

pelican,
>>this article which is full of loathing and hate<<
Since I value your other contributions here, I reread the article again. I found many statements I disagreed with, even more statements that did not make much sense to me - pericles provided some quotes - but I failed to find anything that I could call “loathing and hate”, although I could find plenty of these in the comments to the article, now perhaps including Sellick’s own embittered response. Could you please provide a quote from his article so that I could understand what you meant? The closest I came was where he explains to atheists what they believe, or don‘t believe, and then step by step explains why they are wrong - even stupid - to believe, or not to believe, it“. As I mentioned above, this is unfair, although it is the mirror image of an often used method of arguing against theism, notably Christianity, also by some contributors here.

Sellick,
I do not think Christians hate you (I cannot speak for those who call themselves atheists). Disagreeing or not understanding are not the same thing as hating.

Sellick - “Thinking of God as Triune requires some education and sophistication. That is why in the absence of this education belief will ready revert to the pagan forms.”

I think I’ve a fairly well rounded education. I’ve studied a little of the arts, sciences, philosophy, and theology. Yet Peter, I’m sorry, but I can’t understand what you’re saying. I’m glad Crabsy got something valuable out of your piece.

My understanding of God is pretty simple. He’s capable of talking to anyone in a language they understand. You could write a whole Gospel without using big words. One famous Christian song goes like this,
‘Jesus loves me this I know / for the Bible tells me so.’

That’s not bad theology. And it isn’t reverting to paganism.

God is not complicated or totally mysterious. At least, countless millions of ordinary, less educated people often think so. And if some atheists want to have a go at him, then who are we to stand in their way?

BOAZ_David,

I BELIEVE the complaint form would say "affect", not "effect". I BELIEVE you probably don't know the difference.

I BELIEVE SOME POSTERS HERE would PROBABLY suggest that MAYBE you are using your one (because I BELIEVE it's very, very optimistic to believe we get another one after we croak) life to do some very silly things:

[snip]
I raised a complaint myself, which was a strong at least as the ICV complaint about a book peddled by the ABC, in which God was described as "The greatest pimp in the world" That book is "Da gospel according to Ali G" I was told by the EOC that my complaint 'had no substance'...
[snip]
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 16 July 2005 7:19:53 AM
[from http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3674&page=2]

"I was told by the EOC that my complaint 'had no substance'..."

FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN ON THIS FORUM I BELIEVE SOME HERE WOULD SUGGEST you're wasting your life. Personally, I have no opinion on it.

Sells, I believe I see where you are trying to go with this, but sadly, your logic is flawed.
Of necessity, -if not by definition- like all true believers you believe the God you believe in is the only possible God. This leads you to blithely ignore all other possible Gods or belief systems.
You argue therefore, that atheism is disbelief in your God, when in fact, the dictionary definition of Atheism is a disbelief in ANY God or Gods.
You suggest:
“...just as the early Christians were accused of atheism because they refused to give homage to the gods of the Greeks or the Romans, modern day Christians can similarly be accused of atheism because they do not believe in the God delivered to us by 17th and 18th century scientists/theologians.”
Clearly the accusers of early Christians did not possess dictionaries, and modern day accusers are similarly disadvantaged.
Next you go to say:
“This produced a profound crisis in the theism of the ancient world. God could no longer be likened to the playful and envious gods of the Greeks or the civil gods of Rome. The God that Christians worshipped was all powerful but his power was shown in weakness. In the dereliction of the cross God transformed the world.”
On the contrary, it is clearly based on the theism of the ancient world.
In fact, if you consult Frazer's 'The Golden Bough”, you will find the concept of 'the murdered God' is very old indeed; probably stemming from an attempt to explain the apparent death of nature every winter, followed by rebirth in spring.
This concept was later adapted into the cult of Dionysus; a fun loving crowd who you probably wouldn't approve of, -although they certainly would have approved of a God who could turn water into wine.

If I may continue:
“All of the old attributes of God, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence must now be interpreted not from the a priori of philosophy but from the biblical witness of how God acts.”
This would be the God who drowned the whole world. Who set bears against children, who obliterated two cities and, most inexplicably, concentrated his entire attention on one small race of 'chosen' people, at one particular time, and completely ignored the rest of Humanity.
And then, apparently, dumped his chosen people for a more 'advanced' lot.
This is the God who is love; who allows punishment not of a few years incarceration, or painlessly putting people to sleep, but 'eternal, never ending torment'.
“My point is that modern expressions of atheism are an objection not to the Christian God, who escapes their criticism, but an objection to paganism. All we Christians can say is “welcome”, we have been doing that for 2,000 years!”
Well, no. The christian God clearly does not escape criticism.
Atheism, by definition is an objection to all Gods; particularly capricious ones. The creation of a triune deity seems nothing more than an attempt to explain the contradictory nature of your God.
Even your 'sophisticated' version seems nothing more than a convenient mechanism to maintain the purity of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They -as separate (yet inseparable) entities- can keep their hands clean, while God (the destroyer) can remain inexplicable.
This was only a reprise of your first (more readable) page. The more deeply you delve into this illogic, the more illucid it becomes.

And from all of these meaningless words comes the only truth. None of us have the slightest idea and all there is in our comments is dogma.

I was once in a bar with a bunch of farmers, just after Michael Kirby came out and declared he was gay. One of the farmers said it is okay for him to be gay, so long as the government does not make it compulsory.

What has happened is that the government has imposed compulsory atheism on an unsuspecting public. I saw the post where I was criticised for pointing out to a Judge, that he was doing the wrong thing. I was urged to read the Gospels. The licence to crituicise leaders, is not in the Gospels, it is in 1 Timothy 5 Verse 20. Depending on your Bible, it says that a sinner should be rebuked.

When my studies revealed that court and church are really interchangeable words, in English, because the Greek root, Ecclesia used for Church also means gathering of the people, then I started to examine how we have been deceived by atheists.

The Church of Satan and latter day demons, has replaced the Church of Jesus Christ as the place where God's justice is dispensed. It is compulsory to worship the devil in Australia since 1970-2009.Jesus was tempted in Matthew 4 Verse 9. That is in reality what atheists believe. Why oh why have they made it compulsory.

Science has given us computers and they work on the on off principle, and so is the law. It is either Christian or Satanic. Black or white. On or Off. In most so called courts in Australia a computer could do as well and much cheaper than a Judge. Atheism is the substitution of a false premise for a known given.The known given is that the system worked for 700 years, but only in England and the USA. The awful experiment of the State as God, is a complete failure. Capitalism when it marries communism or Statism, and has no Christian courts to account to, is failing as well.

Peter the Believer: << The Church of Satan and latter day demons, has replaced the Church of Jesus Christ as the place where God's justice is dispensed. It is compulsory to worship the devil in Australia since 1970-2009. >>

Completely whacko.

george, re dawkins i have no particular argument with you. i know what you're trying to tease out. it can wait for another day.

as for my expression of distaste for sellick? nah. he's not merely trying to present his views. he's a stirrer, as you noted, and he's now gloating in his stirring. george, you're a nice guy. sellick isn't.

otokonoko, to challenge is one thing. to make what appears a derogatory attack and call it a challenge is another. i'm not scared of any sellick challenge: they have no mass. it's his overbearing, stirring style which i don't like.

crabsy, i didn't miss what sellick was saying. i have no huge problem with what sellcik is saying. my point is that sellick was framing his comments to be as divisive and as heat-generating as possible. he now basks in the heat.

i may frame a discussion about "christians". i may arrogantly and naively overstep the mark on christian belief, and foolishly generalize. that wouldn't be good form, but it's i guess part of the game.

but if i define "christian" in a particularly poisonous manner, in a manner which almost no christian would agree with. and if i then use my definition to make statements readily interpreted as nasty? then i'm just being a dick.

As close to vile divisive slander as any medieval apologetics I've ever digested. The trinity? Intellectual absurdity is not a strong starting point. It seems this piece is an in house ill informed jab at critical thought, which in assuming 'atheism' - whatever that is - can be defined in Xtian terms falls at the first paragraph.

Admitting to not knowing zip of the arguments of non theism in recent times, hardly lends strength to judging the character of those who can love without condition simply because it's human nature. Not because it "answers" the incomprehensibility of a life wasted on divine guesswork.

Then, far from admitting the gospels represent naught but hand picked rubbish - the origins of which are indeed Egyptian, crystalised in the worship of Horus [Paul is 100% Egyptian retelling the life of Horus using the name Jesus] - readers are asked to accept the historically impossible allegations of a minor cult as absolute. The Judas Gospel can be Googled in a second, forever sealing the zodiac origins of Xtian paganism - also originating with Egyptians. "None of you shall come where I go". Yup, can see why the Nicene Councils dropped hundreds of similar gospels. No prizes for knowing this is where the story of the Trinity arose....

Part. 2:

God is Love? Yet, not until the Jesus myth did we have eternal torment; damnation. Had the author the fortitude to explain exactly why our lives are to be controlled to the point of thought limitation, which sets the "quality" of eternal life or even venture into the scandalous abuse of mind, body and knowledge to be buoyed by Christianity and horrifically still on the increase, one may have some time for this piffle.

'Welcome' for 2,000 years? Hotel California comes to mind: you can check in, but never leave - unless eternal hellfire is your desire. Little wonder atrocities under Xtianity are just ho-hum and still excused, denied and conducted not on the strong, but the weak "Jesus" is supposed to have loved so dearly [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html].

Please keep the constant re-casting of belief/non belief and biblical interpretation to yourself. Your definitions of "atheists", particularly the science/technology line are nonsensical. No doubt you set out to get an idea down on paper and ended up antagonising those you perhaps should be influencing. Ah... how Christian.

One of the reasons I wrote this article was because I was sick of the debate about God being hijacked by the cosmological argument. The question about the Christian God does not rely on the nature of nature or the origin of the universe. Neither does it rely on the existence of a supernatural being. From the earliest theologians, Augustine, for example, it was asserted that God was not a being but being itself. Indeed medieval theology went to great lengths to distance itself from the idea that God was some kind of being.
However, with the turn to nature in the rise of natural science, we began to think entirely in terms of substance, things, beings and we lost the fact that the Christian proclamation was fundamentally about the moral. This is where the doctrine of the Trinity is all important because it is the history of Israel and the life and death of the man Jesus that is held up as God. God was not to be discovered in the stars but in ordinary human history. That is why all theologians are historians and not cosmologists.
Some of the atheists in this thread have been upset because they have interpreted me as saying that to be an atheist is to be evil. That is absurd. But I would say that atheists are lucky that they have inherited the Christian tradition in the society that surrounds them. In John Updike’s last and certainly not best novel, one of the characters worries about the growth of China, “so many billion people with no god to hold them in.” We have seen how determinedly atheistic regimes are capable of momentous evil. There must be a lesson here that we refuse to hear to our peril.

Peter Sellick

Peter, to me, is talking of the future.

Just as the New Testament, in Jesus Christ, is the fulfillment of the Old Testament we humans are called to a holy humanism to engage in the fulfillment of life in the widest, highest and deepest understanding of life we can hold as we move through time towards the Parousia.. ( ?? see http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an1104.asp for an accessible explanation)

The underpinning of western thought and social development across millennia through Christian revelation and thought, informed by the Greeks and Romans, is testament to that calling.

The biggest obstacle for this, in our era, is not the atheists but the believers who hold to the "machine" God Peter writes of. Their hand crafted image of God delivered through rationalising theology of the last centuries are just that. An image devoid of story, event and relationship, reduced to belief by formula and adhered to in comfort.

For the future, atheists are irrelevant outside of the natural and good service to humanity they deliver in their work. By their intellectual position they confine themselves to a narrow mechanistic fulfillment aligned with Descartes.

People of other faiths, including the "life by formulae" Christians, have an understanding and sense of the transcendent and more open to an organic and ecological view of life.

But the future rests on the faithful People of God in their pilgrimage to proclaim God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and to fulfill life through service to the unfolding notion of the Kingdom of God as here now but not yet.

Cheers

"We have seen how determinedly atheistic regimes are capable of momentous evil."

I can't believe you wrote that Sells! Do you really want to leave that one hanging there? Or do you want to salvage a little credibility and expand on it?

George
I respect your views too. As an atheist I took exception mainly to:

"So atheism is not as simple as it first appears, it is a rather darker animal than we could image. To be a real atheist you would have to decide after reading the gospels, say, that the life of Jesus was not about free grace and that it did not display the love that is the basis of all human life. To be a real atheist would be to find that this man Jesus is the enemy of life; to have a character that is pure darkness. To be a real atheist you would have to argue that the disciples of Jesus were bent on human destruction, were entirely self serving, and essentially mean. By any standard this is a tall order! This is why I assert that there are no real atheists. Perhaps there are instances in which human evil is complete in one person, but I doubt it. Certainly the self professed atheists of our time are tame pretenders compared with the real character of atheism."

Perhaps I was too harsh in speaking of "hate and loathing" but that is the tone or attitude I experienced in reading the article.

It was to Peter's definition of what he perceives or defines as atheism. That is, some sort of evil state of existence. I understand that Peter was not calling those who purport to be atheists as evil but merely saying that our own self-determination or pretension as atheists is flawed under his definition. And under that definition atheism looks prety grim.

I know Christians can cop a bit of flak on this forum but so do atheists and neither group wants to be seen as either delusional or evil.

Surprisingly I am quite interested in religion as a subject of history as Sells states our moral compass (if you like) has undoubtedley been fashioned by our Christian heritage.

Cont/...

'We have seen how determinedly atheistic regimes are capable of momentous evil.'

Pter, that statement is woefully inaccurate.

Regimes who are MONOLITHIC are capable of momentous evil. Nazism, Communism, Islamo-Fascism and Catholicism have all committed atrocities because they see themselves as the one true ideology to the exclusion of all other competing ideologies.

On the other hand, states who are pluralistic and encourage individual freedom of thought rarely commit evil on a grand scale.

And I should add, the natural allies of atheism, in the West at least, are scientific rationalism and secular humanism. Neither of these worldviews have been known to torture or persecute people.

Hi there Stokesonline :)

I notice you did not repeat your clear vilification after the warning...
good.

Regarding the previous complaint I made.. and why the EOC claimed it had no substance, it's worth looking at that in regard your your own vilifying comments.

REASON.. The EOC maintained that the RRT Act exempts 'Works of Art'
from guilt. Da Gospel According to Ali G was a work of art.

I changed the focus of the complaint to the publishers and ABC shops for disseminating vilifiying material. So..while the AUTHOR may have the protection of the Act..the re-sellers may not if they continue to distribute the work AFTER they have been informed of the vilifiying nature of the material. So.. it got as far as VCAT.

There is absolutely ZERO protection for a person who repeats a vilifying comment in a public forum AFTER they have been warned about it.
There is a difference between public interest and vilification.
Criticism of a religion based on it's own texts is not vilification.
Claiming "Those texts are all lies" IS..."vilification"...

You could write and publish a 2500 word essay on "God committed Genocide" referring to the Old Testament.. and I would not say "boo" about it other than to engage with you and point out that it was an act of divine Judgement. I would possibly take issue with the Title, and suggest there are better, less offensive ways of doing it.. e.g "Divine Judgement in the Book of Joshua" where it leaves people to decide for themselves about what this means about the Almighty.

Even "God's Final Solution" would work...."What happened to the Amalekites?" "Midianites..what was their crime?"... stuff like this.. all pretty much ok.....

"Christianity is a lie"...nope..sorry.. not lawful.
"I believe Christianity is a lie"... lawful. :)

TOPIC.. Sells last post seems to be saying "God was created in the image of man".. a very good argument for the atheists.

But I prefer "I am the resurrection and the life" Jesus.

Christianity is a lie

BOAZ_David,

You are so literal and simplistically black-and-white in the way you think (sic). Motive doesn't count as such, but effect does. The law deals not with belief but with behaviour. But that's not to say that because an effect exists it amounts to vilification under the law.

There are several other conceptual tests you need to satisfy relating to matters such as reasonableness and good faith. Not all acts that you are upset by amount to vilification as the law defines it. You have to do more than say it's vilification because you 'feel' it to be.

In Fletcher v The Salvation Army Australia [2005], VCAT 1523, Justice Morris observed that the RRTA does not prohibit proselytising. See also the amendment to Section 11 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. I suggest proseltysing can go in both directions - speaking for a religion to persuade a would-be convert or speaking against it to dissuade converts.

Religious vilification complaints can be declined by the Commission for being frivolous, misconceived or vexatious. I strongly believe that if you lodged a complaint against the several people on OLO who have said "Christianity is a lie", your case would be declined on those grounds alone.

You should note in the Act and in learned commentary on it that words like inciting hatred, intimidation and violence as crucial. I sometimes wonder whether your regular diatribes against Islam don't sail pretty close to the wind; but I would never dream of lodging a complaint under the Act because (a) it would give your silly views oxygen and (b) I believe in spirited debate on matters of religion (especially when it is well-informed).

Yes, I make no mistake: you have demonstrated that your legal qualifications are minimal and that your opinions are based on a poor reading and misinterpretation of legal proceedings.

I think that Christianity, like all religions, is a big lie. From OLO I know that some of the most sanctimonious Christians are liars.

Porkypuppet: << There is absolutely ZERO protection for a person who repeats a vilifying comment in a public forum AFTER they have been warned about it. >>

I really, really hope that the person who uses the aliases 'BOAZ_David' and 'Polycarp' in this forum is one day hauled before the courts for his persistent and unrepentant vilification of Muslims, about which he's been warned inummerable times.

Such a hypocrite.

.../ Continued from previous post (those pesky 24 hour limits)

George

Many atheists believe in the sames things as many Christians - peace, love, caring for others, humility etc.

I am not sure how Sells sees God as I am one of those who has had no religious instruction and don't understand much of the non-lay terms but I am sufficiently possessed to be able to understand the ideas that Sells is putting forward despite the theological jargon.

Is God something that is within us all that connects us to each other, is God a man in a white beard in the sky who rules/punishes us from above, is God merely an idea of goodness and his/her worship a way of providing a moral framework? I don't know how most Christians might define their concept of God or what sort of entity he/she is.

The problem is as an atheist, even if the idea of God might be a good one (I don't necessarily think it is but remain open to the possibility) how can you believe in a figurehead or icon when you know it isn't real? Also the idea that religion can be at the worst extreme utilised for evil or self-interested purpose.

While not ignorant of man's flaws, I have greater faith over man's natural altruism over a man-made belief that might override a sense of reason in certain circumstances (killing done in the name of the Lord/Allah/Buddha whatever).

This may explain my initial reaction to the article. Perhaps hate and loathing were terms too strong and I perhaps I should have phrased my thoughts more diplomatically.

The article started interestingly, but lost me on the second page
with all the personal attacks on atheists.

When someone indicates that one person's belief is "dark,"
as opposed to their belief, I automatically lose
interest.

Sorry Peter Sellick, you could have done much better.

Disappointing all round. You started well, but then lost the
plot.

Back to the drawing board for you.

I came across this quote that may lighten things up for everyone.
It's by George Carlin:

"Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man?
living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute
of every day. And, the invisible man has a list of 10 specific
things He doesn't want you to do. And, if you do any of those
things,He will send you to a special place, of burning and
fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever,
and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time.

But He loves you. He loves you and He needs money."

Dig deep *your idol here* needs a new swimming pool.

Dear_Spikey

now that was by and large a post worth responding to...

You_said:

<<The law deals not with belief but with behaviour. But that's not to say that because an effect exists it amounts to vilification under the law.
There are several other conceptual tests you need to satisfy relating to matters such as reasonableness and good faith.>>

The fist point is 'behavior and belief'.. You say the law does not deal with belief/motive but behavior.
I've responded this legal fallacy a number of times, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. “Murder/Manslaughter” the only criteria for differentiating the 2 crimes is...MOTIVE.. ie.. 'what the person who committed the crime 'believed' . - If they did something with malice aforethought intending to kill,..it's murder. If an accident..it's manslaughter.

Similarly, when a person is informed that saying certain things is 'offensive' (and untrue) and they repeat it deliberately.. it no longer is innocent..but wilful.

The reasonableness tests.. relate closely to what a person is seeking to prove.
The vilification act covers more than 'incitement to hatred'... there migth be incitement to hatred in the words “Christianity is a lie”.(all Preachers are liars?) But if a Geneticist says it... well that is one of the 'circumstances' which a magistrate takes into account.

The law ALSO covers the following:

-Severe Ridicule.

'Ridicule' is the easiest to prove...simply because the perpetrator in this case deliberately provoked it by the timing and nature of the words “come on Vic police..get me”=admission of guilt/confession.
(Stokesonline) and then Bugsy.. he actually dares the issue. So... as to the reasonableness tests... for ridicule they would be “would a normal_person be encouraged to regard Christians as fools on the basis of the assertion”.. well obviously, because they believe “a lie”.
The only issue to be decided here is whether it is severe in nature.

CJ.. I look forward to and long for that day also :) The Mufti of Australia will *have* to answer questions posed...under oath. He can also be cross-examined!

Christianity is a lie and you are not a lawyer, Boazy.

Oh dear David BOAZ,

The more you pontificate on the law the more evident it's not the law that is a complete ass.

"The only criteria for differentiating the 2 crimes of murder and manslaughter," you say, is "...MOTIVE.. ie.. 'what the person who committed the crime 'believed' . - If they did something with malice aforethought intending to kill,..it's murder. If an accident..it's manslaughter."

In fact murder may involve an unintentional killing, that is an accident, but with a willful disregard for life or a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. The concept of "malice aforethought" is complex. It does not necessarily mean premeditation. Malice can also be implied. Deaths that occur during certain serious crimes even if accidental are considered to be murders.

Manslaughter can involve the killing of a person either by a voluntary act or an involuntary act. A person may also be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than murder, e.g. if it is proved that the killer was suffering from a medical condition that affected their judgment at the time.

There is also a defence in NSW - controversial as it is - of provocation which might lead a charge of murder being amended to manslaughter. Under the Victorian Crimes Act SECT 3B, the longstanding provision that provocation was a partial defence to murder has been recently revoked.

You know David, it really would serve you and OLO posters if you did some homework before showing the world you are ignorant.

"Some of the atheists in this thread have been upset because they have interpreted me as saying that to be an atheist is to be evil. That is absurd."

oh, gosh! i feel like such a fool! dear peter, how could we have so, so misunderstood you? please, on behalf of all the atheists here, let me acknowledge our unforgivable carelessness, and please accept my most humble apology.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

sellick, you're a clown.

Spikey,
You sound like someone who well understands a thing or two about the law, and also someone who is happy to defend the Victorian vilification laws. So can I ask why you think we needed these laws?

I would have thought anyone who takes part in OLO would value freedom of speech. I think one of the best things about the OLO Forum is that you can pretty much say whatever you like. Such an environment stimulates and invigorates.

You say that proper interpretation of this law involves ‘matters such as reasonableness and good faith’. These are incredibly subjective and whimsical substances; matters of the heart. I don’t know how anyone could be fairly convicted under these laws. In fact, I don’t think anyone ever has been convicted under them. In which case, why do they even exist?

I understand that this legislation was initially devised as an ALP vote catcher for an election where several marginal electorates had fairly strong Muslim and Jewish representation.

So what do you think are the benefits of the RRTA to a free and open society?

What can you say to an article like this? What can you possibly say to anyone who actually believes in the existence of an omnipotent magical being?

A magical being that has so obviously been invented through Mankind’s ignorance in ancient times;

A magical being who is allegedly perfect (and hence presumably consistent), but then changes from a human-like God to a more mystical figure throughout the Christian Bible;

A magical being who needs to be re-defined and made into a more mysterious character in order to prevent complete abandonment of it because of what we now know thanks to science;

A magical being who - funnily enough - only speaks directly to humans during ancient times, but then keeps quite when science and knowledge progresses;

A magical being who, evidentially, has gone out of its way to hide its existence, but will then condemn its supposed ‘loved ones’ to eternal torture for doubting its existence.

Whatever this magical being is, it's certainly not worthy of any worship. Why anyone would want to worship such a repugnant and morally inferior being is beyond me. A being so morally inferior that it condones genocide; condones slavery; says that disobedient children should be killed; allows a devil to continue to exist when this devil is obviously making the lives of those it allegedly loves miserable; creates a system knowing that its creations would inevitably fail, and condemns it’s loved ones to infinite punishment for finite crimes.

The Christian god is not only morally inferior, but a clumsy failure. First with Adam and Eve (why the talking snake had to be there I’ll never know), The Flood, then the Tower of Babel. But to top things off, the only method of salvation this supposedly ‘superior being’ can think of - in order to save us from its failures - is to send its son to Earth to be killed in a ritualistic sacrifice.

Honestly! I think it's time we all grew up.

bushbasher,
>>he's not merely trying to present his views. he's a stirrer<<
Let me repeat: are you sure that Sellick is more of a stirrer, more offensive to those who do not share his world view than, say, Firesnake in his/her last two comments?

Foxy,
>>with all the personal attacks on atheists<<
Could you please name the atheist (a contributor to this OLO?) who was "personally attacked" in this unfortunate article? The interesting quote from George Carlin reveals also a lot about how some atheists view all Christians, and Christianity in general (see e.g. AdamD above), explaining, at least partly, the urge on both sides to react emotionally.

Pelican,
So you agree that "taking exception to" something is not the same thing as calling it "hate and loathing". (The long paragraph you quoted is an example of "explaining to atheists - (or Christians - what they believe", etc., referred to in my previous post; Foxy gave another example).

There are many statements on this OLO that I take exception to but try to understand them and learn from them. And there are those that indeed can be described only as "hate and loathing". Those are best left ignored (except as counterexamples when somebody claims that only atheists can feel offended on this OLO).

>>Christians can cop a bit of flak on this forum but so do atheists and neither group wants to be seen as either delusional or evil.<<
That’s right, although “delusional” is just one adjective. If you are seen as a Christian you are either delusional, irrational, illogical, indoctrinated into your world view or - if you try to explain the rational underpinnings of your world view - you engage in mental or intellectual gymnastics, are condescending.

On the other hand “evil” is not the only term associated with being an atheist, and I am sure you could supply a similar list of name callings addressed at atheists. However, an easy count of contributions to this (or any similar) thread would reveal which side prevails in this sad exchange of name callings and prejudices. (ctd)

(ctd) You are certainly right that many atheists (in this context I would prefer the term “secular humanists”) have much in common with many Christians when applying their world views to practical situations (after all, there is no difference in the kind of genes we carry, only in the “memes“ we acquired).

See for instance the atheist Jürgen Habermass’ “post-secular society” (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html) or his discussions with the Pope (http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666), or those of Marcello Pera with the Pope (http://www.amazon.com/Without-Roots-Relativism-Christianity-Islam/dp/0465006272/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233401525&sr=8-9).

You have raised a few questions about the concept of God, some of them I tried to address (of course, not satisfyingly answer) in posts throughout this OLO, but it is not easy to analyse such an abstract concept in 350 words, not to mention avoiding accusations of condescension etc. that I referred to above.

So just let me conclude with the words of Karol Wojtyla (later Pope JPII) addressed at his native Poland:

“It is understandable that a man may seek but not find; it is understandable that a man may deny; but is not understandable that a man may find himself under the imposition: you are forbidden to believe”.

Well, that was the situation in a Communist country in 1978, where the “prohibition to believe“ was political and partly legal. That is certainly not a situation we should be afraid of finding ourselves in. However, there is also conceivable a kind of cultural and psychological pressure not to believe - unless you openly admit that your religious beliefs are a purely private state of mind, not much different from hallucinations. In this situation you are not forbidden to believe, only to advertise your world view, to “proselytize“ (which is a label often attached to arguments or apologies concerning world views by those who cannot produce rationally or psychologically effective counter-arguments). I think this would be a cultural/political state of affairs of a one-sided hegemony that also Habermass warns against.

Of course, I do not want to deny that often in the past the boot was on the other foot.

dear george, might you be playing a little devil's advocate here?

"Let me repeat: are you sure that Sellick is more of a stirrer, more offensive to those who do not share his world view than, say, Firesnake in his/her last two comments?"

if we're going to be discussing childish behavior then there is an obvious schoolyard rebuttal: sellick started it!

that's really enough. but a little more seriously:

*) as the writer of an article inviting opinion, sellick obviously bears the initial and substantial weight for setting the tone of that discussion.

*) "others do it too" is a pretty tepid defense of sellick.

*) your "easy count of contributions" is a false calculus. i'm sure you know why.

george, we both know there are many posters at OLO that are just best left ignored. perhaps firesnake is one of them, though honestly i couldn't make heads or tails of their posts. but if not firesnake, then of course you can pick someone else.

but in fact i don't automatically mind angry or offensive, or even straight out dumb articles and posts. what i really mind is the gratuitousness, the deliberate stirrishness of writers like sellick.

and of course it is so much more nauseating coming from sellick because of the topics he chooses. sellick stirs and misrepresents and generalizes, all the time pretending to preach love, with his god-on-his-side smugness.

george, imagine if you were to write an article on a similar topic? would you get heated and thoughtless comments from atheists? undoubtedly. but not even remotely in the number or proportion that sellick does.

i've read your comments on many threads. i've usually found them difficult to follow, but i never doubted that clear hard thought went into them. even when i thought i strongly disagreed with them, they never angered me. they invited engagement, not battle.

george, as far as i can tell you don't have an ounce of sellick's nonsense in you. and you're pretty damn smart. so, why you choose to defend this clown is beyond me. unless ...

Dear George,

Please don’t try to paint my post as a narrow view of what Christianity is. Note that I had also made some mention of the less literalist and more mystical and abstract belief in god:

“A magical being who needs to be re-defined and made into a more mysterious character in order to prevent complete abandonment of it because of what we now know thanks to science;”

There either is a god, or there isn’t, and everything we can perceive of the physical world suggests that there isn’t - metaphysical arguments remain pure speculation. We can’t intellectualise god into existence and discussing theology in such a circumbendibus manner will never lead to anything solid or meaningful.

But it’s becoming apparent to me that if someone here raises a good point that you cannot answer, then you will merely brush them off in a passing comment to someone else. And since ‘offensiveness’ has been motioned, I might add that I find this kind of passing mention as offensive and yes, condescending too (Some may view my last post as condescension, but when we’re dealing with such utter nonsense, I believe it’s an appropriate way of treating it). It sounds to me as though you think the comment is below your threshold for proper acknowledgement, or that the contributor doesn’t have the intellectual nous to be dealt with directly.

That being said, intellectual nous is not a pre-requisite for discussing the metaphysical, only an imagination.

Plain and simple stupidity. How can you have an opinion based on pure assumption, without having even attempted to gather any facts. Your first paragraph says " I have not read any of the recent books that attack belief in God because I sense that they say nothing new". So right at the outset you are declaring no knowledge of your subject. Stupid. Secondly, you say "My point is that modern expressions of atheism are an objection not to the Christian God, who escapes their criticism, but an objection to paganism. All we Christians can say is “welcome”, we have been doing that for 2,000 years!". Again, stupid. You declare in the first paragraph you have not read any of the recent publications on atheism, and yet you profess to have an understanding of what the atheist objection is. Mate, this is the height of stupidity. You clearly expect atheists to have a clear and working knowledge of the bible and religion. Well guess what? Your writings show that you, sir, reject even the notion of listening to the arguments of "the other side". This is why you fail. If you continue to refuse to educate yourself of what the atheist argument is, if you continue to kid yourself that your god is a hippy god, and not a bronze age, sexist, racist, sadistic genocidal jealous god, then you clearly exclude yourself from any debate, as you have relegated yourself to the role of a brainwashed buffoon. Come back when you've read the Old Testament, The God Delusion and God is Not Great as a minimum, and then we can all be discussing the same thing. Until then, you are just somebody sitting in the corner with the front cover of TV Guide and a candle, trying to pass comment on the validity of the David Attenborough documentaries.

J P Morgan says: Completely whacko; When I contend that the Courts of Australia have become the Houses of Satan, and that the latter day demons are sitting on the benches of these State churches. If he was a barrister or solicitor, I could understand his attitude. He is in tune with most of the Judges and Magistrates in Australia. Not one of them can argue; so its abuse, not logic.

There is an omerta: a Mafia style Code of Silence, practiced between the monopoly of advocates and their former members who have become Judges, Magistrates and politicians that denies the existence of this axis of evil. Omerta denies the efficacy and effect of the Constitution. Omerta denies the enactment of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which are Statutes incorporating the principles of Christianity, as opposed to atheism into Australian Law.

These black hearted atheist villains, whose religion knows and gives no mercy, are infesting the courts that should be Commonwealth. These villains have defiled the values that defined Australia. The State Church has an army in blue to ensure you worship their satanic priests. As it has become worse they have had to become armed. As the State Church has deteriorated they have installed security.

The State Church lives in fear causing fear. As they have deteriorated so too has the passive resistance. The State Church in response passes more repressive laws and rules. There is not one Federal Judge has had the testicular fortitude, since 1976, to call together a court that complies with the Australian Courts Act 1828.

Atheists would be alright if they came out and said so straight out. Satanists are deceivers, and so are atheists. The mafia go to church too, but dispense a style of justice that has no Christian equivalent; so too the Judges and Magistrates of Australia. Satan is not a jealous god, he is a tart who takes whatever he can get. Currently he is supported by nine States in Australia all running an expensive Church, complete with Courts. Bring back our Commonwealth. Whacko: oh yeh

Sells, here I think you have struck the crux of the matter.
"But I would say that atheists are lucky that they have inherited the Christian tradition in the society that surrounds them."
This is the question.Did the story of Eve -and original sin- commit all women since to the status of second class citizens, if not moral defectives?
Would so many fathers throughout the ages have been so willing to sacrifice their children to war, without the example of their God sacrificing his only son?
Would so many countless billions of people throughout the ages have been willing to accept the egregious inequalities in humankind, if they could not blame it on 'God's Divine Will'?
I truly wonder.

AdamD:

You state that everything we can perceive in the physical world suggests that there isn't a God. Can you give a couple of examples here, please? It's kind of a broad sweeping statement. Had you said that 'nothing we can perceive . . . suggests there is a God', I would have let it slide, but I don't really think you can back up your statement.

As for the condescending tone, each to their own. I tend to think that treating others as equals and listening to their views, even when I disagree with them, is a more mature approach than treating them like children. But, like I said, each to their own.

George

As usual you express yourself well and provide some food for thought.

"So you agree that "taking exception to" something is not the same thing as calling it "hate and loathing". "

Not exactly. Taking exception was my reaction to the article, the hate/loathing comment was my judgement of Peter's motivations which was ill-spoken and a knee-jerk reaction on my part and for that I apologise to Peter. I don't know Peter personally and have no right to judge him - only Peter would know his motivation.

Your linked article 'Notes on a post-secular society' was worth reading. It raises a number of issues about secular societies and the link between modernization and secularism and what that means for the future.

Thank you for the links to the amazon books - I will make a point of reading them (some light bedtime reading). :)

I can see the concerns that Christians may hold in regards to the modern pressures not to believe and a possible fear of being "forbidden" to believe in a more modern world. But this is not the ultimate outcome of secularism - just the opposite.

I would venture that atheists or secular humanists are not striving for the forced eradication of religion. Particularly as you acknowledge that the boot has been on the other foot. My fear would be more directed at fundamentalism and the potential consequences in the modern world. While secularism is a natural progression of modernization, so might also the rise of fundamentalism.

As you say when trying to rationalise one point of view over the other there is always the risk of condescension. It probably is unavoidable and perhaps there will always be this natural impasse between believers and atheists/secular humanists.

I like this quote from the article.

" Tolerance means that believers of one faith, of a different faith and non-believers must mutually concede one another the right to those convictions, practices and ways of living that they themselves reject. This concession must be supported by a shared basis of mutual recognition from which repugnant dissonances can be overcome."

Dan S de Merengue,

You ask why we needed Victorian vilification laws. But you try to preempt my answer with your own which the Liberal Opposition cynically trotted out at the time.

Religious discrimination laws are common. Apart from Victoria, discrimination on the basis of religion is unlawful in the ACT, Western Australia, Queensland, NSW and Tasmania as well as in the UK, Canada, Norway and elsewhere.

The laws illustrate an international determination that nobody should be under threat of violence because of their religion. Article 20.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, protects against “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Article 19, which declares the right to freedom of expression, specifically requires restrictions on such freedom which “are necessary
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.”

Freedom of speech does not imply an absolute uncontrolled licence to say or write anything at all. Democratic societies place limits on the freedom to communicate views which incite hatred or intimidation of people because of their religious belief.

Premier Bracks in his second reading speech on the Victorian Bill in 2001 explained that it “…prohibit[s] only the most noxious form of conduct which incites hatred or contempt for a person or group on the basis of their religion”. He said that the Bill imposed restrictions upon only “the most repugnant behaviour which actively urges and promotes hate.”

In R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 SCR 697 it was held that the importance of preventing the harm caused by hate propaganda was of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutional freedom of expression.

The laws allow exceptions where the conduct was engaged in ‘reasonably and in good faith’. What is ‘reasonable’ is not ‘incredibly subjective and whimsical’. Courts use common standard tests all the time.

So it’s not either/or. There must be a balance between free speech and freedom from vilification and incitement to hatred.

Peter the Believer said: "These black hearted atheist villains, whose religion knows and gives no mercy" - the point is atheists are without religion. You will also find, if you take the time to read your holy book - that the religion of the jealous sky god is ruthless in it's call for death to not only competing religions, but also death to the "unbelievers". If you take some time, the passages are very easy to find, not to mention frequent. That god is documented in your pseudo-fiction many times as being without mercy.

Peter the Believer also says "Atheists would be alright if they came out and said so straight out". This is interesting on several levels. As an open atheist, I would say that I have done exactly that. Also, you have said in my first quote above that all atheists are villains, but now you're saying the one's who "confess" are ok? Sounds like the same logic used during the inquisitions. If we "confess" we're ok...except your bible prescribes special treatment be inflicted upon us by his believers.

Of course, if you want to say those bits of the bible aren't meant to be taken literally, go right ahead. Oh - but you can't can you? That would mean acknowledging that not only do you employ selectivity when deciding which bits to believe, but also that maybe all of it is just fiction after all. If it's not fiction, then surely you have to accept the whole thing as truth. So where are your demands for the death of all atheists? Ah but of course, self preservation persists, and to do such a thing would be unlawful, and see you end up in jail.

100% hypocrisy.

The clamour from the atheists is a bit too much. Such caterwauling.

Peter's article was titled "The impossibility of atheism". The impossibility was in the nastiness of true atheism towards the Christian God as opposed to the "paganised" God that Dawkins et al attack. He posits that rational atheists could be not be so dark.

There is no need to have read Dawkins to know his definitions of God : there has been plenty of newspaper articles and ABC programmes on his work with direct extended interviews.

It is as Peter's objection in a later comment: Dawkins defines the God of my faith and then goes about dissecting and ridiculing it with rational argument, except it is not the God Peter and I and billions of others worship. And so we have a right to comment. And we ask that this be respected without abuse.

Peter states: " My argument is that the God that the atheists do not believe in is not the God that Christians worship, but rather an idol of our own making or unmaking". He then sets about putting his case including the debunking of the Dawkin's straw man god. And he follows with a list of objections to which an atheist should take on based on the "idol" Christian God that prevailed for centuries.

Having made clear the Christian God of whom he writes at all times, Peter provides a definition of an atheist which has a dark description if critiquing the real Christian God.
But declares that is not who atheists are as their debunking of the "idol" God is valid.

If I may be so bold to suggest that he has used the technique well exercised by Brian's mother in the Life of Brian : you the atheist " are not atheists, just naughty boys and girls.." As in being prejudiced and active against faith towards the pure rational. Whereas we of faith live life with the full resources of reason at work through faith's application to life - its joys, suffering, love and hurt, and peace.

Continued:

Continued:

As I read the atheists' responses I wonder is there more to atheism than intellectual pride and deep rooted prejudice. It cannot claim Science as its own. It can claim the new extensions of moral boundaries beyond the Judeo Christian ethic in abortion, reproduction technologies, biomedical developments and euthanasia . Just as it did with Social Darwinism that ended up feeding the militarism of the elites in the 19th / 20th century to deliver the bloodiest of centuries. This of course at a time when the faith prevailed in the rationalised "God of the 17th/18th century theologians/scientists" which Dawkins et al attack. In that sense they do have a calling and can join with Peter.

Comment to Shaithus:

Watching David Attenborough is not necessarily an intellectual exercise requiring learned commentary. It is rather an exercise foremost of wonder at reality as presented and truth as felt within the sense of oneness in the beauty and grandness of creation - the natural world and beyond.

This is as it is, with a living faith in the God of three persons - including that of a man who has walked the earth. The God who willed life in its origins, who sustains life in all of its presence and calls us to a fulfilled life in Him. It is a sustenance for all without intellectual measure or restraint. You are free to partake or otherwise. In not doing so you simply miss an opportunity to delight in the most profound of relationships available in life whilst you exist on earth. A delight from which all desires are met for a full life. It is here and now.

APOLOGIES TO SELLS and other on topic posters.

Dear Dear Spikey :) I love you..I really do! as they say.. 'give a bloke enough rope and he will hang himself." welcome to "dangle-land":)

I have a feeling you don't have the slightest clue about the implications of what you presented and how much it supports pretty much everything I've been saying ad nauseum about Islam :)

If you read that Keegstra case carefully, you will see that it says THIS!

"Section 319(2) of the Code constitutes a reasonable limit upon freedom of expression. Parliament's objective of preventing the harm caused by hate propaganda is of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutional freedom."

Which means.. you cannot claim 'freedom of expression' if that expression incites hate or vilification against an identifiable group or religion.. DUHx5000!

Now.. all I've been raving about all this time is exACTLY that.

but let's recap your own post for a moment: put these two things side by side and actually REEEEAAAAD them :)

YOUR POST: (I_absolutely_love_this!)

<<The laws illustrate an international determination that nobody should be under THREAT OF VIOLENCE because of their RELIGION. Article 20.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, protects against “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”>>

QURAN 9:30 And the JEWS say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the CHRISTIANS say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's CURSE be on them, how they are DELUDED away from the truth!

It get's better:

QURAN 9:29 "FIGHT those who do not believe in Allah and the last day.. even if they are Christians or Jews....etc until....they are subjected!" (WOOPS...my 'threat_meter' just clanged on 'Overload')

Now..I would argue in any court in this_land..that such statements DO constitute 'incitement to violence and hatred' against Jews and Christians. AND...those statements ARE correctly interpreted based on Mohammad's example/oral tradition and the 4 rightly guided Caliphs.

I'd call certain Muslims from Melbourne as witnesses..

A difficulty for the objective observer reviewing Sells’ comments is, having chided atheists for their alleged lack of insight and for their dependence on mechanical thought, Sells, on crossing the floor, immediately shifts focus from the generic to the specific. Else put, his criticism of atheism addresses the general notion of the nature of God and the definition of said God in the broadest context.

On changing tack, Sells narrows the focus in on one particular Christian god.

This shift in scope, I posit; presents a lopsided a priori conjecture. It assumes one god does exist and assumes a unique character of the Godhead. By way of omission, Sells wrongly leads readers to the proposition that the architecture of the Christian theocrasia is unique to history:

“Christian speech about God is essentially Trinitarian and is quite different from pagan speech about God.” – Sells

Not so.

Herein, of pagans, Wells notes of Horus, whom interceded on behalf of the humankind justify sin to the Father, was the only beloved son of Osiris:

“The worship of Serapis spread very widely throughout the second and third century BC world, to dominate forms of (religious) expression. (In Christianity), the central idea, the living spirit, of Christianity was (posited), (as) a new thing in the mind and will of Man; but the garments of ritual and formula that Christianity has worn, were certainly woven in the cult and temples of Jupiter-Serapis, and Isis that spread from now Alexandria throughout the civilized world in the Age of Theocrasia in the second and first centuries before Christ*.” - Wells

* And would have been known to the Framers of the Christian Trinity in the fourth century CE.

And while we are on the subject of religous discrimination and the law, how about being discriminated against for not being Christian? Things such as paying taxes while the Christian church does not. You want to be a Christian, that is your choice, but I do not want to pay for it or be continously bombarded by purile Christian propaganda.

Boxgum, nice synopsis of Peter's argument but you do little (if anything) to address the criticisms of the argument presented by myself and others.

This forum finally allows people to debate religion. Everyone has a religion. For some its football or cricket, and for some its anti god. The anti-gods are the atheists. They don’t have a set of solid rules, so they obey none. For that reason a Muslim is better than an atheist. 13.5 million Australians claim Christianity.

If Jews have the Kol Nidre prayer, that lets them disregard their oaths, and undermine Christianity. They are worse than the Muslims. This debate is stuck in the Old Testament for some, and outside Christianity altogether for others. What is the difference, Christianity works. Thousands of ordinary people have miracles happen. In World War II Dunkirk was a miracle. They continued throughout. Look up the casualties from World War II on Google. The Protestant British Commander, had a combined civilian and military casualty list, a butchers bill, as the Navy calls it, of 512,000. ( 100,000 Australians included) The Axis power, Japan and Russia, had Sixty million. The Yanks lost about 270,000.

I have seen miracles, unexplainable healings, in fact two in my close family. Explanation, Doctors misdiagnosed the cancer. I have had people hounded and harassed by the State Church, seek help. What really annoys me is Labor abolished this atheist church, between 1993 and 1995, but the atheist priests won’t leave or accept federal (Christian) authority. There is much talk about VCAT. It should be a dead cat, shot by a vigilant Commonwealth. It has never been constitutional to create un-Australian Courts, like VCAT. With no effective High Court, State Judges give the Commonwealth the finger.

Christianity and justice have always traveled as partners just like love and marriage. Every right we treasure, is founded in Christianity. Our freeholds, marriages, inheritances, freedom of travel, all Christian. Even your life belongs to the State in the eyes of atheists. Under Christianity, the ONLY time the State owns everything, is wartime. Otherwise the Christian way is to provide just terms. The State is muzzled by Christianity, atheists have let the mongrel pit bull out. It is ravenous for revenue, nasty and vindictive

David BOAZ (yep, still off topic, but the original post stinks anyway)

Let's just assume that I precis every sentence with "I believe", because then I can apparently say what I like...

Oh, except to say, if those passages from the Quran are so bad, what of Deuteronomy 13:

"6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."

Along with Commandment #1 - You shall have no other gods before me - seems like that's a pretty clear incitement to violence on religious grounds...

Still, they're both works of fiction, so I guess they're exempt from the vilification laws because they're works of art... :-)

Peter the Believer,
'Christianity and justice have always traveled as partners just like love and marriage.'
Tell that to the Cathars (If there where any left after their genecide by the Christian Church. What was the religion of Wicca really like? Nobody knows because it was wiped out by Christianity and all that is left is rubbish propaganda about witches spread by the Christains. There are too many expamples of Christion 'justice' to mention.
The history of the Christian church is one of crimes against humanity that are beyond conprehension. A small reminder of live under the Christians was the last eight years when the Christian right got a foothold in the Oval office.
All I can say is God help us all if the Christians regain their past power. Thankfully I can say that without being taken to court and then being drag outside to be burnt at the stake.

Daviy,

I like Peter the Believer... he makes me feel saner and smarter than I really am.

Dear George,

Sorry for taking so long to respond to your question.
I had used up all of my posts so I couldn't respond
until now.

You asked me to explain to you about the personal attacks on
atheists.

I wasn't referring to any one person. I was speaking generally
because that was my reaction after reading the second page of
Sellick's article where he was out of line in my opinion in
the way he talked about the "darkness" etcetera of atheists.

Re-read the second page of his article and you'll see what I mean.

I'm not an atheist, but I do object to an author expressing his
opinion using such unnecessary language knowing full well that it
will offend people.

I realize that I may have overstepped the line with my attempt at
humour by quoting George Cargill to try to cheer Pelly up.
If I caused any offense to anybody - I apologise. I was merely
attempting to "lighten things up." But in retrospect - perhaps
I shouldn't have done it.

Sorry to cram two responses into one post here, but I don't want to outstep my quota.

Sorry also if I state the obvious!

I've come to realise why the original article didn't sit well with me. It makes the assumption that atheists have a specific god in mind when they profess their lack of belief. Atheism is not a disbelief in a god - it's a disbelief in any god at all. The article builds a model of God and assumes that this is what atheists don't believe. The reality is that he could have constructed an infinite numer of gods and the result would be the same: atheists don't believe in any of them. I don't believe in Santa Claus, regardless of how he is represented. It's not just the jolly old man in red I don't believe in - it's Santa. I think I can safely say the same for atheists.

Secondly, I have finally worked out how to explain my unease with the conclusion of the article linked by Sancho. Certainly, if we are to take a very literal interpretation of all that has been said about God, it is very hard to rationalise His existence. My mind, though, keeps looking for the 'step before' each new scientific discovery. If there was a big bang, what caused it? How did a bunch of atoms get together and become 'life'? How did such complex ecosystems and organisms come into existence? Surely the odds are stacked fairly well against these chains of events. Which leads to my openness to the idea of God. I don't think I really understand who or what God is, but I don't think the idea of a superior being is completely irrational. It certainly explains some things in our world. If science can eliminate all of these questions for me, I'm happy to rethink my views. But at the moment my religion provides me with some pretty solid and agreeable guidelines for living AND a possible explanation for things that man has yet to explain in any other way.

But Otokonoko, the reality of the situation is that positing god as the basis things not understood explains NOTHING. No useful information comes from using god as an explanation, quite the reverse in fact. In many people it stifles inquiry and leads to accusations of transgressing the sacred or defying the natural order.

As for useful guidelines for living, every society in the world has those and it's entirely possible that some are better than yours.

It's a funny thing about unlikely events, many of the most unlikely of events occur every day due the laws of large numbers. Billions of years is a long time and it's a BIG universe.

Despite everything several of us have written some, as shown in Foxy’s last post, are still not actually reading the original article. As I tried to point out in my previous post, Peter Sellick is saying that the “atheists” are NOT dark and evil. He asserts rather that “there are no real atheists”.

Otokonoko has just echoed a point one or two other posters have made in their own ways. E.g. “Atheism is not a disbelief in a god - it's a disbelief in any god at all.” I have to respond that the word “god” in itself can mean different things to different people. To say you don’t believe in “any god at all” still leaves you open to the question: What do you mean by that word ‘god’? Peter’s article holds up some of the interpretations of the word for examination. There may well be others worth looking at.

Nevertheless, from reading and listening to people who call themselves “atheists” my strong impression is that they are denying belief in one or more versions of the “god” concept that the article describes and tears down.

PtB: << Satanists are deceivers, and so are atheists. The mafia go to church too, but dispense a style of justice that has no Christian equivalent; so too the Judges and Magistrates of Australia. Satan is not a jealous god, he is a tart who takes whatever he can get. Currently he is supported by nine States in Australia all running an expensive Church, complete with Courts. Bring back our Commonwealth. Whacko: oh yeh >>

Oh yeh. Speaking of whacko:

BoazyPorkyPuppet: << I'd call certain Muslims from Melbourne as witnesses >>

I'm wondering on what basis Porky thinks he could compel anybody to give evidence if he were to be charged with contravening his favourite Victorian legislation?

I think that as a lawyer, Porky makes a good Islamophobic frootloop.

BOAZ_David,

"Dear Dear Spikey :) I love you..I really do!"

Yuk, that's obscene! I can assure you your 'love' is neither wanted nor reciprocated. Nor do I invite your sexist condescension.

It seems you have a bizarre pathological need to twist everything that your opponents say and pretend that they are really supporting your case.

"I have a feeling you don't have the slightest clue about the implications of what you presented and how much it supports pretty much everything I've been saying ad nauseum about Islam :)" You're do a good line in parody and sending yourself up. Truly weird and wacko.

Now get out of the way and let me talk to someone with intelligence.

crabsy, accidentally or otherwise, i think you've located the solid ground. you paraphrase sellick:

<<there are no real atheists>>

given sellick's title, this seems fair enough. and i suggest the zen response is:

<< there are no real atheists if and only if there are no real gods >>

but of course this is absurd. if there are no real gods then atheism is not only meaningful, it is also true, and it would be wise and correct to be atheist.

this points out the fundamental problem with sellick's article: he is so addicted to being cute, he forgets the value of being comprehensible.

what is sellick really saying? the pivotal line is:

<<My point is that modern expressions of atheism are an objection not to the Christian God ...>>

so what it seems sellick is claiming is that atheism is irrelevant to and consistent with belief in the christian god. we've all been disbelieving the wrong gods!

now that may be true or false, depending of course upon what one means by "christian god". as i wrote in my very first post on this thread, i think sellick's article is much more problematic for "christians" than "atheists".

so, in fact sellick could have been setting common ground for atheism and what he regards (correctly or incorrectly) as christianity. does he do this? nope. he grasps schism out of the jaws of consensus.

no, sellick has to give his article a ridiculous, inflammatory title. and he has to have a bizarre second page, effectively redefining "atheism" in a pointless and bizarre manner. he may be cute, but he is obscure as all hell: and in his follow up posts, it is clear that he takes absolutely no responsibility for the inevitable misunderstandings.

so, what's the common ground? i think we can all agree that sellick is a clown.

bushbasher,
If I understand you properly, your answer - to my question whether “Sellick is ... more offensive to those who do not share his world view“ than the author of a comment randomly chosen from a list of similarly worded posts - is yes.

I have to accept this, since there are no objectively valid criteria that would allow us to measure and compare the “offensiveness level” of one wording for one group of people with that of another wording for another group.

One cannot defend one‘s world view, or just point of view, without attributing some negative features to positions that one thinks one has to defend it from. However, one has to be on guard lest one‘s criticism degenerates into misrepresentations or worse. That was the point of my original objection to Sellick choosing atheism as the Aunt Sally in his dispute with an alternative interpretation of the Christian concept of God.

Truly, Sellick’s articles usually attract lots of comments, not all of them silly, and so do other articles involving religion; articles (and comments) which other people, e.g. Christians, might find “gratuitous“, “deliberately stirring“, or containing passages perceived as offensive; no need to give examples. In my opinion, this is not so much Sellick‘s or the other authors‘ fault: it is so because religion (and the notion of God in the western tradition), plays a very important personal and intimate part of the human psyche, whether accepted or rejected, acknowledged or denied, perceived positively or negatively, on the emotional, rational or moral levels.

Thus in spite of the fact that “offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder” we should all try to refrain not only from personal attacks on the author of an article, but also from utterances that could possibly be thus conceived by a non-negligible group of readers. This was the point of my “defence“: not of Sellick but of this principle.

AdamD,
I simply referred to your post as one of two examples (I chose yours simply because it was the last one in the thread) that revealed how some atheists view Christianity (and theism in general) partly explaining why some Christians and atheists react emotionally.

I apologise if either

you do not considered yourself an atheist, or
you did not want to reveal what you thought about Christians, or
you do not think that you contributed to raising the emotional level of some contributions, (although this is better left for others to judge).

pelican,
Thanks for the kind words.

Foxy,
>>I do object to an author ... using ... language ... that ... will offend people <<
That's OK, I expressed similar sentiments a number of times when articles (or comments) appeared here that could offend people, whether Christians, Muslims, atheist or what. I just queried the adjective "personal" in your post.

AAAH Spikey.. you can always tell when someone has lost an argument :)

They resort to personal abuse alone.

I invite you to examine the keegstra case in more detail..and the Mark Harding case..and.. dare I say it.. Canadian Law in the thread "The keegstra case etc"

It's a pity that when the facts are against you... you run and hide whining behind the veil of 'ad hominem'....

CJ.. the only purpose of witnesses would be to establish the following:

1/ Do Muslims accept the Quran as authoritative today?
2/ Is scholar (name the scholar) highly regarded in the Muslim community?

Once that's out of the way..we can move to surah 9 and then..when they try to worm their way out of the plain hate speech meaning... we refer to the opinions of the scholars they have just declared 'Highly reputable'.

That's called a 'double pincer movement'.... invented I believe by Khalid bin Al Waleed against the Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmuk.

Dear Spikey,

You're far more patient than anyone else would be
under the given circumstances.

But, as Voltaire said (I think it was Voltaire):

"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with
those who do not possess it."

I only wonder what would happen to an Arab/Muslim Australian if they
carried on against Australian Christians - quoting
only the bad bits from the Old Testament across various threads, and
continued on with a series of escalating messages filled with emotion-
filled opinions, words, and upper-case letters?

Would they get arrested by the Federal police?

Just a thought.

crabsy, I think you may be pushing the proverbial uphill.

>>As I tried to point out in my previous post, Peter Sellick is saying that the “atheists” are NOT dark and evil. He asserts rather that “there are no real atheists”<<

Does he, indeed?

"Certainly the self professed atheists of our time are tame pretenders compared with the real character of atheism. This is quite a different picture to that of the atheist as the rational and brave searcher after truth and the prosecutor of superstition and barbarity"

Are you perhaps suggesting that Sells is saying "atheism is dark and evil", but modern atheists aren't dark and evil, therefore they cannot actually be atheists?

>>Otokonoko has just echoed a point one or two other posters have made in their own ways. E.g. “Atheism is not a disbelief in a god - it's a disbelief in any god at all.” I have to respond that the word “god” in itself can mean different things to different people. To say you don’t believe in “any god at all” still leaves you open to the question: What do you mean by that word ‘god’?<<

Pure sophistry. I mean exactly what you mean by the word.

It is the image of God that you have in your head, in whatever form that may take, that I don't believe in.

If you didn't posit the existence of a God in the first place, I would not have to disbelieve in it.

LOL! Great example of a religious "argument". Gobbledegook indeed.

First he declares that before demolishing a point of view, he ignores it as he "feels" there will be no benefit.
(Reason 1 I am an athiest: Religion is irrational and relies on *ignor*ance. You must *ignore* real world evidence to maintain sanity and faith. Therefore you are not seeking God, you are excluding Him!)

Then he declares Athiests limited and evil.
(Reason 2 I am athiest: Religion makers you hate others purely based on difference. It panders to the tribal animal in us. Evolution has driven us to over-commit to family/tribe and to fear and destroy non-"us" competition. Overcomming this instinct involves seeing all humans as "the tribe". Religion explicitly endorses "the other guy is evil" and thus encourages conflict.)

The rest of the article is essentially meaningless. Writings of the Flying Spagghetti Monster are far more illuminating.

Religion ruled for thousands of years and humans remained "primitive". Learning from nature, retaining humility and honesty, and non-tribal relationships have given us science, which gives us the chance to leave our cradle and truly grow up.
Religion is a childish phase that we need to shed to continue to evolve.
I am hoping that what we are witnessing now is the rise of a true secular power base. The subterfuge and pain caused by Christianity's attempts at social engineering have become to get quite irritating, and the "moral flexibility" displayed by christians such as Howard/Bush show that evil is never far away from ignorance. Sorry to the good christians, but the bad ones are getting quite out of control.

Boxgum, George et al,

To the Romans the Christians were Atheists. The Pangi were social people, whose society encouraged cross-worship and syncretism of divinities. The Christian churches associate the word “Pagan” with the occult ad evil, yet etymologically, the word’s meaning is closer to, “civil”.

Ancient Jews, including Jewish Christian Sects, were exclusive and would not worship other gods nor allow Romans to burn incense in their places of worship of their God.

Likewise, converted Gentiles were given a lowly place in Jewish hierarchy, as mere god-farers not true Jews, until after Hadrian expelled all Jews, including Christians, to Pella. By necessity Christian Jews became Jewish Christians to regain access to the Holy Lands.

So in the first and second centuries CE, whom was labelled Atheist, depended upon changeable frames. But gods were within the universe.

Moreover, Christian religion largely saw the universe containing the natural world, Earth, and the supernatural, space. Herein, we still call space, “The Heavens”. Galileo destoyed this assumption, showing the hel separation false: The natural world is the universe.

With the retreat of the anthropomorphic principal, Christians ultimately adjusted to the new reality, while the domain of their tangible Heaven shrunk; wherein, the universe became the locus of the Creation, and, havin an emphasis on intelligent design advocacy.

Romans and other theists throughout history, until more recent centuries, would have been at best unclear on the distinction of a God “within” the universe or God “outside” of the universe.

Noting the latter demotes the Creation and the place of Humanity in the scheme of things; God progressively became more remote and, the anthropomorphic principal again is diminished.

Boxgum, owing to Science stealing the universe from underneath the Creator’s feet and, anthropologists & historians explaining how religions work, Atheism and Theism transmuted, from disagreement over differences in what god to believe in, to evicting gods from the universe.

Thus, Atheism, today, becomes opposed to all gods. Modern understandings drive the debate from the physical to esoteric: A timeless designer god (theist) or a self-organising universe (atheist)?

george:

<<One cannot defend one‘s world view, or just point of view, without attributing some negative features to positions that one thinks one has to defend it from.>>

sure. i agree. i'm working as hard as i can to attribute negativity!

just a joke (sort of). as i said, i don't have a particular problem with the negativity, possibly less than you. i'm not offended by offense. it seems you're a gentler fellow, and prefer a gentler mode of discussion. that's cool too.

the problem with sellick isn't the negativity. it's the needless, wallowing incomprehensibility. who on earth redefines "atheism" in such a manner if they really care about being understood?

that's the overwhelming absurdity of sellick's post. why not, at least, title the post "the irrelevance of atheism [to christianity]"? that would still create heat but would be a damn sight clearer.

and of course a much better title would have been "the compatibility of atheism and christianity". many would possibly still disagree (and i'd conjecture more christians than atheists), but at least there would be a clear claim with which to disagree.

the reality is, he just doesn't care. he simply doesn't pay close attention to what he writes. he then compounds it by taking not one ounce of responsibility for the garbles he produces.

i have a hell of a lot of time and tolerance for people who struggle honestly to convey difficult or controversial ideas. i have no time for clowns who lazily churn out article after article after bloody article of half-baked slops.

Foxy, I don't think you should have to apologise for for the Cargill quote on an Opinion forum. Surely he is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else; arguably more than some, as he is funny and entertaining.
Otokonoko, I sympathise with your position. I too, retain a -probably irrational- belief in God.
As I see it, we have 3 basic choices.
1. Complete atheism. A disbelief in any God, anywhere.
2. Belief in a personal God. This requires one to accept that such a God is powerful, and can intercede in human affairs, if IT wishes, but chooses not to; at least not any more.
Or if it does, IT is very choosy about who IT helps and who it ignores or punishes.
Like the 2 men of religion in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the personal God seems to spend IT's time crossing the road, and therefore -in my opinion- is unworthy of worship anyway.
3. Belief in a God which exists outside our Cosmos, and by the very natural laws of this Cosmos is incapable of intercession.
Such a God would be irrelevant to our situation, so a belief in such a God is essentially the same as atheism, since IT does not exist in our Cosmos, and cannot affect our Cosmos.
Why believe in such a God? Ironically, it was Dawkins who convinced me of ITs existence.
Well, originally Darwin. It seems to me, that if we have evolved from single celled organisms in the space of a few billion years, where will we be in another few billion?
I firmly believe in a Cosmos the size of ours, given the almost infinite room for complexity, the evolution of at least one species to the point where they can step outside the space/time bubble is almost inevitable.
Could we be that species?
Bugsy will no doubt point out that belief in such a being has no point, and he's probably right. But science is about understanding why.
Better a religion that seeks to understand God, than one which purports to already do so.

Foxy,

Thanks for your support. I do lose patience sometimes with a couple of constant haters.

I like your quote from Voltaire: "The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it."

You wonder what would happen to an Arab/Muslim Australian if they quoted "only the bad bits from the Old Testament across various threads, and continued on with a series of escalating messages filled with emotion-filled opinions, words, and upper-case letters."

Of course they'd get arrested by the Federal police

One way or the other we have no choice. As Pierre Schlag from Denver, Jurisprudentist, said, the Law is god by other means. You can be a Christian and insist on Christian Law, which has not been done for forty years in New South Wales, or you can have the Law of Atheists rammed down your throat. When the Law becomes god, and you must worship parliament or be severely punished, you have become a compulsory atheist. There are nine God factories in Australia churning out laws, many of them contradictory. It is no wonder many of us are schizophrenic.

Before we allowed the Aristocrats of the Law, barristers and solicitors to run for parliament, and confined them to their proper role, which is to examine laws made by parliaments, sort the good from the bad, and chuck out inconsistent ones, we had a chance of freedom. As atheists believing in the law and not god, these fifth columnists have undermined the whole system, and made us all into slaves. As members of the pseudo aristocracy, lawyers were prohibited from the House of Commons for 498 years. Since they were allowed back in, or crept in without challenge, the law has become asinine. They have made an Aristocracy of the Federal Court of Australia. The Family Court, and the High Court, and all the wannabees are serving the scam, because otherwise they will never be picked for the aristocracy themselves. There is not one lawyer in Australia who can effectively argue Constitutional Supremacy. That is the Christian Rule of law.

Many on this forum know the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is law. It destroys the aristocracy, so they will not admit it as enacted. It destroys the States, it destroys the Law Society and Bar Association monopolies. It say the State must pay for the sins of its servants. It is the principles of the New Testament as a law. Father Frank Brennan is a lawyer. Which god does he serve first, the Law or Our Father which art in Heaven. Is he in reality an atheist

Peter Sellick has been getting his articles published on OLO since August 2002.

At (approximately) 83 articles over 6.5 years, that is an average of 13 articles a year (rounded off to nearest whole number). More than one a month! During which he regularly attacks atheists.

How does he manage it? Are the editors at OLO really that biased? Or does Sellick simply blackmail them?

Why am I not addressing the topic? Because Sellick never really changes his topic, it always translates to Sellick's version of Christianity = Good, anything else = Bad.

Of course this jibe will be dismissed as babble. But if we have to have a religious discussion, why can't it be someone like Father Bob, who has a sense of humour and is actually interesting and the hapless OLO reader doesn't need a freakin' degree in Theology to follow?

Just a thought.

Peter.
The problem is that it is Christian law, the law of Abram. The basic abramic premise. We are God's lawyers on earth therefore we can do what we like to anyone at any time and remain free of sin because everything we do must be God's will.
This hands down to our abramic legal system that says we can do anything we like to anyone at any time and provided what we do is legal we remain free of sin.
And then the abramic system goes to the every day level of we can do anything we like to anyone at any time and provided we are right and they are wrong we remain free of sin.
It is not the lack of Christian law that it is the problem, it is that the curse of Christian law has permeated through our society.
Christian law takes away personal responsibility. You make the claims about God's law but never mention personal responsibility. Not surprising because like the Pharisees before you following the law without thinking is enough to give you your place in Paradise.
In the main debate I come down on the side of the Atheists because by and large the atheists leave me to enjoy my position as an agnostic. But those Christians are always trying to convert me, even though it has been known and documented from the beginning of Christianity that it cannot be true. Original sin fails or Jesus fails, both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore Christianity fails because Christianity relies on both being true at the same time.
But Christianity being a false position, (I did not say 'lie' so the Victorian cops should leave me alone) does not mean God does not exist in some unknowable form. I don't know.
To know if God exists or not will require certain conditions to be met.
1. We must be dead.
2. There must be life after death (if not we know nothing).
3. Who ever is on the 'other side' must know the answer.

Dear Otokonoko,

The word “perceive” is too subjective. What I should have said was that there is no objective evidence in the physical world to suggest even in the slightest that there is a God. Nothing.

As for “treating people like children”, I’ve heard all the arguments for religious belief and even used them myself when I was a believer. They’re all the same. But if you can offer me something different, then please do. Although I don’t think you can.

If people are going to think like children then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be treated like children. There is nothing mature about believing in magic.

Going back to my point about there being no evidence for a god, I noticed in your following post that you used the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument as one of the reasons for your belief. This argument is a logical fallacy. It assumes that our lack of knowledge is permanent. So I don’t believe that you’ve provided a very good case against the suggestion that the belief in god is irrational. As I see it, it still is.

When asked by Napoleon why he didn’t include god in his calculations for the orbiting of our Solar system’s planets, the French scientist Laplace simply replied: “I didn’t need to”. Science has never needed to implement a god, so there is no reason to believe that it ever will. What kind of a lazy and impotent god would create life using evolution? Why would a god put effort into nothing but making it appear as though they weren’t even there?

Either way, the existence of a god would raise far more questions than it would answer.

But if a god did exist, then its existence would be as plain as the nose on your face. It would be obvious to us all. And if the Bible really was the inerrant word of god, it wouldn’t have any other competing holy books. Nothing else would be able to compete. It would be a book like nothing we could imagine, and well beyond our comprehension.

Dear George,

There's no need to apologise. I didn’t mean to sound emotional, more bewildered. But even if there was some emotion there, it wouldn’t take anything away from the points that I made, which I believe are still entirely valid.

Thanks for your reply, AdamD.

I think it's best if we agree to disagree here. I don't think you have provided any objective evidence that there is no god, but by the same token I won't pretend to have any objective evidence that there is a god, either. It's kind of like the belief in extraterrestrial intelligence - there is absolutely no evidence that it exists; nor is there any evidence that they don't. Very intelligent and well-educated people offer differing views on the issue - neither is irrational.

As for assuming that our lack of knowledge is permanent, you'll note that I conceded that I am happy to change my understanding of the world as new knowledge arises.

I guess, at the end of the day, if God is a con (which I don't think he is, but others are more than entitled to), He is a very well-constructed con. Christianity - and Catholicism in particular - is built around the premise that God is beyond our comprehension. He has no physical body, He is invisible and inaudible and, as the saying goes, 'works in mysterious ways'. With that in mind, His existence is almost impossible to disprove. Christians can just put up the argument that 'we cannot possibly understand Him'. That in itself is almost condescending. While I can accept this type of God, it is certainly reasonable for others not to. I assume that human potential is finite (after all, my cat is no genius and never will be, and other animals show their limits, so why would we have unlimited capacity for understanding?) and there will always be things beyond our comprehension. Perhaps I'm just settling for mediocrity. Either way, you haven't convinced me that I am irrational but I have certainly enjoyed hearing your views and look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

Otokonoko, you have put your finger on that which I find most irritating about organised religion.
As you say:
"...is built around the premise that God is beyond our comprehension. He has no physical body, He is invisible and inaudible and, as the saying goes, 'works in mysterious ways'...Christians can just put up the argument that 'we cannot possibly understand Him'."
And then they go on to explain exactly what he wants from us, and exactly what we have to do to please him.

What most believers cannot conceive of is that most atheists are simply sceptics, i.e. they don’t believe in anything without reason.

They will choose to assign a measure of trust to systems that have a proven track record or a body of evidence to justify that trust. If there is a significant change or new evidence appears that contradicts the previous position, the sceptic will adjust his view point accordingly.

I would offer a comparison with global warming.

Initial predictions (1980s) of what would happen to the climate were wildly inaccurate and measurements differed considerably from predictions. The sceptics (me included) felt that there was insufficient information upon which to base life altering decisions. Lately as the science has improved, there is a considerable body of evidence that climate changing is occurring, and the models are getting more accurate. I have started altering my personal lifestyle and actions accordingly.

I don’t believe in the judges or lawyers as PTB asserts, rather I believe that while the system has flaws, it produces reasonable results. Christian or sharia legal systems have a history of producing ridiculous decisions.

Likewise, I don’t believe that JC and his cohort were evil. Based on the fact that the gospels were written generations after the death of JC, and that they differ substantially from each other and from history in general, I simply don’t credit them with any degree of accuracy.

The reason that people put their faith in science, is that the predictions of reality by religion have been shown to be substantially false again and again by scientists as their ability to measure reality has improved.

From Galileo onwards the church has consistently fought against the findings by scientists and have only modified their positions when they became patently ridiculous.

I don’t believe god exists, but will gladly change that position when faced with solid evidence.

I wish Sells and others would stop saying that I believe in science and the state. I only grant them some credibility based on their track record.

Spikey,
Thanks for your response to my question. It seems you know a lot about the issue. So much that I’d guess that you’re either a lawyer or an ALP spokesperson.

I would agree with you that absolute free speech needs to be tempered by law. And you’ve said enough to convince me that in drafting these vilification laws, the ALP was just being trendy rather than employing a cynical vote catcher. Yet I still question the law’s implementation and effectiveness.

The one case regarding these laws that I followed rather closely involved Daniel Scott, who was convicted of vilifying Muslims, essentially for quoting from the Koran. As opposed to what another lawyer said above in this thread, the law deemed that speaking truth (in that Scott accurately quoted from the Koran) was not allowed as a defense.

The conviction was wrong in that the decision was overturned on appeal. In this it could be argued that it was not the law that was at fault, only the judgement. After many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees suffered by both sides (lawyers being the big winner here), the appeal judge ordered the parties to further conciliation. So laws that were intended to promote tolerance within the community only created the opposite, inspiring rivalry and tension.

Perhaps we’ll put this down this down to teething problems for a wonderful new law. Yet I understand (perhaps you could help me here) that no one has yet been convicted under these laws. One reason for this, I still contend, is the subjectivity attached to the consideration in the laws for what is ‘reasonable and in good faith’. After all, how long is a piece of string?

That this law creates confusion rather than tolerance or understanding is on display above, where many have wasted their breath arguing over whether as statement such as “Christianity is a lie” is legally vilifying, a non-discussion before these laws were enacted.

Vigorous discussion is great. These vilification laws are only helpful to lawyers’ pockets. We were doing fine without them.

I don’t hear from anyone here any indication whatsoever that you have any idea what our legal system is. I will quote the late Lionel Murphy, High Court Justice, and noted atheist. Our legal system is based upon the premise that you cannot have inconsistency. Murphy was a great justice, and at his premature death at 62, specifically instructed his family not to harbor resentment towards those who had persecuted him. That was very Christian of him.

Every Atheist has a world view inconsistent with the Holy Bible, inconsistent with the Australian Constitution divisive and destructive. Atheists have destroyed the Commonwealth. Having no respect for the will of God defiles every court. We have little gods, answerable to no one, without any understanding of the Rules that replaced the Law of Abraham, and Moses. If lawyers are sinners, many churchmen and priests are too. The New Testament is the New Covenant. Forget the old law of retribution.

The law god, which atheists worship, is not consistent. It is essentially tribal. Christianity abolished tribalism. The twelve divisive tribes of Israel, were held together by the Abrahamic code. Christianity abolished that law, and extended a super law, not only to Jews, but also to Gentiles, us. It is only two laws, the first is have only one God. The triune God of Christianity.

As an example to us God himself submits to the will of the Holy Spirit. Even He is not above the law. Jesus Christ was made judge, he gave that power to the Holy Spirit. When the power of the Holy Spirit came, as promised, Jesus Christ promise in Matthew 18 verse 20 is kept. To access the power of Almighty God a Christian must request a jury of at least three. With twelve God knows, with only one Judge/sinner, God cannot know if the defendant is doing unto others what he would like done to him. That is the second law. It underpins all contracts, all promises, all trusts, and no atheist in a scarlet clowns suit, or black satanic robes, should ever be a Judge of that

bushbasher,
Sorry, not “attributing” but “assigning negative attributes”.

>> who on earth redefines "atheism" in such a manner if they really care about being understood?<<
Very much to the point. I myself have been wondering about some articles and many posts here along the same lines: who on earth redefines “belief in God” (or faith, Christianity, etc. - not the same things) in such a manner if they really care about being understood?

We could carry on and on discussing various reasons why Sellick should not have referred to atheists in what he wanted to say about various Christian concepts of God.

Instead, let me finish this exchange with an old joke:

A reporter is being led on an excursion through a lunatic asylum by its director. After having seen various patients they come to a locked door. The director explains: “This is the most dangerous patient - imagine, he thinks he is Napoleon when everybody knows that I am Napoleon.“

The case of a doctor infected by those he wants to cure. Aren‘t there also some Christians who while wanting to “cure” disrespectful and disdainful atheists become themselves infected with disrespect and disdain for their fellow humans? And aren‘t there also some atheists who while wanting to “cure” self-righteous, irrational Christians become themselves infected with self-righteousness and emotionally driven irrationality? In both cases according to the pattern “he thinks his is the only proper way of seeing reality when everybody should know that my way is the only proper one“.

You might like to reflect a little on this, Peter the Believer.

>>I will quote the late Lionel Murphy, High Court Justice, and noted atheist. Our legal system is based upon the premise that you cannot have inconsistency. Murphy was a great justice, and at his premature death at 62, specifically instructed his family not to harbor resentment towards those who had persecuted him. That was very Christian of him.<<

I may have misunderstood, so help me out here.

Murphy was an atheist.

Murphy performs a "very Christian" act.

Murphy's contention - that you appear to admire - was that "our legal system is based upon the premise that you cannot have inconsistency"

Now, to me that would indicate that there can be no inconsistency between Murphy's atheism, and the performance of what you would describe as a "very Christian" act. Which in turn leads me to conclude that such an act cannot, by definition, be solely attributed to Christianity, as you would have us believe.

A conclusion with which I would heartily agree. Christians do not have any form of monopoly on responsible behaviour, honesty, integrity, or consideration for others.

Except that you continue:

>>Every Atheist has a world view inconsistent with the Holy Bible<<

But surely, you have specifically and directly contradicted this in the previous paragraph?

You just demonstrated that at least one atheist has a "world view" that coincides with your instruction manual.

Or are you perhaps, rather perniciously, suggesting that Murphy had some form of deathbed conversion, in order to perform his "very Christian" act?

I'm afraid that you fall into the classic trap, that of arrogantly assuming that only your mob has the answers, and that - by definition - anyone who doesn't wear your team's badge must automatically be evil.

The news this morning reminded me why I am so comfortable in my atheism: the Catholic church has excommunicated the church of Saint Mary's in Brisbane, because it didn't abide by the 'rules', although it had a large and loving congregation, yet I have never heard of a paedophile priest being excommunicated and the Catholic and other churches do their best to protect these criminals and deny their victims justice.

"From Galileo onwards the (Christian) church has consistently fought against the findings by scientists and have only modified their positions when they became patently ridiculous." - Shadow Minister

And, before Galileo too. Since at least the fourth century CE, the Christian Church has tried act as a Rationer of Knowledge> Wherein, probably knowingly, promoting false propositions under the strongest contrary evidence. Thus, The Vatican waited until 1992, before recognising that the Sun was the centre of the Solar System (Most other people believed in the celestial mechanics which allowed the Moon Landing in 1969. No Crystal Spheres were broken!):

The reason why Vatican astronomers would not look down Galileo's telescope to view the true universe was, because the Christian Church held the Geocentric Universe and accompanying Crystal Spheres (Ptolemy) supported Christian anthropomorphic claims, regarding a natural Earth and a supernatural heaven (the universe). Denying the same threatened Christian posits.

Even today, many Christians would deny the Christian Churches true political motives (unification and continuance), for focusing of fourth century dogma (Nicaea), rather than first century histographies (what is known of the time): e.g., the relationship of the House of David with the Harodians and the Gentiles and, perhaps, the Gospel of St Thomas, which sees Jesus as human, rather than divine and, The Dead Sea Scrolls providing evidence of re-writes of Genesis.

Herein, we don't have ministers and priests saying in their sermons, "Hey the Church could be wrong! You know, what I said about Genesis, well on the basis of new discoveries… ".

Atheist and Agnostic scepticisms are built on revealed history and scientific discovery and sceptics’ recognition, that Christian religions feign infallibility, while retaining knowledge unto themselves and dodging historical and scientific bullets.

Dan S de Merengue,

To know a lot about this subject it is not necessary to be 'a lawyer or an ALP spokesperson'. A concern for factual evidence is the fundamental attribute required.

We agree that absolute free speech needs to be tempered by law. (It has been for yonks under defamation laws and the Crimes Act for example in regard to inciting violence.)

I can't help you get over your fixation with alleged ALP motives. That's a problem you have to resolve by reference to the evidence.

Laws that relate to complex social policy - treason, terrorism, defamation, human rights, vilification - are always by the very nature going to be controversial, pleasing some and disturbing others.

The fact that few cases have led to a conviction should not necessarily be interpreted as a 'failure'. To the contrary, it could indicate that the rabid zealots who previously preached hatred and incited violence have toned down their virulent malevolence and have taken a more reasonable approach to religous debate. The anti-vilification laws may have caused people to think more carefully about how they express their strongly-held beliefs and better appreciate what is 'over the top'.

Note: nothing in these laws prevents robust discussion of other religions. Nothing prevents a church member promoting their religion as the one true religion over all others. What is now unlawful is inciting hatred against another group because of their differing religious beliefs.

On the legal meaning of 'reasonable'. It's got nothing to do with the length of a piece of string. It's an age-old term - as in 'reasonable doubt' in criminal cases; 'taking reasonable care' in negligence cases; 'reasonable wear and tear' in tenancy law. It's a synonym for just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances.

In the particular context we are discussing the best way to look at it is to use the test of a 'reasonable person'. Let's be reasonable.

Dear Spikey
We don't have the same anti-vilification laws in Qld. that exist in Victoria. But could you enlighten me as to how anybody gets charged under these laws? Does the alleged offended party have to bring to the Board/Tribunal's attention the alleged vilification or can the Board/Tribunal initiate action themselves? Looking at some of the banners at a recent pro Hamas rally in Melbourne,I would think some of the participants indeed "incited hatred against another group because of their differing religious beliefs". I am of course assuming that Judaism is a religion.
Regards
Blair

Dear Blair

I am no expert on the Queensland law but a quick look at the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission's fact sheet suggests that the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, like laws in most other jurisdictions, is a complaints-based system.

The Queensland Act is also an omnibus law i.e. it covers many different forms of vilification and discrimination including religious (not a separate law). But the principles are much the same as in Victoria and elsewhere.

I notice in the Queensland site the same sort of statement of exception that is found in most other jurisdictions, namely:

"...free speech to be protected, so [the law] says that the following things are not vilification:
a fair report by TV, radio or newspaper of someone else's act of hatred (unless extra material has been added which is vilifying); discussions or debates about racial or religious issues, done "reasonably and in good faith"; material used in parliament, courts, tribunals or other government inquiries."

http://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/pubs/racialvil.html

I can't comment on the banners that you saw at a recent pro Hamas rally in Melbourne. I didn't see them. David BOAZ is sure to have an opinion (even if he didn't see the banners).

Regards
Elizabeth

Dear Otokonoko,

It sounds to me that you (in a not-so-direct way) are acknowledging that there is no objective evidence for the existence of a god. That was my main point. I don’t pretend to have any objective evidence that no god exists. It’s impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

But the comparison between the belief in extraterrestrials and the supernatural is fundamentally flawed because they're two entirely different things.

Gods are of a supernatural realm, and extraterrestrials would be of our own natural, physical realm. We don’t know that anything supernatural exists. There is nothing of an objective nature to suggest that it does. But we do know that our own physical realm exists because we’re here.

When we consider how immensely large the universe is, the probability that we are the only ones here would be quite small. So small in fact, that one could argue that the complete rejection of the possibility of extraterrestrial life is also irrational.

You are correct when you say that it’s reasonable for others to reject the ‘God is beyond our comprehension’ argument. It’s too easy and could be applied to anything.

Although I have to wonder what the point is in believing in something so far beyond our comprehension. How could one possibly know they had the right god?

I also agree that the concept of god (if a con) is a very well constructed con. And why wouldn’t it be? The followers of the Abrahamic religions have had hundreds of years to refine it. This goes back to one of my points earlier. That being that when our knowledge increases, we simply re-define who/what god is. It's all too easy, as is the selling of an invisible product when it appeals to emotions.

On a final note though, I’d just like to point out that I’m not trying to convince you that you’re irrational. On the contrary, it is because I find you to be a rational person that I am actually taking the time to put these points across to you for your consideration.

I wouldn’t bother otherwise.

george, mostly i think we're disagreeing on matters of decorum.

i do also think there is a distinction between some atheists' cartoon definitions of god/christianity/faith and sellick's implied definition of atheism. but, not enough to warrant getting into here.

In 1900, Protestant Christianity was the dominant philosophy of the Commonwealth. S 116 Constitution was inserted after negotiations with the Roman Catholic Archbishops, and it was passed. In those days it was not compulsory to be a member of the State Religion.

S 116 says: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance. Since 1976 it has violated that trust and the atheist religion has been compulsory because atheists have become the Priests of the State. Atheism is a religion based upon opposition to Christianity. The Federal and High Court, and the Family Court are all temples erected by the State to atheism. In those temples, you must worship the Judge, bow to him, scrape to him, suck up to him, and pay a very expensive member of the atheist religion, to argue your case, because he is a god in Court

Atheism was made compulsory in 1986, when without referendum the Parliament of the Commonwealth enacted the Australia Act 1986. The High Court became useless in 1984, after restrictions on access. In 1983 they made the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) useless by giving the Atheist priest, the Director of Public Prosecutions power to prevent a private prosecution under s 13 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) in the Magistrates Court. The law that says you can indict a Judge for failing to carry out his duties in a Constitutional manner are made useless because the Director of Public Prosecutions prevents them being accountable.

The Australia Act 1986 makes every Parliament a god you must worship. As gods, they are no longer accountable to the people represented by 12 electors, and have been doing some terrible things. As a god, they appoint pannican gods, to run State Courts. The first time one of these atheists ( they cannot be Christian) respects a wish to worship only Almighty God put to them by a Christian, the Australia Act 1986 will be gone. The Broad Church of the Liberal Party has made us be atheists whether we want to be or not

I find your logic fascinating, Peter the Believer. And fantastic.

Your first fantasy:

>>Atheism is a religion based upon opposition to Christianity<<

On the contrary, atheism has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Nor Islam. Nor Judaism. Perhaps you might like to swot up on your religious knowledge - Wikipedia, for all its faults, is a great place to start.

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

One useful phrase for you to mull over is "there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere"

This is a key concept - one that, incidentally, many Christians pick up on to accuse atheists of a "make it up as you go" attitude towards morality. You can choose to accept this or not, but if you reject it, it would be instructive if you were to describe exactly what "set of behaviours" is common to all atheists.

Unfortunately, this lack of consistency on the part of us atheists makes something of a mockery - not only of the "atheism is a religion" argument, but also of your claim that:

>>Atheism was made compulsory in 1986<<

If there is no common pattern of conduct between two, a thousand or a million atheists, what exactly has been made "compulsory" here?

And to further the mystery of your mental contortions, you tell us that:

>>The Broad Church of the Liberal Party has made us be atheists whether we want to be or not<<

The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that you yourself are actually an atheist, which, given the tenor of your many posts on the subject, I find somewhat difficult to believe.

To unravel your thought processes, let me reassure you that i) you are not required to be an atheist, although you may if you choose, ii) religion in general, and the practice of Christianity in particular, are both alive and well in Australia, and that iii) atheism, far from being a religion, is simply a lack of acceptance that there is a God. Any God. Yours, or anyone else's.

have a great day.

My dear atheists. Are you who you say you are!
From those of you posting here I would say yes!

Alas! Apparently most other atheists are not of your great profoundness.

Refer to extract from Sydney Morning Herald article 2/2/9 : extract below

My many atheist friends and others I meet in conversation reject the institutional church and find the new age pentecostals and old style bible as literal churches just stupid. Whilst they have expanded their knowledge of things of the world they have not exposed themselves to matters of faith with their "theology" still that learned in the days of a dying "counter reformation" church. I know a few who still indeed "practise" from the same basis.

So Peter has done well. He has highlighted the god who is both rejected by mainstream atheists ( non hard core) and "paid homage to" by so many believers ( including too many of the clergy - I am RC) who have not availed themselves of enlightened theology Peter expounds. The theology of God as Event, revealed across time through a people in history, made personal in a man and in glory as the Risen Lord. The stuff of faith, and understandably rejected as an insult to reason by those whose sole diet is the cold porridge of measured, evidence based reason.

I know no "dark" atheists. None that meet Peter's prescription of denial of displayed goodness. You are not a bad lot


--

Extract: http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2009/02/02/1233423135426.html

....Its most recent survey reveals that 80 per cent of Australians said they believed in "god", 85 per cent believed in the "soul" and just 5 per cent described themselves as "atheists".

..... In a recent interview for publicchristianity.org she cited research showing that people who describe themselves as "atheist" in surveys do not necessarily deny the existence of God. For a large number of them the tag "atheist" functioned as a protest against formal religion.
End of Extract

boxgum,

i'm honestly not sure what you're getting at with that post. your quotes seem no big concern for atheists, hard core (?) or otherwise.

the first quote, which you don't seem to take exception to, seems only to emphasise that there are many who in fact do practise and believe some type of cartoon christianity. (george, are you paying attention?)

i agree, sellick's "christianity" may well be non-cartoon. the problem with sellick's post isn't necessarily his beliefs. the problem is sellick's hijacking the term "atheist" for a foolish and failed rhetorical effect.

the deeper problem, which george has (too) gently pointed out, is that sellick needn't have written about atheists at all. it is a complete distraction from the main point: the nature of christianity, or (more controversially) of the christian god.

sellick has created a conversational swamp. the very least he should do is acknowledge it. but, somehow the humble bit of christianity ain't his strong suit.

as to your second quote, i'm not sure what point you're making. if it is that the clear majority of australians profess to (and presumably do) have some kind of religious belief, i wouldn't have thought that anyone would have said otherwise.

but, the nature and strength of religious belief can vary markedly. i'd suggest what lies behind that 80% is dramatically different from such an 80%, or more, a hundred years ago.

Peter the Believer,

Atheists don’t believe in “god”, because alternative explanations are more plausible. Science provides clear physical explanations, regarding matters religionists claim within the realm of their god, Christian or otherwise.

On the other hand, atheists don’t believe in “religion,” they do not believe in god, in the first place. And, by way of refinement, atheists don’t believe in “religion,” because forensic history underlines a multitude of identifiable fabrications by religions.
Peter, envisage a decision tree, with the first branch dividing on the question, “does god exist?” permanently and immutably ticked, “yes”. The propositions remain untested. All decisions are made with said box ticked.

Alternatively, atheists, in my experience, while brought-up in an environment, where the vastitudes of old religiosities remain strong, nonetheless, atheists (and agnostics) are more tentative, before making commitment, herein, deliberating on other possible explanations. Atheists understand the ramifications of the ticking the “no” god box, before setting the “yes” box aside. As noted, religionists are typically less willing to consider the opposing case. Religionists don’t understand the ramifications of the ticking the “yes” god box, before setting the “no” box aside.

Thus, the Field of Consideration is smaller for the religionist and the atheist. The latter has serious considered competing propositions,whereas, typically the formare has not.

Pericles and bushbasher, thankyou. I appreciate the clarity of your thoughts. Please note; this does not in any way indicate that I agree with you, -although I do- it is merely an appreciation.
Oliver, I think I probably agree with you. Clarity, however, is somewhat lacking.
this, I think, is the principal difference between Atheists, and theists.
I can appreciate a good, well reasoned argument. I'm not at all sure theists can.
As I have said in an article before, we are all prisoners of our preconceptions.
Sells was obviously indoctrinated from an early age, and is incapable of overcoming that indoctrination. He sincerely believes atheism is a rejection of only his God. He simply can't get his head around the concept of no God.
Not any.
None.
No spaghetti monster.
No Vishnu.
No allah.
no celestial teapot.
Just us.
People.

bushbasher,
you twice mentioned “cartoon Christianity” in connection with my name.

cartoon (“simple drawing showing the features of its subjects in a humorously exaggerated way”)

Well, I can make a drawing of you with, say, a long nose which you might or might not find funny, but I cannot offer a serious criticism of your looks based on the “fact“ that you have a long nose. Unfortunately, this is often being done here by those who start their criticism (or worse) from a caricature that they themselves drew.

george, i wasn't in any way implying that your beliefs amount to a cartoon christianity. my apologies if you got that impression.

my point is, cartoon christianity does exist and is anything but rare. it is a cheap shot to identify all christianity as cartoon, but it is no automatic straw man either. by comparison, sellick's "atheist" resembles absolutely no atheist i know.

i simply referred to you because you like to compare atheists' behaviour here with sellicks' and that of other christians. i don't dismiss the possibility or reasonableness of such comparison, but in this case i see a distinction.

of course, cartoonishness is no great concern. it's nastiness which is the issue. viz, the st. mary's business that candide pointed out: just smug authoritarianism from god-thug bathersby and his charming mate pell.

i see bathersby as a classic product of and defender of cartoon christianity. his letter to kennedy is laughable: the biggest laugh, him signing away with "sincerely in christ". but christ, it sure isn't funny. it's just revolting.

but george, perhaps bathersby and his catholic thuggery is not cartoon christianity? i don't really care. i'm happy for you to decide whether it's a cartoon version of your faith. what it undeniably is, is medieval and disgusting.

bushbasher,
My post was about those who themselves draw a cartoon version (distortion) of what they want to criticise - theism or atheism, Christianity or what you like - and then draw conclusions from it, usually referred to as the straw man argument. Not about particular Christians, Muslims or atheists who behave or act improperly.

You are referring to the affair with St. Mary's in Brisbane that I do not know the details of, neither am I familiar with the civil and/or canon law details that would apply. Neither can I extract any factual information about the case from what you wrote, although I note your emotional need to express yourself about the affair and its participants in the way you did.

So please excuse me if I do no want to start a new thread starting with this, among other reasons also because of lack of necessary expertise. It is related to the notion of Christianity as such (or even the theism-atheism controversy) only in the same sense that the proper or improper behavior of one particular Australian politician is related to the criticism or defense of the Australian political system.

The article quoted by boxgum was posted by a christian advocate.

If you read it it says that 20% claimed to have no religion, the other 80% who believed in "God" did not clarify this.

From other surveys, church attendance is below 6% and the 80% would probably not rule out the existence of a god, but few actually take any cogniscience of his existence and pay him as much attention as the president of Peru.

If a more detailed survey included who actually uses scripture to guide one's life, I think the numbers would be far fewer.

Spikey,
with regard to vilification laws enacted by Victoria’s Labor government,

You claim that nothing in these laws prevents robust discussion of other religions. So you claim. But I’ve already given a counter example. Would you like to comment on it?

Danny Naliah and Daniel Scott are educated, eloquent and respected members of the community. They were dragged through Victoria’s courts after offering their opinion on another religion.

When you speak of the rabid zealots who previously preached hatred having been tempered, I’m wondering who you are referring to. Who was this rabid preacher? Was it the result of a religious argument or a religious rally? I don't remember these people. If there were any that were inciting violence, then they could have been dealt with adequately by the Crimes Act, which you mention.

Speaking your mind openly is part of our heritage as Australians. I don’t see the need for politicians to tinker with that.

AdamD,
You wonder what is the point of believing in something far beyond our comprehension (3/2/09)?

Perhaps it is humility.

A Christian believes he knows who is behind the wonders of creation, a being whose capacities are beyond our finite comprehension. I interpret your question as meaning that you’ve nearly got it all figured out, or that anything that you don’t know about is not worth knowing.

You ask, can you know you’ve got the right God? Christians believe that God’s revelation of himself to mankind is adequate. Though not comprehensive, it is sufficient for all we need for a godly life.

You say that the inevitable deduction that life exists on other planets arises from rationalising probabilities. This assumes that a group of inorganic molecules has a capacity or likelihood for arranging themselves into life forms given time and natural processes. This is a big assumption.

But we dare not say too much along these lines without risking the wrath of Peter Sellick, who has tried valiantly to steer discussion away from the Cosmological argument.

100% of Australians today are practicing atheists. We must go the church when summonsed. That has not changed. In 1900 people had to as well. Until 1970, to be an Judge in New South Wales a Supreme Court Justice, needed consent. No one has had choice since, and if sought, the request to worship Jesus Christ by having a jury is refused. Is this so fantastic? In 1975, 1976 and 1979 it was extended to the Family Court, and other federal courts; Hard clear evidence for anyone to see for themselves.

Where does the Broad Church of the Liberal Party come from? The Manly Daily quoting Tony Abbott. Oh what a murderous church it is too. If we had an honest media, we would have every day, reports of seven suicides, and that includes Sundays. Add to that the murders brought about by temporary insanity, such as Darcey Freeman, claimed to be simply the tip of the iceberg.

Add in the hundreds of thousands deprived of their licence to drive a motor car, without any due process in the atheist sausage factories, the Magistrates Courts. Then add the 300,000 odd people at risk of losing their homes, because the atheists have removed their equity of redemption, a Christian concept developed to give lenders a fair go, when juries ruled. A mortgage could not be foreclosed in less than a year before the atheists started ruling, now the atheist Judges give possession in thirty days. Don’t talk just take is bank management.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 was enacted by the Liberals, and its administration is pure atheist. The federal sausage factories: the Federal Magistrate and Federal Court: strictly atheist, strict liability, no defences allowed. Dishonest, absolutely, Christian No. The division in the Labor Party between Catholics and Anglicans, allowed the Liberal Party Church to become all powerful.

We have a man leading Australia who professes Christianity, and demonstrates his faith weekly. There are signs that he is going to restore the Christian Commonwealth, and abolish the fractured nine church abomination, created by the atheists/lawyers in government in the last forty years

"Christians believe that God’s revelation of himself to mankind is adequate. Though not comprehensive, it is sufficient for all we need for a godly life." - Dan S de Merengue

Dan,

Can you please eleaborate? Surely, if you were born in Ancient Greece, you would be worshippong Zeus, given your perchant towards religiousity?

Have you tested the claims made by Christianity, against what anthropologists now tell us about the development of religions from the time of Sumer, later the Axial Age and later still, the development of Middle Eastern religions in the first and second centuries CE? My view is that Christian claims do not standout. The patterns found in Christianity are evident in other religions.

O.

It has to be said, Peter the Believer, that your arguments are becoming increasingly incoherent.

Their meaning is pretty much lost to me, I'm afraid, and I suspect I may not be alone.

>>100% of Australians today are practicing atheists. We must go the church when summonsed.<<

You appear to have an idiosyncratic - and totally obscure - concept of both the term "atheist" and "church".

>>if sought, the request to worship Jesus Christ by having a jury is refused.<<

You need a jury in order to worship? That's odd.

>>Hard clear evidence for anyone to see for themselves. <<

Nope. Passed me by completely, I'm afraid.

And that was just the first paragraph.

I am sure that you are trying to tell us something. Perhaps if you were to be a little less enigmatic in your statements, and a little more straightforward in describing your concerns, we could all take part in your discussion.

But random sound-bites such as this one simply confuse:

>>Add in the hundreds of thousands deprived of their licence to drive a motor car, without any due process in the atheist sausage factories, the Magistrates Courts. Then add the 300,000 odd people at risk of losing their homes, because the atheists have removed their equity of redemption, a Christian concept developed to give lenders a fair go, when juries ruled.<<

There may well be a valid and interesting observation inside those two sentences, which we could discuss and comment upon.

But as it stands, the logic is invisible, and the thought processes impenetrable.

Have a great day.

Dear Michael (Dan S de Merengue),

If some feel they need religion to be humble, then that’s their prerogative. Just as some feel they need religion to lead moral lives.

While Christians believe that a god is behind the creation of the universe, it remains a belief. They don’t know that.

As for my question though, I have no idea how you could possibly interpret it in such a way. I neither said, nor said implied either of those things. I simply asked what the point would be in believing in something that we’d never comprehend anyway. That which we do not know about is usually worth knowing, but what’s the point when you’ll never really know it?

If by “god’s revelation to mankind” you mean the Bible, then I can only refer back to what I’ve said previously in this thread about it. There is no reason to believe it is the inerrant word of a god. But there certainly are reasons to believe that it isn’t. Muslims could say the same as you have said, about the Qur’an.

But if one was to lead a godly life according to the Bible, then one could also justify doing some of the most horrendous things had it not been for secularism helping to drag the churches kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages, and allowing/enabling most modern Christians to cherry pick the good bits.

The assumption that chemicals could arrange themselves (and we know they can to a degree), is infinitesimally smaller than the assumption that a god started everything. Since there is no evidence of anything supernatural, the evidence for a natural explanation is infinitely greater.

There is simply no comparing the two assumptions.

Dan S de Merengue,

I maintain the claim that nothing in Victoria's laws prevents robust discussion of other religions. You claim to have given a counter example.

The Appeal against VCAT's initial judgement did not find that Nalliah (correct spelling) and Scott were not guilty. They required a new hearing of the allegations against them.

In doing so they commented that "the prohibition in s.8 is not a prohibition against saying things about the religious beliefs of persons which are offensive to those persons, or even against saying things about the religious beliefs of one group of persons which would cause another group of persons to despise those beliefs. It is against saying things about the religious beliefs and practices of persons which go so far as to incite other persons to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs."

You say: "Speaking your mind openly is part of our heritage as Australians. I don’t see the need for politicians to tinker with that." In that case should we abolish the Crimes Act and laws dealing with defamation along with the religious vilification law?

Nalliah and Scott were not "dragged through Victoria’s courts after offering their opinion on another religion". It was more than mere opinion.

The Catholic Church and the Uniting Church supported the Islamic Council's case against Nalliah and Scott, while the Pentecostal and evangelical organisations alleged that the law inhibited free speech.

Mr Nalliah himself -as candidate for the Family First Party - is on record as advocating the pulling down of 'Satan's strongholds' including brothels, gambling places, mosques and temples including Freemasons, Buddhist and Hindu temples (Lateline 11/10/2004). Tony Jones said: "Most Australians would consider that to be an incitement to religious violence. To which Family First Party Chairman, Peter Harris replied, "Oh, absolutely."

Mr Nalliah's views sounded pretty rabid and zealous to Tony Jones and Peter Harris - as they do to me. But not to you?

Not much freedom of religion or free speech there if you worship in a mosque or temple.

Oliver,
I entirely agree, the patterns 'found in Christianity are evident in other religions'. A more 'elevated' historical view perhaps provides deeper perspective. The world religions of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam may be compared in their common characteristic giving cause for a missionary drive. Certain characteristics of other world religions, such as the mother religions of Hinduism and of Judaism, have kept them from spreading to the same extent as the three religions, as mentioned. The failure of Christianity to spread to large empires or civilisations that existed to the east of Jerusalem, most notably, Persia, India, and China is interesting. Less familiar, however, and just as interesting were the successes in spreading Christianity to the Syrians, Arabians, and Central Asians. Numerous small kingdoms and tribes existed in these regions as opposed to the monolithic entities mentioned.

An important socio-cultural characteristic of the receiving societies of Christianity was a type of religious pluralism, where perceptions of rewards associated with religious identities were most important. It is perhaps noteworthy here, for those who primarily think of Islam as having close association with political-military power, is to recognize that Islam spread to many peoples without the aid of armies. Many Turks and especially Mongols accepted Islam when they, not the Arabs, were dominant. Also, Indonesia, the most populous Islamic nation today, received Islam primarily through traders.

Important to both Christianity and Islam, in relation to other religions, is that each religion has sought to be monopolistic when and where it could, whether this could be done through conversion or expulsion. The point here is that the monotheism of each religion made possible an ideology for religious monopoly and for the conversion of the followers of other religions. Arian Christianity, a version later largely rejected, was primarily responsible for the initial spread of Christianity to the European tribes. So, one could surmise, there seems little ground for Christians in the West to claim any superiority for their version(s) of Christianity over the small Christian communities that have developed in the East. Nevertheless, important distinctions between and amongst differing religions continue to be made.

Dear Spikey
"It is against saying things about the religious beliefs and practices of persons which go so far as to incite other persons to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs."
Are some of these photos examples of inciting people to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs?
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/01/21/pics-from-the-disgusting-hamas-rally-in-melbourne-last-
Regards
Blair

Christians claim their deity is loving, merciful, generous and omnipotent. They also claim there religion is a fount of much goodness, and that by living by it, they are better persons.

So how charitable, forgiving, merciful and generous are they really? Will one of them step up and pay for my root canal which the public health services denied me to save themselves money, probably to pay for a supernatural festival to disseminate religious propaganda.

Relda,

Thanks for your interesting post. I will reflect on your remarks and reply soon.

Pericles,

"100% of Australians today are practicing (sic.) atheists. We must go the church when summonsed." - Peter the Believer

This anomaly in thinking is called "flood of thought" and, this form of sentence is referred to as a "distractible" sentence. See how the subject wanders? Peter might have only limited control over this linguistic patterning.

We should be aware of his condition and accepting of him, even, when not agreeing with his views. Especially, me, as I cannot type and have dyslexia.

George,

I feel Dawkins is sometimes stretched in his understanding of several disciplines, he readilt cites. Dawkins' case might have been better put, were "The God Delusion" written as an anthology, using topic experts.

Among popular books, The Goldolocks Enigma by Paul Davies' (now working in the US),I feel presents some thoughtful discussion on god, intelligent design and existence.

Peter the Believer:

* For the government to force us into atheism, they would have to enact a law banning us from believing in any deity whatsoever. Can you please point me in the direction of the Act of Parliament that contains this ban?

* Furthermore, for the government to force us into atheism, they would have to enact a law preventing us from leaving Australia to follow our beliefs. I think the latest legislation you have mentioned was passed in 1986. I have left the country three times since then. What measures did they put in place to ensure that I did not secretly engage in religious practices? As I went to a papal audience on all three occasions, what consequence can I expect?

* Finally, in order to enforce this legislation, they would have to use some sort of thought police. What procedures do these thought police use, and what blocking tactics can I use so that I can hide my belief in God from them? You are obviously doing a good job of this.

And Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family:

* Have you considered private health cover? Or, failing that, have you considered paying for your root canal yourself? I don't see why I should pay for it with my taxes, especially when my taxes should not (as you have pointed out) pay for churches, private schools or events that are not necessarily all-inclusive. Speaking of such events, I take it you are against public funding for the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. I mean, I get nothing out of that.

Some may find this post puerile, but it has to be said. The arguments presented by both are unclear and, while they are clearly well thought-out, are wide open for rebuttal. I suspect an argument is what the posters want here.

I am sorry my thought processes pass over some peoples heads. When it really matters, when earth shattering events occur, we are now deprived of the rock of Christianity to turn to for justice. In 1970, the atheists really made their push in New South Wales, and abolished the common law, which was Christianity. They legislated for a new testament to be written by a committee of nine lawyers, mostly Judges, as the secular book of common prayer. Every other Court in Australia has done the same, completely destroying Commonwealth integrity.

The rock of Christianity was the jury. When way back in Isaiah, 9 verse 6, government was to be placed upon Jesus shoulders. The Jews read this prophesy to mean Jesus was to be King. Jesus Christ did not want to be a King, and when Almighty God handed all judgment over to him, in John 5 verses 22 and 23, Jesus Christ demurred, declared the only un-forgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost or Spirit. ( Luke 12 verses 10-12). The Clever English were the only ones to figure this out, and in 1297, so their King and Judges were nor sinners, they found in Matthew 18 verses 15-20, the template for a way to have justice without sin; the Magna Carta

I may be dumb or dyslectic, but the principles of Matthew 18 verses 15-20 appeal to me. The first idea is that you talk to your adversary, and try to reason with him. The second is that you take two witnesses so that you have concrete evidence he is not seeing things your way. The third is that you take him to church; the body of Christ, the government. This option was adopted by the British, and caused them to survive as monarchies and republics collapsed around them.

The body of Christ is the Trinity, Father/Priest/Justice, Jury ( two or three gathered together in my name) and justice came from the verdict of a jury sworn on a Bible. Abolish juries and you have atheism, the one unforgivable sin; No jury; no justice

Dear Peter,

Please note, I didn't claim you have dyslexia. I said I have dyslexia. However, I do think your sentence structure, with regard to its structure, represents a "flood of thoughts," including jumping subjects, which makes it hard for readers to follow.

The two cognitive anomalies are in no way related. The former represents an aberration in serialising coherent thought; whereas, the latter, represents incoherent (to others) patterning of thought.

Neither one has antthing to do with being "dumb", as you state.

The above said and now returning to topic:

Given Jesus was born under Herod the Great, the common dating of his birth is out about seven years. Assuming Jesus was a priestly descendent of the House of David, under the Herods, it is likely, Jesus would have been appointed to preach to the Gentiles.

Moreover,, Jesus would have been well positioned to, (a) claim dynastic title and (b) leverage his position amongst the Gentiles, to develop a counter sect, thus, making in-roads into the Roman population.

If so, he would have been opposed to mainstream Jewish Law, which saw Gentiles, as second class. And, by establishing a new monotheistic sect, Jesus would have been highly unpopular with the Roman society, wherein, institutions and the pagani were more tolerant of polytheism.

Jesus had a great plan, but at the wrong time. It took Constantine,to steal Jesus' ambitions, to set Christianity on its way. Albeit, Constantine's top-approach proved more power than Jesus' bottom-up approach.

Dear Blair

You ask me: "Are some of these photos examples of inciting people to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs?" And you attach
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/01/21/pics-from-the-disgusting-hamas-rally-in-melbourne-last-

Your site had 4 photos. Assuming you ask in good faith, I'll chance my arm with a personal opinion on each - BUT the law is complaints based, and until a complaint is made (and if unresolved through mediation) then tested legally, it's not my opinion that counts.

A particular problem in relating insults or worse about Israel and Jews is that it would always be difficult to say whether the statement is about international politics, culture, race or religion.

Picture 1: Probably not. It's a political comment presumably about historical events in WW2. It's not even clear to me which side is being attacked. I could read that at least two ways neither involving incitement.

Picture 2: Certainly not. There is no connection to incitement to hatred of any particular religion.

Picture 3: Doubtful. Poor taste but open to a wide range of interpretations (given the variety of meaning attaching to Jewishness).

Picture 4: As with 3. I find it extremely distasteful and personally confronting; but it seems like a strong comment on current events. I'm not sure I could sustain a case in this instance that this is incitement to hatred based on religion.

I'd be interested to know your opinion and that of others. I personally think it's good that we debate what we think is and is not incitement to violence and hatred on religious (or other) grounds. I can't assume that other reasonable people like you will agree on every example.

Regards

Spikey

Hi Spikey
I've just looked at the pictures and I'd agree with your assessment. Is context relevant? If it is, I'd say that expressing views by means of a public demonstration implies peaceful protest rather than a call to violent action.

Peter The Believer, I'm afraid I just don't follow the connection you make between the law, government etc and atheism. In fact, organised religion is given all sorts of privileges under our laws that are denied to the atheist, agnostic or unaligned spiritual members of society. Your right to swear an oath on the Bible has not been removed, nor is it diminished by my right to make an affirmation.

Inner Sydney Transexual, you make an interesting comment here:

"They also claim there religion is a fount of much goodness, and that by living by it, they are better persons."

I have to disagree here. The central message of Christ was that we're ALL bad by nature and need Christ to connect us with God. So the Christian view puts ALL people as inherently with a bad nature, whereas I'd argue that it's actually modern day secular humanism which puts humans first and has a more positive view of humans and their behaviour.

Despite this, it would seem that Christians are showing themselves to in fact be more compassionate citizens, if the research is anything to go by. Studies in both the states and Australia has consistently shown that Christians give twice as much to charity as the non-religious, that they're more likely to volunteer their time, and that they're more likely to be teachers, nurses and doctors (ie: The professions that are involved with helping others and generally poorly paid given the education and effort involved).

On the topic of the Sellick article, someone made an accurate comment earlier on. It was something like "This article shouldn't been named the compatibility of Christianity and atheism". I agree. I actually find it difficult to understand exactly what, if anything, Sellick actually does believe in.

Correction. That was meant to read as follows:

"This article should've been named the compatibility of Christianity and atheism".

The word I hate most to describe anyone is judgmental. Yet everyone of us makes judgments every day. The centerpiece of Christianity, is to be non judgmental. An atheist does not have that scriptural prohibition. Consequently, when the State sets out to be a Judge, by setting up a set of circumstances that if fulfilled, lead to a certain result, and raise an army to enforce that result, you have atheist government.

That was what the Communists did in Russia, Hitler did in Germany, and Rob Askin did in New South Wales, in return for $5,000 a week for himself and Norman Allen. Abe Saffron in 1970 bought the State. In 1976 he or someone just like him bought the Commonwealth. The system he bought is not Christian. A mirror has a bright and dark side, this is the dark side.

We have abandoned our Christian system of government, for a judgmental atheist one. In Christianity, ( not the Roman variety) everyone is equal before Almighty God. In Atheist society, Judges rule and no one is equal. In Christian society juries rule. If a person is equal before Almighty God then he or she should be able to avoid the Judge. Jesus hated them too, and refused to become one. He could have judged the woman caught in adultery but declined.

To this day, an application to the Supreme Court is called a prayer. Even when Almighty God told Jesus to be a Judge, he declined. Instead he offered the Christian alternative. The Trinity. Me and my Father, won’t judge you, but the Holy Spirit knows what is in your heart. I am gone but the Holy Spirit remains. The only way you will get a fair go, is if you pray to the Holy Ghost. Every other way is called blasphemy.

The judgmental sonsabitches Atheist wannabe gods, who were created by Rob Askin and Malcolm Fraser , have denied this fundamental Christian right to pray where Almighty God actually meets his people which is in a court. All Judges are atheists, because the tree is known by its fruit

Spikey,
Anyone familiar with the Bible, in particular Ephesians chapter 6, would know that it speaks of spiritual authorities in the heavenly realms dominating certain events to the detriment of those on earth. This passage advocates prayer and nothing more.

The “pulling down of Satan’s strongholds” is a well known exhortation to prayer in this manner. Many Christians would be happy to pray against the harmful effects of brothels and gambling places. They would also pray for all, of each and every faith, to have spiritual enlightenment to allow proper understanding of the Gospel.

Lateline’s Tony Jones might well understand all of this. Yet he must portray evangelical Christians in the worst possible light. It is part of his job description as an ABC employee.

I said that Nalliah and Scott ‘were dragged through Victoria’s courts after offering their opinion on another religion.’ If you want to disagree, could you clarify which part of this you disagree with? Even by what you say, they were indeed dragged through the courts. And they were giving their opinion on Islam. If you have any evidence that they incited hatred, then let’s hear it!

After several court appearances, I understand that finally no convictions were sustained. If Scott and Nalliah had gone to jail it would have really put egg on the face of the government. With Australia’s international agreements, how could we put citizens in jail for speaking their conscience?

Victoria’s vilification laws might have been a nice idea, but in practice these laws have failed us. We should have remained with the laws that have served us well for generations.

Adam,
Since you’ve iterated your statement, I’ll try and elaborate on why I don’t like it. ‘What is the point of believing in something that we could never comprehend?’

I’m suspecting that at the root of your question is that you think belief in God is a mere intellectual exercise divorced from hard reality. But I’ll assure you that for any devout believer, God is an everyday practicality. That he makes his presence felt is enough, even if we can’t understand the depths of all mysteries.

I like chess. If I ever had the opportunity to sit at a chess table with Gary Kasparov and have him explain his moves, I would take it. Yet after many months of listening, I would still only comprehend a small fraction of his chess knowledge. Yet it would still be worth it to me. Similarly, I’ll take whatever is on offer from God’s table.

As for you saying that the Bible is a rather ordinary book, I think that on the measure of book sales (every year since Gutenberg) and the number of available language translations alone, these mark the Bible as a rather extraordinary book.

Oliver,
If I was born in Ancient Greece, would I be a worshiper of Zeus? To such a hypothetical question, since I wasn’t born there, the only answer is, who knows? Yet I can say that, having sometimes lived in French speaking countries, I have been a worshiper of ‘Dieu’. I understand that linguistically, Dieu is somewhat a derivative of the word Zeus.

You claim that Christianity shares patterns found in other religions. Many times I’ve heard posters say this type of thing, often those who are arguing against theistic faith, but I don’t understand their point. If God is over all mankind and has revealed himself, at least in part, through his creation, is it not expected that all cultures and religions reflect this commonality?

Good People,

I have only just seen this rather flamboyant article by Peter Sellick. Peter is not prepared to read the criticisms of religion by recent authors because they are not speaking of the god he describes and believes in. If I am reading him correctly, his god is a mystery even to most of those who believe in it, so he says, and by extension, Atheists are merely in opposition to the god of populism and not the real god that only Peter and a few elites follow.

There is no evidence for Peter’s god anymore than there are evidences for the many populist gods that have and do exist. There is not even a pause for serious reflection on that point.

This article is one interpretation of what a god should be, not dissimilar to many other versions, which all, too varying degrees, leave out the bad parts from the source of belief. (Holy books)

Let me assure Peter that it is pure bunkum to say Atheists are not Atheists unless they reject a certain idealised description of a god. Atheists do not care if the alleged Jesus character, in combination with an alleged holy spirit and an alleged Yahweh, can be read about in ancient writing as being good, bad or indifferent. This is of mild alleged historical and philosophical interest only.

It is the consequences of that belief, which concern Atheists. It is the impost on young minds, by the known method of indoctrination, which concerns Atheists. It is the affect on politics of that child’s decisions as an adult, which is of concern. The argument that it is ethically sound to impose beliefs onto immature minds because it is the ‘truth’ rings the same for all religions. It is therefore, ethically unsound.

Religion would have some credibility if the determiner for supernatural beliefs systems were not geographical location, were consistent in interpretation, not propaganda dependent, had evidence universally accepted and such a belief caused no harm.

The article is an attempt to create an invisible target for Atheism. It failed dismally on all counts.

David

David of the atheist foundation.
Your insistence of evidence ignores the bible. The evidence therein contained is not evidence of the supernatural, although many writers used the supernatural to express theological truths, nor is it evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, although that is the way language has to run. Belief in God is not an intellectual guessing game, it relies on seeing the truth of the gospel and the way that truth transforms our lives. The evidence is the history of Israel and the life and death of Jesus. Again this must be qualified by the times in which the writing was done and their circumstances. But the only evidence, I say again, is how this person Jesus represents a humanity that overturns and renews the world.
Of all the statements to which I can object this one cries out: “Religion would have some credibility if the determiner for supernatural beliefs systems were not geographical location, were consistent in interpretation, not propaganda dependent, had evidence universally accepted and such a belief caused no harm.”
This represents a desire for a religion divorced from anything earthly, it is Platonism, mysticism, a desire for the universal idea shorn of anything as coarse as the life and death of a man. The church has been seduced by this since it began because it wanted faith to be rational and able to be received by any reasonable person.
However, when that has been tried we found that Christianity lost its grounding in the real, the earthly, in blood and sweat and tears and became pure ideology, a bit like that which abounds today that baptizes any seemingly good and fashionable idea. Christianity will always be the enemy of such spiritualizing. That is why it insists, against all reason, that Jesus rose from the dead, bodily and that he ascended into heaven, bodily. That is why Christian eat his body and drink his blood. I am amused at your writing for the atheist foundation yet you long for a religion that is purely spiritual.

Peter Sellick

David (continued)
Let us examine your proposal in a more detailed way. Firstly all religion is tarred with the same brush as being a supernatural belief system. Christianity is supernatural only in that it cannot be derived from our observations of our lives and the world. It cannot be reasoned into existence because it relies on an historical event. Israel set the scene, unique among the nations, for a purely natural understanding of the world free of spooks and ghosts. It did this in the first creation narrative that sees the things of the earth as themselves only and not as gods.

Your insistence that religion not geographically located is a denial of the real, strange for an atheist. All culture has a place and a time and particular men and women. How could that not be? It is true that Christianity is particularly scandalous in this in that it centres on the life and death of a man and a history of a nation. Anything else would be ideology or wishful thinking.

Consistency in interpretation is another impossibilty. All scientific theories have multiple interpretations why should not all theologies? However, as all scientific theories are anchored in the reproducibility of observations and postulate causes and effects, so theology has its dogma or foundation. The foundation for Christian theology is not the existence of a supernatural being but the doctrine of the Trinity, as we have seen a far more difficult concept. Multiple interpretations are inevitable.

When atheists talk about science they talk about education when they talk about religion they call education propaganda.

There is not such thing as universal acceptance of anything.

And finally you insist that such belief causes no harm. The gospel recognises that belief will divide people bound in the closest ties of family and nation. That cannot be helped. Some will come to faith and others will not and we do not have an explanation as to why this is so, it is the realm of the Holy Spirit. But harm will come when the truth will out.
Peter Sellick

Dan S de Merengue,

I have obviously wasted my time on giving you the facts - and you have certainly wasted mine. You are not a seeker after truth. Your mind is locked tight to facts that don't support your predetermined position.

Ephesians chapter 6 obviously answers all your needs. Go read brother and may all the false gods in your head be torn down by prayer.

Sells,

Let me state unequivocally I have no desire for any religion to be true or not. There just happens to be no way of ascertaining if one or more of the thousands is/are correct. If one or more were true, I would accept it on evidence. Most religious people think that such evidence exists, as do you in your reliance on scripture.

That so called ‘evidence’, is not reliable. It fails the historical accuracy test of independent cross reference support. Because some of the ideas written a long time ago tie up with contemporary thought does not make them the words of a god. Human desire for happiness has been the same throughout history. Before science started explaining the world, such thoughts were attributed to gods. We now know better.

Even if we put aside the sexism, homophobia, belief disease is demonic, a reliance on the Old Testament fables, which are included in the NT and presumably acceptable to the alleged Jesus, if he existed (Which is highly doubtful) his words do not make him anymore than a person expressing common desires which have been in humanity since the year dot. These alleged words do not make the alleged Jesus a god.

What makes you think that Atheists cannot evaluate the same ‘evidence’ you claim that exists, and reach a different conclusion to religionists. Atheists tend not to discount the immensity of suffering unfairly distributed in humanity and other sentient animals. Atheists are not satisfied that a god’s creation can be explained away by a god working in mysterious ways.

It would be reasonable of you to respond to other points I have made, for instance the indoctrination of the malleable minds of children making the adult. The books you have failed to read are about these things and more. I suggest you read them.

It is understandable that the panic experienced by those of faith caused by overt Atheism has caused a reaction against it. Atheism expects this, is somewhat regretful and most wish there was another way. The unjustified self-protectionism of religion is at fault.

David

David the Atheist
Peter's position is not one of elitism. Name me a prophet who is of the elite. They normally do it tough. What Peter is proclaiming is based on sound exegesis and theology upon which thousands of volumes have been written over the last half century. Indeed I find commonality in it with writings of Pope Benedict XVI on the core stuff of faith.
Can I suggest we have a common cause to take on the god of gaps and magic and out there spooky supernatural?
Even if you half agree here is a proposition. Your website's definition of Atheism: Is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific.....

As such, I assume the Atheist society remains open that a scientific finding one day into the future may provide such evidence. Yet while waiting it may miss, or fail to evaluate, the millennia of praxis that prefaces such a moment. Praxis that may see earthly fulfillment and completion, or earthly oblivion. It is coming down to our human choice : human flourishing v earthly decadence - a common task for atheists and the faithful.

So whilst waiting, perhaps your Foundation's objects should include the evidence based analysis of the various faiths, and their various major and minor threads, and benchmark them, removed from prejudice, for the information of all mankind according to their story, origins, ritual, historical path, social good, propensity for evil, teleological and prophetic value for society. It is good to know your enemy.

I notice also on your web site you direct recommended reading material towards children. They, like children at church, are influenced by their parents more than any other external entity. What is the ethical difference between putting a Bible into the hands of a child and placing before a child a copy of An Athiest Manifesto? None, as ethics has no play in this. Both sets of parents have intent to provide a basis for life from which the children make up their own mind.

Dear Spikey
Sorry for not replying earlier. For some reason I overlooked pressing the appropriate button that tells you that comments have been posted.
1.I would have thought "Jewed to Death" may "incite people to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs"
2. No problem
But 3 and 4? I leave that to other contributors. I would have thought the Star of David superimposed on a pig may "incite people to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs".
But I suspect the racial vilification legislation has not prevented these demonstrations of anti-Semitism. But others may disagree.
Regards
Blair.

<<Your insistence of evidence ignores the bible. >>

evidence of what?

<< The evidence therein contained is not evidence of the supernatural, >>

yes, so if it ISN'T of the supernatural, what IS it evidence of?

<<although many writers used the supernatural to express theological truths,>>

how, did they "use the supernatural"? why?

<<nor is it evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, although that is the way language has to run. >>

why does the language HAVE to run that way?

sellick, i for one may now know what you don't believe. but, i haven't a goddam clue what you do believe, nor how the bible is "evidence" for your beliefs.

maybe you're just carelessly picking up someone else's language. but it seems to me that as soon as you talk of evidence, you're playing a losing game.

You claim that Christianity shares patterns found in other religions. Many times I’ve heard posters say this type of thing, often those who are arguing against theistic faith, but I don’t understand their point.” - Dan S de Merengue

Dan,

The point is , evidence supports religion being a societal construct, rather than the revelation of a deity. Take the trinity, for example...

In the Christian thread of religiosity, the term “trinity” was not adopted until the second century (Tertullian), not received as potential doctrine until 325CE (Nicaea) and did not become Creed until 381 CE ( Council of Constantinople). Jesus isn’t even in the loop.For Christianity, the concept of a trinity developed by theologians much later than Jesus' generation.

Neither, the Old Testament nor the New Testament designates a trinity...

James 28:19, does refer to, “baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”: But this claim is, far from being Trinitarian; especially, given Yahweh is so emphatic about there being only one god – A position accepted by the mother faith, Judaism: e.g., “Listen, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one (Deuteronomy 6.4-9)”. [i.e., The one God of (henotheistic) Israel, not the god of the Hittites and Assyrians.]

The "peak body" of the OT is the Council of El. Yahweh is said to interact with other gods, whom "independently" still exist (Exodus 20 1-3), "Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips” (Exodus 23:13), “And I will surely hide my face in that day because of all the evil that they have done, because they have turned to other gods” [Deuteronomy 31:20] and, "Yaweh has taken his place in the divine council in the midst of the gods…" (Palms 82.1)

The NT does not have an unambiguous Godhead. Jesus does not claim to be divine, consistent with the more plausible explanation - he was a Davidic priest-king claimant. (continued)

When the idea of a Christian godhead emerged (second century to fourth centuries CE) in harmony with theistic traditions -as known to Anthropology- the concept of a trinity appears to haven been borrowed. In no way was/is a trinity unique to Christianity, as, both the Egyptians and the Babylonians employed godheads long, long beforehand.

Occam’s razor… What is more likely?

That: God, creator of the universe, necessarily copied the practices of more deeply ancient societies and didn’t come-up with an original idea, and, subsequently, didn’t reveal the aforementioned godhead in the OT or NT… Yet, between two hundred years and four hundred years later, without any valid scriptural support, the early Christian Church suddenly rightfully (sic.) cottons-on to the godhead’s existence, where god is copying from the godhead architecture of “false” religions.

Or,

That: Godheads are a common pattern (contrivances) known to ancient religions. Theologians, in fashioning a new religion and extending Judaism to the Roman people, borrowed the godhead architecture from other (false) religions.

p.s. The Three-in-One notion, involving ousia, is of Hellenistic parentage. Again, ousia is apparently borrowed generations, after Jesus and his followers’ gospels.

Sells , Relda and David,

“Christianity is supernatural only in that it cannot be derived from our observations of our lives and the world. It cannot be reasoned into existence because it relies on an historical event.” - Sells.
The development of Christianity is a historical event, formulated in the fourth century. The event was not supernatural: It was politics, and involved a transformation, which contorted first century events into fourth century imperatives.

Jesus needs to be seen in context of his Davidic relationships with the Herodians. Constantine had the agendum of keeping Roman together. These events stand alone, without the need to appeal to the supernatural. Besides, the supernatural is shared by religions, essentially by defining religions, plural, not just only Christianity. Herein, the supernatural “was reasoned into existence” (more accurately subsistence) by artful humans.

Sells,

Had Jesus not been born, the idea of the supernatural would still have been devised, by Man, within history, many times as today,minus one.

Cheers,

O.

Dear Michael,

I’d be worried if you couldn’t comprehend every move Gary Kasparov was explaining to you. I think you’re confusing comprehension with memory.

If you believe that you can comprehend a god at least a little bit, then that’s fine by me. After all, the excuse that god is beyond our comprehension is really only applied when an explanation is required to avoid the more logical conclusion that god doesn’t exist. The apparent non-existence of any god is too easily explained away by believers.

When the Bible contradicts itself, or something in it can’t be rationally explained, then god is too far beyond our comprehension.

If we receive something we prayed for, it was because we prayed for it. If we don’t, then it wasn’t god’s will.

If something unexplainable or tragic happens, then god works in mysterious ways.

If god doesn’t make his existence obvious, then he’s excused because he’s god and shouldn’t have to.

It’s excuse, after excuse, after excuse.

I stopped believing because I grew tired of making the excuses and came to the more rational conclusion that god simply doesn’t exist. But some have too many vested emotions to allow themselves to come to this conclusion.

In regards to the Bible though, I don’t think you’ve presented a very good case against what I’ve said about it. “Ordinary” would be a generous description considering it’s suppose to be the word of a god.

The Bible’s prolific sales mean nothing when we’re talking about a belief system that feeds off insecurities and emotions. Not to mention the many who are indoctrinated before they’re old enough to make their own informed decision.

Again, there is no reason to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of a god, but there are many reasons to believe that it isn’t. If the Bible is the word of god, then he/she/it is an irrational, unjust, morally inferior being, who commands in a ‘Do as I Say, Not as I Do’ manner and can never seem to get anything right.

A being who, as a god, is a complete failure.

Sells,

Your comment

"Consistency in interpretation is another impossibilty. All scientific theories have multiple interpretations why should not all theologies? However, as all scientific theories are anchored in the reproducibility of observations and postulate causes and effects, so theology has its dogma or foundation"

Shows your fundemental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. A theory is in essence an interpretation of the available evidence to determine cause, effect etc.

When the evidence is scanty, there will be several theories which can all fit the existing evidence. However, as more evidence is collected, the existing theories that cannot incorporate the new evidence are shown to be false and are rejected. This sometimes means scrapping all existing theories and starting again.

As the body of evidence grows there will tend to remain only one viable theory or a couple of theories that diverge only slightly.

Dogma on the other hand is entirely fabricated, and as such when used as a foundation upon which theologies are derived, often come up with ludicrous results, such as the prohibition on the use of condoms by the Catholic church in the areas where HIV is rampant.

Fundementalists that take the bible as the word of god and as such indisputable fact cannot even see the inconsistencies between the gospels and even more with historical fact. Belief in the "truth" of the gospels requires the suspension of reason.

Because religion is founded on dogma, it cannot change with the world, and as such has passed from providing a unified superstition that aided in bringing people together, to a toxic blight on humanity that has lately brought us:
911,
The taliban,
Sectarian violence in Iraq, Northern Ireland etc.

Theology and science cannot be compared, as one relies on unquestioning belief and unchanging dogma, and the other on questioning scepticism and constant change.

The choice people face is the cotton wool comfort of belief or the harsh light of reason. With education more and more are emerging from the dark ages blinking into the light.

The need for law is almost a psychological illness in Atheists, because without law they have nothing. The law they worship as a god, is then inflicted mercilessly upon an unsuspecting, divided and long suffering population by their paid thugs, Magistrates and Judges. This is pure anathema to the way of Christianity.

The ten commandments were sent down from Mt Sinai, to meet a demand from the Jews for law. The day that law was delivered three thousand men were killed for not accepting it. ( Exodus 32) However as atheists it must be their law, whatever that is, not the law of the New Testament which in reality returns the law to its status before Exodus 32. This is what the Muslims did, when the Q’uran was written. Write a new Rule Book in the style of Moses. It is no wonder the Jews and Muslims dislike each other. They are competitors for the supremacy of law.

In its totality, the New Testament is anti law. It set up a system where silly laws, promulgated by Atheist control freaks, who would be gods themselves, can be scrapped cheaply and quickly. The Roman Catholic Religion, when it teaches blind obedience to law, is letting down the side. That may be why it is so damaging to some, and drives many to atheism ( insanity).

Protestant Christianity, teaches the Bible, as written. The Bible is a runaway best seller. But it is a complex book, containing many ideas, but the central one is we do not need law. We need justice. Justice and law are incompatible. If you have law you will not have justice. If you have justice you will not have law. So Atheism and Christianity are diabolically opposed.

The absolute central basis of Christianity is a jury trial; where any law or ruling that does not deliver justice, can be set aside. When a Justice and a Jury combine, the power and the glory of the Trinitarian God, is set in motion. When a Judge sits without a jury, he is an atheist; Without either God, or glory

The other best seller in Australia should be the Constitution. If you are in a football club and you don’t obey the rules, the Constitution you are expelled. This document deserves more respect. It so terrifies atheists that they got their advocates, lawyers all, to make it unenforceable. The House of Atheists in New South Wales repealed the common law in 1970, because the common law demands all statutes to be called into question and tried at law. Atheists cannot stand that accountability.

The Constitution, a pure and honest law, can stand any test. This is not so for many of the sixty thousand or so rattled out by nine Parliaments in Australia. Christianity gave us the gift of a threshing floor, where the chaff can be sifted from the grain. That threshing floor is a court without a Capital letter. Chapter III Constitution guarantees that congregation. Lawyers in Parliament deny us that basic human right. This forum, is a substitute for a jury trial, for you are all members of a big jury.

It frightens atheists that they will have to answer to Almighty God for their sins. They have abolished juries. Seven atheists who sat on the High Court abolished Christianity in 2004 with the High Court Rules 2004 when they took the Queen off all process, in open defiance of Parliament. The Parliament of the Commonwealth is still Christian. The seven Capital J Judges, who wrote the Premier Rule Book in Australia should be indicted for insubordination and sacked.

In a court without a capital C, ( without being rude, a Capital J Judge sits in a capital C Court), there must be a Justice, a jury of twelve, and two protagonists. This is uniquely Christian. The word judges, is in S 79 Constitution. I have never seen a Judge with two heads, plural, even in Tasmania. The word judges means judges of fact, and a jury has the power to find as fact, if any law is indeed made for the peace order and good government of the Football Club. Two heads are better than one.

boxgum,

If religions want to impose themselves on society, then they must prove their claims to be true. It is not up to Atheists to disprove the thousands of religions.

Should humanity assume that one day we might encounter extraterrestrial intelligence or that fairies actually exist and indoctrinate children with the appropriate belief system just in case?

No Atheist I know wishes to indoctrinate children with any ideology. We are suggesting, and strongly so, that a wide version of history be taught to children, how belief depends on location, historical relevancies of the many faiths, how many religions there are, that great harm can result if allowed into politics and that there is no evidence for anything supernatural.

Why is that not reasonable?

Indoctrinating children with false hopes and fears does not only produce bad results in the Hindu religion, the Muslim religion or the Aztec religion, it does likewise in Christianity. It is common to them all.

Most Atheists stand by the incontrovertible idea that particular religious induction with the accompanying threat of a hell or the promise of a heaven is child abuse. Most Atheists acknowledge that acceptance of a particular religion by children is a by-product of evolution where messages in infancy are readily retained as a survival mechanism. These adult authorised messages do not have to be correct for acceptance by children. By examining other religions, it is obvious that the ensuing adult retains these messages as an inherent part of character.

Denial of the effectiveness of (Ones own) cultural programming is a serious problem with all religions. Not denying this makes one complicit in fraudulent behaviour or at the very least, guilty of delusional religious chauvinism.

Don’t get me wrong, DRC, if practiced in private between consenting adults wouldn’t cause too many problems. Atheists might still consider this strange but would be supportive of such an arrangement

Peter the Believer,

You are showing signs of paranoid behaviour. What unjust laws are Atheists attempting to force onto the public? Atheists frightened of your non-existent invisible friend? What utter piffle!

David

If something exists it exists. If something does not exist then it does not. No amount of 'logic' or debate is going to talk God into, or out of existence.
The Descartes type ontological argument that I can conceive God therefore God exists also applies to Martians, who some might say have a higher probability of existing than God.
The reverse is also true. Does God exist? None of us know.
This debate about Christianity and Atheism completely missies the third position. Agnostic.
Supernatural only means that we cannot yet explain something in natural terms we understand at this time. What would have been made of a Boeing 737 four hundred years ago?
I have studied Jesus for many years. Jesus, not Christianity. Free of the Christian envelope Jesus becomes a fascinating character and philosopher, even if, as some claim, he was fictional character.
Basic story. Jesus is born heir to the Davidic throne, and the Pharisees contrive to make him the Messiah as well. The purpose is to overthrow the Romans. Jesus and John where educated by the Pharisees to fulfil the need for a leader the people would believe in to lead the uprising.
The uprising was supposed to start to the baptism of Jesus, but instead Jesus and John instead turn against the Pharisees and declare there own agenda. From that point Jesus became the enemy of the Pharisees and had to be destroyed.
Back to the original topic.
Does God exist? We do not know. The only evidence is that we cannot prove God does not exist.
Is God a construct? We do not know. The only evidence for deigning the existence of God is that we cannot prove God does exist.
The only reasonable position is to be Agnostic.
If only I could convert you all to the one true faith of not knowing we could get on with solving real issues.
Shadow minister. Correctly if it is just an idea it is an hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that works. This probably means little to your arguement because you meaning is clear.

This thread is facinating has certainly got out there.

In August 2008 the City of Florence officially lifted the death sentence on Dante for writing his three poety books on the Inferno, Paradisio and Purgatorio, 665 years after his death. I particularly liked his description of what happens to "Popes" when the go to lower hell.

Was Dante an atheist Peter?

Dear Daviy,

I don’t think there are many Atheists out there who believe with absolute certainty that a god definitely does not exist. To speak in terms of absolute certainty is unhelpful and useless. Technically, most Atheists are Agnostic because none of us can really know for sure. But we can - through logical deduction - know with a high degree of certainty that a god (as described by religions) does not exist.

I also don’t believe that any thinking Agnostic seriously entertains the idea that any of the religions around the world might actually be right (or even close). From what I’ve observed, people who describe themselves as “Agnostic” are either slowly coming to their senses after being indoctrinated as a child; are indifferent about the topic of ‘religion’ and have never really thought about it deeply enough to say what they believe; or have a very broad definition of "god".

But if an Agnostic really has given it a lot of serious thought, and still considers it possible that one of the world’s religions may actually be right, then I would have to disagree with you that Agnosticism is the most reasonable position to take in that particular instance. Athough I don't think there would be many (if any at all) who fit this description.

It all depends on what you class as ‘Atheist’ and ‘Agnostic’.

Spikey,
I’m sorry that you feel you’ve waisted your time by discussing an issue with someone who disagrees with you. However, that is what forms the core of this Forum page and this website in general.

I hope you aren’t confusing ‘facts’ with opinions. In my opinion, those who claim that they deal with ‘facts’ while others don’t need to make a check on which website they’ve clicked onto. This one is called ‘Online opinion .com’.

If your ‘facts’ were so clear and straight forward, then they should add up to a conviction of wrongdoing for Scott and Nalliah. This fact is missing from your equation.

Adam,
The movement of individual chess pieces is not difficult to understand or follow. Most eight-year-olds can learn piece movements fairly quickly. However, the sport of chess is about developing strategy at the very deepest level. The near infinity of possible moves in any decent length game means that it is impossible that someone can become good at chess simply through memorisation. Champions require years of learning and developing their skills of tactics and strategy, as well as being blessed with a mind capable of seeing quicker and further than their opponents.

I’m sorry if my analogy fell a bit short.

AdamM
A lot of judgment in this post. My parents where 'born again' atheists. No baggage about religion to overcome.
Are you talking God or religion? I consider the possibility of any of the worlds religions being correct pretty much zero, but what has this to with God? Are you Atheist or anti-religion? If you are anti-religion I am with you on that one.
Logic is a very miss-understood word. Logic is the justification of a pre-determined prejudice. Used correct it is very useful.
An engineer designing the structure of a building uses logic. The pre-determine prejudice is that the engineer wants the building to stand up. The engineer starts with the macro. What the building will weight, the bearing pressure of the ground, the wind loads on the finished building and so on.
From there on he works backwards to where he must start from in order to build a building that will stand up. The start is a set of plans to give to the builder who then works forwards to a building that stands up.
That is what logic is all about. Work backwards from where you want to end up to find out where you must start from.
Logical deduction is a backward process not a forward one. So you have worked back from where you want to end up to find out where you must start from to prove your point. If you wanted to prove something else use logic to find where you must start from to prove that. This way you can prove anything, but it would be a total miss-use of logic.
Basically I see your post as being a mixture of judgement and switching between religion and God. 'But if an Agnostic really ….. etc. That one sentence is a mixture of judgment and confusing the Agnostic position as having anything to with religion.
What makes it more confusing is that you put in (as described by religion) so it seems that you do possibly understand the difference between God (if or not it exists) and religion

Oliver, thanks for answering my question.

You finish by presenting us with two options regarding the trinity. These options are elaborate, and I hardly think that they could be the only possible explanations available. There are elements within both that I disagree with. In particular, I would disagree that the idea that the trinity is not revealed in the OT and NT. Without a doubt, the word ‘trinity’ is not present, but many theologians have demonstrated the concept in many parts of the Bible, starting from page one and continuing through.

However, your wider point, if I understand it, is that religion is a social construct, and did not originate from divine revelation. Yet here I think you have misunderstood the nature of revelation. It is not a scroll that fell from heaven. This is one occasion where I think I can understand and appreciate one of Sells' points.

God has continually made himself known within the midst of people, whether through the prophets, through our consciences, the nation of Israel, the church and especially through the person of Christ. That there is a human element, and that humans are usually far from perfect, is a given. Consequently, that religion is integrally entwined with human or societal constructs is not an argument against Christianity.

In fact, that is the mystery of the incarnation for Christians; who was this man Jesus? How can God take on skin and bone and become a man? The trinity is a frail, human attempt to try and make sense of that event

AdamD and Daviy,

An Atheist is a person who disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This is different from having a certainty that there is no god. In fact certainty without absolute proof would almost be a belief system akin to a religion itself. If this were the definition of an athiest, it would be a contradiction in terms.

Thus many people that classify themselves as agnostics are in fact athiest, who shy away from assuming the label that has been vilified for centuries.

19% of the population claim to have no religion (this would probably be higher if this was not also a cultural question, I know my wife happily ticked the anglican box for us, as our families are from that background, in spite that neither of us actually believe in a god) yet only 5% claim to be athiest.

This shows that while church attendance has dropped to record levels of about 6%, the vast majority for whom religion plays no part what so ever in their lives prefer to use the softer more acceptable term "agnostic" rather than coming out of the closet and admitting they have no actual belief in the supernatural.

If you asked the question "do you believe that there is a god who answers your prayers and who has a direct influence in your personal life" The numbers who don't believe would be much higher.

Dear Michael,

Thanks for the clarification.

Dear Daviy,

I don’t think there’s very much we disagree on.

Perhaps I was a bit loose with my use of the word “logic”. I’ll re-phrase by saying that since there is not the slightest bit of evidence for a personal god - zip, zilch, nada, nothing - one can reasonably conclude with a high level of certainty that no personal god exists.

When I was talking about Agnosticism in regards to any of the world’s religions being right, I probably should have actually specified an Agnosticism about the existence of the kind of intervening god that Democritus mentioned in the last paragraph of his/her post. Please note though, that I doubted anyone would actually fit that description.

I’ll take your criticisms on board, but I’m willing to risk being judgemental if it means stating it how it is. Religion has done a lot more harm than good in this world and I don’t think pussy-footing around will get us anywhere.

Dear Democritius,

Spot on!

I would consider most Agnostics Atheists, possibly even Daviy.

There’s a lot of confusion as to what an Atheist is. I remember speaking to a friend of mine who said: “I don’t believe in god, but I’m not an Atheist”. When I asked him what he meant by “not an Atheist”, he said: “Well, I don’t HATE religious people. I just don’t believe in god.”

He thought he was Agnostic because he didn’t hate religious people.

Given that Sells so frequently makes weird observations, I'm not entirely sure why this one stands out for me. But it does.

>>The foundation for Christian theology is not the existence of a supernatural being but the doctrine of the Trinity<<

I guess this must be the part about Christianity that has so far eluded me.

It's not about God at all. According to Sells, anyway, the foundation of his religion is not the existence of God, but about doctrine. About dogma. About theological arguments, that seem to have moved on from pondering those angels dancing on a pinhead, and into university libraries.

Sells, I do believe that you are doing more to destroy faith in your religion than any number of atheists could possibly achieve, even if they were of a mind to.

>>the bible... is not evidence of the supernatural... nor is it evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, although that is the way language has to run<<

I suspect that would come as a bit of a surprise to many. As I recall, it involves itself in the supernatural from the very first chapter, and doesn't seem to let up all the way through.

Although it is a long time since I read it, so my memory may be faulty.

Religion is about emotional responses to the unknown and unknowable. Trying to "ground" it in non-supernatural terms, i.e. without admitting that there is a God behind all the goings-on, would seem to me a most destructive and thoughtless act.

But I might be missing a subtlety here. Wouldn't be the first time.

I think the greatest failing of Christians in Australia is their failure to teach their children, in some cases that Christianity is not just for the hereafter but for today. Atheists don’t have a hereafter, and unlike Christians don’t have a guiding light, to show them how to interact with their fellow man to mutual advantage. The Holy Bible is that guiding philosophy.

It takes a special type of person to be an atheist. He or she must be extremely selfish. He or she must have no compassion and not care in any way whatsoever how he or she is governed, so long as he or she can obey the rules. And what set of rules? The set of rules not hammered out over 2000 years, but those made by the Johnnys come lately who gather as elected representatives in a congregation in Canberra and each Capital city.

The Holy Bible is a Statute adopted by the English Government as binding in 1688. The word Royal means God. The Gospels are central to the Constitution of Australia. The Holy Bible warns everyone against lawyers, and lawyers are essentially atheists. In 2000 years not one spot on their hide has changed. Everything they touch turns to dust.

Atheists have no touchstone. Atheists have no benchmark to measure good from evil against. Each sets his own mark and that is essentially selfish. An atheist never goes to church, or feels the fellowship of his fellow Christians in the presence of Almighty God. They still fear god, so have killed him by abolishing his courts. We have all been compulsory atheists since 1970 in New South Wales. Atheists believe do good get good, do bad get beaten. The place where the beatings occur are the Courts of the atheists. Before 1969, the Magna Carta vested all punishment in Almighty God and a jury set the penalty. The atheists in the Parliament of New South Wales abolished Christianity in 1900.

The seminaries for atheists are the law schools. Atheists are essentially rebels, who fear god, but fear accountability even more. Atheists have abolished accountability

Democritus
This is a quote from Thomas Huxley who invented the word 'Agnostic'

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

Thomas Huxley. Collected Essays

And this from Bertram Russel

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Bertram Russel, What Is An Agnostic?

Agnostic does not mean closet atheist. That position is a grave insult.
One thing that I am certain of is that old farts in drag performing black magic rites, or any other 'ceremony', has nothing to do with God (If God exists).
In an earlier comment I said that I do not (usually) have a problem with atheists because, unlike the Christians, they not try to convert me and save my soul. It could be that they are of a peaceful nature or that we have a common bond against the aberration of religion, but it is not because we are the same.

Sells,

I wonder if you are aware that, you walk with generic atheism with one leg and Christianity with the other. You see these systems, as opposites, when these systems are not. Atheism is in opposition to Theism. Christianity is merely one religious element of Theism, having many religions. In post, you did not compare buildings-with-buildings: Instead, you compare buildings-with-doors. Theism and Christianity are not synonyms.

To accept, Jesus as God and the trinity unique, the correct process is to,first establish the existence of God and ensure there are no other trinities, out there...

Thus, one can only say Alexander was a Macedonian after, one has shown were/are Macedonians. Likewise, one can only assert Jesus is God, if there is a God, and, first having explained what God is, and, having qualified God. The same standard applies to the Christian trinity.

Before, referring to limited resources of the OT and NT, Nicaea and Constantinople, one should first examine alternative posits. In so doing, a rich vista of religiosities are revealed to the researcher. One sees gods as many as stars in the sky.

There trinities a plenty too. Leading rather than being led along the path of discovery, shows that there many religions and several trinities.

Viewed from the anthropomorphic perspective on Humanity, Sol, the Sun, is impressive indeed. Viewed from the perspective of an astronomer, Sol is a plain, typical star - nothing special. Viewed from the perspective of an anthropologist, religions can be explained as servants to societal needs. Gods are needed and evolve along with the developing societies which produce them. The same goes for trinities, where several societies closely aligned to the” Alexandrian God Factories” (Wells) and tethered to the Axial Age, developed trinities.

In sum, Gods and trinities can be researched in the same way as songs and farm implements. Religionists should come out of their cave as they can see the mountain (allusion to Confucius). Sells, you truly need to objectify for the domain of your research into god(s).

Best regards,

O.

Dear Daviy,

I’m still not seeing the as much of a distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism as I think you might be. Either the word limits affect our ability to communicate as effectively as we’d like or I’m just not as good at clarifying things as I thought.

Essentially, Atheism and Agnosticism are two different responses to two different questions. Atheism deals with belief, and Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

One can be an Agnostic Atheist (I don’t believe in god but I can’t know for sure) or an Agnostic Theist (I believe in god, but I can’t know for sure). There are varying degrees of each and I think it would be extremely rare to find someone who was smack-bang in the middle.

This is why I took issue with your claim that Agnosticism was the most reasonable position. It sounded too narrow for my liking and it assumed that Atheists claimed knowledge of the non-existence of any god.

In regards to knowledge, both you and I are Agnostics. In regards to belief, I think we are both Atheists, although I probably swing a little further to the Atheist end of the scale than you do. Unless, of course, you consider yourself to be smack-bang down the center.

Adam
Shall we adjourn this and deal with the Christians first.
Pericles
Paul's version of Christianity is the primitive 'scapegoat' theory. This goes that you take goat (or another innocent animal) and dress it up in fine robes, feed it the best foods and lavish praise on it. In some way this is supposed transfer all sin from the one giving the praise to praised. Then the goat is sacrificed and sin dies with the goat.
In the Christian version the sin is original sin caused by the woman in the Garden of Eden and the innocent is Jesus. The purpose of praising Jesus is to transfer sin to Jesus who is then symbolically sacrificed every Sunday.
Very early after the death of Jesus the other (then) main Christian group, the Gnostics, said this was rubbish because if 'the woman' was the cause of sin, and (as the Paulians claimed) sin is passed down through the female line then Jesus could not be free of sin even if it was a virgin birth. Basically Christianity as we now know it is rubbish because the whole premise of Christianity self destructs.
The Christian hierarchy knows, and has always known that Christianity is BS. It is the impossibility of Christianity that Pius IX tried to fix in 1854 when he issued his papal decree that by a special act of grace Mary had been declared free of sin from the moment of conception.
The whole of Christianity hangs, not on Jesus, but on the concept of the immaculate conception. If you believe that load of old rubbish you will believe anything.
I came to my position of understanding Christianity was BS because I had many Christian friends and I was considering joining them. But as is my habit before making a decision I investigated with as an open mind as possible.
The final result of my investigation was the understanding that Christianity is an abomination built on lies, lies and more lies.
All religion is rubbish, but in the case of Christianity it is provable

Daviy

While I have no argument with the origins of the word agnostic, it would be a mistake to assume that agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive.

Before Huxley invented agnostic there were essentially the terms theist (believes that god or gods are responsible for the creation and functioning of the universe) and atheist who simply was not a theist. This was similar to symmetrical and asymmetrical. (There is no partially symmetrical)

In the days of Huxley, the term atheist had very negative connotations and would often have led to exclusion from polite society. (in a similar way that “kafir” or unbeliever was used by the Muslims to denote an almost subhuman status.) To some extent the invention of the word agnostic was to create a sanitized non believer position that would be a safe haven from those that found the word atheist offensive, yet could not reconcile with the existing belief systems.

The invention of agnostic did not change the definition of atheist. It is not like a fuel tank where the needle indicates either full, empty or in between with agnostic filling the mid range.

The narrow definition of atheist is like claiming that all dogs are small and fluffy because only Maltese poodles are dogs.

Your offence at the possibility of being defined as an atheist speaks to the vilification that this label carries, and not to its meaning.

You stated “Does God exist? We do not know. The only evidence is that we cannot prove God does not exist. Is God a construct? We do not know. The only evidence for deigning the existence of God is that we cannot prove God does exist. The only reasonable position is to be Agnostic.”

From your statement, you could not by any means be described as a theist as you state no where that you believe that god or gods exist, and you fall firmly within the definition of atheist.

Your claim of no absolute belief in the non existence of god is shared by the vast majority of atheists including myself

It has taken a long time for humankind to accept women as part of society, not just as breeding cows. Protestant Christianity still has trouble with that equality thing. Atheists have a deep seated desire to not accept that Jesus Christ was the great liberator of women, recognized their worth for the first time, and that Christianity is vitually the only religion that values and appreciates women.

Gradually as women have been elevated to almost equality, society has changed for the better. My experience of women is that they feel secure with clear and cogent rules. This is a paradox, because this is in direct contrast to the teachings of the New Testament, which says there are only two rules. Have one God, and do not hurt your neighbour. This is too simple for many and a prime example is Canon Law.

The concept of original sin is to me a Protestant absolutely incomprehensible, as is the concept of purgatory; likewise the concept of any human as superior to another. When Eleanor Roosevelt proposed the concept of a universal international Covenant, it is simply a codification of the New Testament. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is simply a rewrite of the ideas in the four Gospels. Perhaps that is why the atheists on the High Court and all Federal Court Judges, refuse to admit argument based upon it. They are atheists because they believe they are gods in their own courts.

The Covenant says all persons are equal before the law. Christianity says ask and you shall receive, knock and it will be opened for you. Ask through Jesus, and my Father which art in heaven will give you what you ask for. The atheists say that no one is entitled as of right to anything. The State owns everything, including all the people and may do with them as it will. To separate Church and State Jesus invented jury trial. Atheists deny God’s gift of freedom, guaranteed by jury trial, and substitute a god they say they don’t believe in, a State appointed Judge

Peter the imbiber,

What on earth are you talking about? Have you any idea of what the topic is, or have you simply been smoking too much "natural" produce to care.

Shadow Minister,

Isn’t it interesting how internally produced natural endorphins resulting from religious fervour create similar delusions in the brain as do the ingested variety of hallucinogenic and mind altering drugs? It raises a whole heap of questions as to why the former is perceived as ‘good’ and the latter as ‘bad’. :))

David

Shadow Minister
Your posts are exactly what I was talking about in my article 'The Age of Reason' You tell me what I think or believe and even though it is rubbish I cannot prove it is rubbish. It is what I called 'The Reverse Hiroshima Principle.' That is what I am offended by.
If you are interested in what I think or belief I am capable of telling you, but as soon as you start telling me what I think or believe you are off with the fairies. This is the reason why the human race spends so much time out of touch with reality, and the reason I am so against judgmental crap. If you cannot say what you want to say without judgment and putdowns you have nothing to say.
Peter
The core of Christianity is that women invented original sin, and are the cause of all sin and suffering in this world. Unless you belief that ridiculous proposition you cannot be a Christian. That is the problem with female priests. It would be putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup.
Christianity and the Law? In a way you are right. Christianity is not really religion, it is a legal system. Along with Judaism and Islam it originated from the law of Abram.
The Abramic system is the Church can do anything it wants and remain free of sin because they are Gods lawyers on earth and anything they do must be Gods will.
This has permeated our legal system to become 'Provided it is legal we can do anything we want and remain free of sin. The law replaces God
The next step down is 'Provided we are right and the other person wrong we can do anything we want and remain free of sin.' We become as gods knowing good and evil.
This why all the stuff from the Christian side focuses on the law, and what is right or wrong. God is only there to give legal status.

(OT) Just a brief aside, Daviy.

>>You tell me what I think or believe and even though it is rubbish I cannot prove it is rubbish. It is what I called 'The Reverse Hiroshima Principle.<<

I can tell you are inordinately proud of your little inventions, the HP and the RHP, but I'm afraid they are each, in ther own way, bunkum.

You describe the Hiroshima Principle as "judging the negative to be true because we cannot prove the positive", which sounds all nice and cosy until you try to find a practical example that is not about total ignorance.

We have vastly improved means of testing and simulation than they did back in the forties - if Oppenheimer had had access to one of today's supercomputers, there would have been a far greater understanding of the nature of radiation sickness etc.

[Incidentally...
>>They had no idea about radiation sickness, acid rain or any of the other side effects of nuclear weapons<<
...acid rain is not caused by nuclear weapons. Sorry.]

So I'm afraid that your "Hiroshima Principle" is not strong enough to support the analogy of nuclear bombs in wartime, with genetic modification in modern laboratories.

And the reverse HP is equally nonsensical, I'm afraid.

>>It is improbable that you are thinking about robbing a bank, but it is impossible for you to prove you are not<<

Well, duh.

You even had to invent the "example" that supported such irrelevancy.

>>Bush then goes on television to say that while there where not any weapons of mass destruction there was indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein was thinking about producing weapons of mass destruction<<

No, Daviy. He said that there was evidence of a clear intention to do so. Means, opportunity and motive were all present, plus the irrefutable fact that Saddam had blocked inspections at every opportunity.

I wouldn't normally mention such obvious stuff. But you are starting to use your "theories" in the most banal manner, and I think you should reconsider their value to a debate.

Thor the Thunder God and a man were debating one day. The man was winning and Thor started thundering away. The man said. Now I know I am right because you are playing the man and not the ball. When people start playing the man, the subject is too painful for them to face.

It is time that atheists faced the fact that atheism does not work, and atheism is not a satisfactory form of government. Atheism as a form of government manifests itself in the assumption by the State of the Role of Almighty God and what follows is that Almighty God can do no wrong. One of the central philosophies of Hillsong Church, mentioned elsewhere is that God makes no mistakes.

Atheists fear God, just the same as Christians do, so they have set out to destroy Him, and replace Him with a State. In the last forty years, the State has become absolutely unaccountable to its subjects in Australia. This is because Almighty God has been replaced by God substitutes, and instead of Almighty God being our maker and our judge, and governing us with compassion and justice, we are now governed by an all powerful State, that is absolutely unaccountable. Nine of the mongrel atheist beasts in fact. The Government of Australia is vested in about 150 Judges and many more magistrates, and each State has appointed its own.

The purpose of Atheism is to shield the State from accountability. The point two five of one percent of the population who are lawyers, actually govern. From them come the State Atheists who replace Almighty God in our daily lives. Judges and Magistrates

Before 1986, everyone murdered or damaged by the State of Victoria because of its negligence in failing to control fuel levels in land it controls, and interfering in the land management of that it does not control, would have had a remedy in tort against it, and a jury would have made them pay. Start playing the ball and leave the man alone. The results are horrible to contemplate. The Piper must be paid

Peter the Believer,

"It is time that atheists faced the fact that atheism does not work..." What do you mean 'work'? I could also ask for your definition of 'atheists', 'fact' and 'atheism'. But that would only encourage more gobbledygook.

I see that you have given a programmatic definition of 'Atheism as a form of government' which leads you to some weird conclusion about the power of god and to an evidence-free assertion that "Atheists fear God, just the same as Christians do, so they have set out to destroy Him, and replace Him with a State." So are you saying that in essence atheists are Christians?

"The purpose of Atheism is to shield the State from accountability. The point two five of one percent of the population who are lawyers, actually govern." Funny thing, the five lawyers I know personally are all Christians who love god.

And in any event, since you say, "...atheism does not work", what are you worried about?

I think we must live in parallel universes.

Dan S de Merengue and some others on OLO have defended Danny Nalliah saying he was 'dragged through the courts' for expressing views on another religion.

I wonder if they would defend his latest contribution to the cause of Christian theology? He attributes all the deaths and destruction of Victoria's bushfires to God's retribution for the Victorian Parliament having recently passed abortion reform laws. "God's protection has been taken off the state, and Satan is having a go at the nation," he says (The Age 11 February, 2009).

He and his church have nothing to say that might offer spiritual or emotional comfort to the families that are suffering the devastation. He and his church offer no support to the victims in their hour of need.

Pastor Nalliah perverts the very idea of Christian charity. Vilification? Humbug!

“Judaism and Islam it originated from the law of Abram. The Abramic system is the Church can do anything it wants and remain free of sin because they are Gods lawyers on earth and anything they do must be Gods will.” – Daviy

While it is true that all three major monotheist religions meet with their prophet Abram (a.k.a. Abraham); the existence of priesthoods responsible for administering laws, on behalf of god(s), are more ancient still. After the transition from the post-nomadic garden societies (12,000 BP – 6,000 BP), with the formation of the first City-States (e.g., Sumer), new priesthoods took-over the legal administration of god’s land on behalf of god. (People didn’t own land: God did.)

The Law of Moses (based on earlier codes) had the role of focusing its followers on the immediate nomadic situation. Firstly, to elevate the El henotheist deity, as supreme god, above other gods, whom still existed. Herein, the volcano and war god, Yahweh, was adopted by the Hebrews. This gave the Hebrews a privileged position to assert their land-grab claims. Secondly, Moses’ rebuke about worshiping a “calf” is meant to stop his people from “jumping the gun” by their identifying with a settled, rural caste, too soon.

Islam does use borrowings. Yet, Mohammed’s principle goal was to unify the Arab clans against encroaching Persia (temporal) and Christianity (religious).

Dear Spikey
We don't agree on some things. But I too was astounded by the the public outburst of Danny Nalliah. I just wish that in his dream "God" could have been a bit more specific about the potential victims of his wrath. Why not the spectators at the Rod Laver Centre or the MCG? Why single out those people trying to live close to Nature? Of course there are no rational answers just religious bigotry.
Regards
Blair

Pericles, This is almost too easy.

'We have vastly improved means of testing and simulation than they did back in the forties - if Oppenheimer had had access to one of today's supercomputers, there would have been a far greater understanding of the nature of radiation sickness etc.'

This RHP. Is there any proof of this other than I cannot prove other wise? Off with the fairies you go.
Do you understand that it is impossible to know what the side effects of a new technology until that technology is introduced? This is because until the technology is introduced the side effect does not exist?
This is as relevant to genetic engineering as it was when the Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
Ok, prove to me you are not thinking about robbing a bank. Can you?
I saw Bush's speech, maybe I am mistaken or he said similar things at different times. If you substitute intent for thinking it makes no difference. It is still impossible to prove this was not the intent of Saddam Hussein even if it was not. Hence RHP.

'I can tell you are inordinately proud of your little inventions, the HP and the RHP, but I'm afraid they are each, in ther (sic) own way, bunkum.'

Don't you ever deem yourself capable of judging anything at all remotely connected with what I think, feel, believe or what my motives are. You cannot do that. Nor can you do it with any one else. This is RHP again. Your posts go off with the fairies so often have you ever considered staying there?

All this came about because someone in another post tried to tell me (along the lines of) that I was not really agnostic, I was really a cosset atheist. Hence RHP came in as why nobody could tell me (or anyone) what their beliefs (or lack of) are.
I have added this post to my collection of examples of rampant RHP to maybe be used later.

Much of this debate appears to revolve around the notion that belief means giving intellectual assent to a particular proposition. So, belief in God is taken to mean giving assent to the proposition that god (not usually well defined) exists (also ill-defined). Since the proposition includes more than one undefined term this argument degenerates into a slanging match of assertions and counter-assertions.
In his own clumsy way I think Sells was trying to make a point along these lines.
It seems to me that both science and theology deal in narratives that contribute (or may contribute) to our understanding of the world in which we live. Neither narrative is 'true' in an absolute sense but each may illuminate one or more aspects of being that may or may not be significant to the enterprise of investing purpose into our existence.
Meaning, for humans, is conveyed primarily through narrative. Hence we study 'history' and tell our 'life story'. Scientific 'narratives' such as the theory of evolution are constrained by the rules of scientific method in an attempt to ensure close correlation with materially observable events. They are useful in our 'mechanical' dealings with our environment.
Theological narratives conform to a different set of rules and their purpose is different. Theological narrative proceeds from the premise that life transcends the merely material. It is predicated on the assumption that life should have meaning and purpose beyond the mere rearrangement of the material world around us. Science has nothing to say about these things and theology is not primarily an attempt to describe or explain the mechanisms of the material world.
There is actually no conflict whatsoever between science and theology. They can be seen as complementary. It is a mistake to apply the rules of scientific method to theological narrative just as it is wrong-headed to draw upon theological narrative to make assertions about the mechanisms of the cosmos.
On this basis it is apparent that the popular debates such as evolution v creation and faith v atheism are only possible among those ignorant of the epistomological foundations of science and theology.

Daviy,
You probably know the saying, the pot calling the kettle black. You often decry others for being ‘God’s lawyers’ (though what you mean by this is not entirely clear.) Yet you make your accusations in a very legalistic manner, sounding like your shooting for the job of ‘atheist lawyer’.

You show displeasure at others for them telling you what you believe, for putting words in your mouth. But when you describe what Christians believe, you need to be a lot more accurate (especially if you want that ‘atheist lawyer’ position).

More than once you’ve spoken of women being the cause of original sin as the core of Christianity. This is far from true (and I should be the one to say what is at the core of my belief, unless you want to ride roughshod lawyer over it). The core of the Christian faith is the person of Jesus Christ.

With regard to original sin, Christian teaching is that in Adam all die (because of sin) but those in Christ shall live. Thus the core of the faith can be described without making accusations against ‘women’.

From the perspective of this believer, the focus of Christianity is not a ‘legal system’. For many Christians, it is quite the opposite, with the focus being on the spiritual life and our freedom in Christ.

Best regards,
Michael

Waterboy, thank you for bringing some valuable insight into an argument that has been more and more a repetitive clash between mobs of equally determined ignorance.

Building on your well-expressed view I would say that there is more than a single reality. People who restrict their being to one reality deny themselves the abundance that life can offer.

Thank you to every contributor to this monumental debate. There is an email in my inbox this morning from Hillsong Church, seeking from its membership, a hand in extending the mercy of Almighty God to all who have suffered in Victoria. Those who worship the creation rather than the creator, and live among the gumtrees will from time to time get incinerated. Mary Grant Bruce wrote warnings about this sixty years ago, in the Billabong series.

I want to thank you all, especially Peter Sellick for starting it. I have been struggling to understand why Australians have tolerated the abolition of Protestant Christianity, and the merger of Church and State, introduced into Australia by the Liberal Party. I grew up under Labor Government, and the separation of church and State was taught in Queensland Primary Schools, by Labor Governments.

The Victorian Bushfires are a direct result of the assumption by the State of Victoria of Sovereignty. It closed its independent courts in 1986, when it merged the function of judge and chambers, and it has Joe Saltalamacchia, as the guardian of the Supreme Court and Rules, to deny access to the exclusive brethren who now rule Victoria. Without that Sovereignty, those who suffered from Ash Wednesday last time, would have so crippled the State, with lawsuits, for allowing fire to escape from National Parks like a beast to destroy private property, that the buildup of fuel would never have been allowed to occur this time.

If you and others are fair dinkum, write to the PM, and ask him to repeal S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules and give those of us who are Protestant Christian back our right, intrinsic in S 79 Constitution, to go the court and worship Almighty God, in at least three persons, (The Trinity) instead of a State appointed god surrogate. The repeal of 24 words, in S 39, and The Rule, that prohibits free access to court, will ensure the State of Victoria never afflicts its residents in this way again. Lest we forget

Micheal
If you want to see the legal nature of Christianity look at the posts of Peter the Believer. His latest post linking Christain law with the Victorian bush fires is reprehensible. If that is what he is doing. I have problems working out what he is saying.
Since the separation of Church and State the Burnings have stopped and Heretics (meaning someone who does not belong to the same club as you) can voice their views without being tortured into recanting and being burnt at the stake. Bush, Blair and Howard have given us a wake-up as to what happens when Christianity is bought back into the law. Gitmo Bay, torture and so on.
The only difference between the 'West' and most Islamic states is that the Islamic state have yet to separate state and religion.
Jesus fought long and hard against the Pharisees who where the Jewish religious lawyer only to have the church that bears his name continue the same way through Paul the Pharisee. Christianity has become everything that Jesus opposed.
I do not vilify Christians, only the despotic organization that lies to them. The proof that the hierarchy knows Christianity is a lie is contained in Pius the ninth's papal decree of 1854 that attempts to salvage the wreck of Christianity. The Christian dogma regarding original sin is as I described it. Hence the invention of the Immaculate conception.
Christian churches stay well away from this issue for good reason.
The more I research Jesus and Christianity the more I appreciate how Jesus was spot on with his teachings and opposition to the Pharisees, and the more I am appalled by the way Christianity has butchered his teachings.
If you want to know God you will not find it in Christianity.

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the Kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! For, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.

Luke 17 20 (KJV)

waterboy, good post. i would have preferred you used "spirituality" rather than "theology", but no big deal (for me).

i'm also wary of science being reduced to being simply another "narrative" - i think science has been too spectacularly successful (in explaining and predicting) for that. but no mind.

crabsy, perhaps you are right that there are here "mobs of equally determined ignorance". i'll just note that a number of people, including me, have replied to your posts in what at least appears to me a sincere manner, inviting dialogue. as far i can tell, you haven't even acknowledged any of these posts.

Round and round we go, Daviy.

>>This RHP. [I presume you mean 'this is RHP'; otherwise it doesn't make sense] Is there any proof of this other than I cannot prove other wise? Off with the fairies you go<<

Has it ever occurred to you that you cannot "prove" an assertion by using the same assertion as proof?

You suggest that RHP as a theory that has some intrinsic value.

I say that it does not.

Your response is "there you go, that just proves my point"

>>Ok, prove to me you are not thinking about robbing a bank. Can you?<<

It has been long established that it is tough to prove a negative. Simply giving it a fancy new name does not constitute original thought, nor does it add to anyone's understanding of logic or argument.

>>Do you understand that it is impossible to know what the side effects of a new technology until that technology is introduced?<<

I can indeed accept that, no problem.

My points were that i) when you are at war, you are less likely to perform thorough testing and ii) the tools with which to simulate possible outcomes were at that time fairly primitive.

The physicists involved weren't working in total ignorance, you understand, but they lacked access to sophisticated systems into which to feed the variables involved.

The additional problem with your use of the "theory" to point the finger at genetic modification, is that GM is not "new technology", nor is it impossible to model potential outcomes with considerable accuracy.

So even if you accept that playing with atomic bombs was irresponsible, because they couldn't predict all of the side-effects, the analogy does not hold water when applied elsewhere.

On that subject, what's your view of the Large Hadron Collider?

Have a great day.

Daviy,

For modern religionists, it was not so much Jesus criticised the Laws of Pharisees, rather his substance "substituted" the Law of Moses, which was Humanity's end of the Hebrew coventant/deal made with their alleged god.

Creeds cum Christian Laws became evident before Nicaea until after Vatican II. A constitent thread has been for, the Churches of the Christian religion, to monoplise the definition the demarcations between the supernatural & the natual and, who legitimately reveals knowledge and who does not.

The rub is, if the current trajectory continues, the Law could prove in the ascendant. Not the Law of God, but the Law of Mathematics.

O.

Dear Waterboy,

Theology can be divorced from scientific reasoning for the reasons you’ve pointed out. But I don’t believe we can divorce theology from objective reasoning entirely if we really care about whether or not our beliefs are true.

Dear Crasby,

Reality is the state of the world as it really is, not what we want it to be. If a god exists, then he/she/it would be a part of our own reality (natural or supernatural). Anyone who invents their own alternate reality could be described as delusional.

Pericles
'It has been long established that it is tough to prove a negative. Simply giving it a fancy new name does not constitute original thought, nor does it add to anyone's understanding of logic or argument.'
No problem with most of that. The argument here is that is that the inability to prove the negative is used as proof of the positive. Make that final step and you have it. The important part is that it divorces us from reality.

'>>Do you understand that it is impossible to know what the side effects of a new technology until that technology is introduced?<<
I can indeed accept that, no problem.'

Now just go one step further. Can I claim that there will be no side effects on the basis that I cannot find any before the technology is introduced? Claiming the negative because we cannot prove the positive. The important part is that it divorces us from reality.

In your last post you attempted in several places to claim truth on the basis that I could not prove the opposite. That is out of touch with reality, hence my suggestion about your relationship with the fairies.

You tried to state my reasons and motivations. That really is out of touch with reality.
You cannot, and never will be able to do that.

It is impossible to model outcomes before the technology is introduced because it is impossible to know what to model before it exist.

The Hadron Collider. Will there be negative side effects? possibly. Will we ever wish we had never built it? possibly. Do we know if there will be side effects? NO.

Oliver
[28] And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
[29] For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

The word 'one' was not in the original Greek text. Read it without the 'one'. 'For he taught them as having authority'. It is a clear statement of 'people power'. Take out the Christian 'add-ons' and this is the real Jesus.

Daviy,

My recent posts in this thread refer to the religious interpretation, wherein, Jesus is taken by religionists, to enact a new covenant as "substitutionary ransom for sin". Here, he was said, to replace the old relationship with the new relationship. Also,it claimed, he asserted his authority to do so, as you rightfully state.

In aforementioned frame, the confabulation of events expands the revised domain of the godhead, to include non-Jews. Else put, the religionists claim, the Son is sent to “save the World”.

Of course, the writers of religious scriptures re-engineered historical events to suit their own non-historical purposes.

The historical Jesus is best seen from the perspective of a Jewish mendicant preaching to the Gentiles * (god fearers) in the first century and early second century: The time before the fall of the Second Temple and prior the Jews exile to Pella.

After the Pella exile,under the first Gentile bishop, Marcus (Mack), the god fearers (i.e., Judaized Gentiles) became proto-Christians. Their ruse to regain entry to the Holy Lands for Jewish worship, ultimately provided a seed from which Latin Christianity could develop.

Linguistically, if well educated, Jesus would have a knowledge Hebrew, Aramaic and the nuances of Attic Greek. Subsequent religious recordings in Koine Greek are likely to be tainted with their authors’ new agenda. By the time of Nicaea, Attic Greek, the rich court language of the Macedonians, would have been largely un-used.Instead, we have Vulgar Latin and Koine Greek.

Regards,

O.

* The historical role of the House of David under the wider administration of the Herodian dynasty (Theiring).

Still very much OT, I'm afraid, but irresistible.

>>The argument here is that is that the inability to prove the negative is used as proof of the positive. Make that final step and you have it.<<

I understand the concept. It is that "final step" that you failed to establish when you were putting the theory together. You simply make the assumption that it is actually the "inability to prove" that is used as proof. You provide no evidence for this being so.

The example you gave, and from which you named your theory, was the use of a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima without due care and attention to possible collateral damage. The step from "calculated risk" to "judging the negative to be true because we cannot prove the positive" is unsupported. And in my view, insupportable.

As is the reverse.

The example you put forward - that Iraq was invaded because "Saddam Hussein was thinking about producing weapons of mass destruction" - clearly does not make your case, since it is not factual.

>>It is impossible to model outcomes before the technology is introduced because it is impossible to know what to model before it exist.<<

You must be using the narrowest possible definition of "technology" for this to be true. Even Oppenheimer's team were able to work through equations, even without the help of powerful computers, that gave them an idea of what the results of their efforts would be. Did they know for certain? Of course not. They couldn't. But no-one at the time, or since, ever claimed that this was "judging the negative to be true". It was a calculated - and I mean that literally - risk.

As, of course, is the LHC.

>>The Hadron Collider. Will there be negative side effects? possibly. Will we ever wish we had never built it? possibly. Do we know if there will be side effects? NO.<<

If you applied your "theory", there would be no R&D. Ever. By definition. Because we can only ever use the information we have, not information that we don't have.

Fires have their uses. They clean out vermin, cleanse the land of useless vegetation, and make it possible for new life to flourish. They get rid of the dead wood, and all of a sudden where it was dangerous to ride, either a motorbike or a horse, the way is clear. The ash is a fertilizer, and the grass that grows back is extremely nutritious.

Let us hope the rats who have been governing Victoria, learn from the experience. It is time that the principles of Rylands V Fletcher were applied to the destructive saboteurs, who prevented the ordinary folk of Victoria from clearing around their homes, by fines and other hostile acts. The Principle of Rylands v Fletcher are that if a dangerous animal like a fire, escapes from your land, and burns out your neighbour, the damage must be paid for by the person from whose land the fire escaped.

The fires escaped from land controlled by the State of Victoria. The doctrine of State sovereignty, instead of the Sovereignty of Almighty God is the culprit. The State of Victoria assumed control of private land too, so by reference to S 64 Judiciary Act 1903, enacted to give effect to the Constitution, the State of Victoria is liable for all the damage caused by the disaster. KR is the federal leader, and he must stop the lawyers closing the doors of the Federal Court of Australia and let each and every Australian who suffered from the death and destruction brought about by the gross negligence of the leaders of Victoria, have a day in court if they want it.

Belief in Almighty God is central to justice. A fundamental concept at the very heart of English Law, that has been part of Australian law and Australian courts, since 1828, is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and every law that works towards corruption, has been illegal and void since 1297. A Judge or Magistrate is essentially a corrupt person, unless the option of a jury trial is offered. Jury trial is central to Christianity

Oliver
I lost interest in Theiring after 'Jesus the Man'. Often wild guesses masquerading as fact.
My preferred method of getting to know Jesus is to go to as close to original sources as possible and see what he had reportable said. Overly scholarly works leave me cold because they are often big on detail and short on essence.
The closest I could get in my research to original sources for Jesus was Matthew's Greek English interlinear New Testament. The Older version of KJV are not bad because of all the versions of the Bible it does at least put translators assumptions in italics.
The interesting thing for me was how the Christian version adds little bits in that on first glance change the text only minutely but actually change the whole meaning.
Whoever Jesus was he was not the Christian fabrication that is presented to us.
The problem I have with posts such as yours is that although there may well be academics amongst the participants lay members will not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
I look forward to your reply, but could you please write it in English?

Bushbasher/Adam

You both seem concerned, and rightly so, to preserve objectivity as a key attribute of knowledge particularly in relation to scientific knowledge.
Firstly I need to say, although I think you have both tacitly acknowledged it, that objectivity is not inconsistent with narrative. Narrative relates to the structure of knowledge and the way it is shared.
‘Objective knowledge’ is that knowledge which is independent of the attributes of its author. In science failure to maintain objectivity leads to hypotheses that are dependent on the beliefs, emotions, superstitions etc of the author. Such hypotheses are unrepeatable except by those who share the beliefs, emotions and superstitions of the author. They tend not to be useful in scientific terms. Creation science is a case in point being dependent on the beliefs and superstitions of its authors. It lacks objectivity.
Knowledge of God, on the other hand, can never be objective. God is not an ‘object’ that can be studied. To give the atheists their due it is must be said that God does not exist to science since she does not meet any of the criteria of objectively knowable things. Atheism is not only possible but absolutely necessary to the scientific endeavour.
The spiritual enterprise, however,is not limited to knowledge of objects. At the heart of ‘Spiritual knowledge’ is the universal experience of being known in subject to subject relationships. Objectifying these relationships does little to increase our ‘spiritual knowledge’. These relationships create us as human beings. We are not friends until we are befriended, we are not lovers until we are loved. We are not faithful until another puts their faith in us.
Spiritual knowledge is not a subject-predicate kind of knowledge. It is who I am. Who I am in relation to every person I meet, friends, lovers, acquaintances, enemies. It is also who I am in relation to the God who, in knowing every part of me, ‘creates’ me. Not everyone ‘thinks’ about life this way, thank God. You don’t have to. Plenty of people live rich and fulfilling lives without ‘thinking’ like me.
Have a good life!

You write very well, Waterboy. You come across as a reasonable, -and well reasoned- individual.
However...
Since this thread is about atheism, by a nominal Christian, I feel constrained to put in a small mention of the golden rule, or ethic of reciprocity.
I've always thought the most civilized -and under stressed- facet of Christianity was this 'pro-active' attitude.
You don't have to wait to be befriended, to be a friend to others.You don't have to wait to be loved, in order to love others, and you can very certainly be faithful, even to someone who has no faith in you.
Just a quibble. Cheers, Grim.

Thank you Grim

What you say is true. It wasnt my intention to reject initiative.
Our first experience of love is to be loved by our mother (father, family and so on). So I would say that love begins with the experience of being loved.
My point, of course, was that God, being pure subject, cannot be known objectively. Indeed it is reasonable to say that God does not exist (as something objectively knowable).
I speak of friendship and love only as examples of how we are formed out of the subject to subject relationships we participate in and that 'knowledge' of God is knowledge of this type, that being known by God we are 'created' into something more than the sum of our physical parts.

Thank you for prompting me to clarify this. I hope it is clearer now.

Dear Waterboy,

Thank you for such a level-headed response. Not much I can disagree with there.

Dare I say that if all Theists were like you, religion wouldn’t be a problem.

In my last post I said that there is more than one reality. This of course, begs for much elaboration.

Adam D:
< Reality is the state of the world as it really is, not what we want it to be. …Anyone who invents their own alternate reality could be described as delusional.>

Delusional? There’s that word again! Waterboy has explained that we come to know ourselves and the world both objectively and subjectively. The reality we perceive subjectively sometimes seems at odds with the reality we perceive objectively. That does not mean that one of them is necessarily “untrue”, although errors of perception and judgement do occur in both. To not live in both of these worlds concurrently is a pathological condition.

Bushbasher:
<… a number of people, including me, have replied to your posts in what at least appears to me a sincere manner, inviting dialogue. as far i can tell, you haven't even acknowledged any of these posts.>

If I have seemed rude please forgive me; it was not my intention. But I actually noticed no such invitation. Had I anything to say in return at the time I certainly would have said it.

Pericles:
I wrote that “the word ‘god’ in itself can mean different things to different people.”

< Pure sophistry. I mean exactly what you mean by the word. It is the image of God that you have in your head, in whatever form that may take, that I don't believe in. If you didn't posit the existence of a God in the first place, I would not have to disbelieve in it.>

People have various images of God and some people hold a number of images concurrently. In fact I don’t think I have what could be called an “image” of God at all, but rather a strong, insistent awareness that can only be suggested (usually unsatisfactorily) in ever-changing metaphors, music, and relationships. I know many people are in the same position. The word “God” is purely a convenient label for what we experience subjectively. The word has no objective referent.

Daviy,
Are you suggesting that the writings of Peter the Believer are a fair representative of Christian thought today? You also seem to put a lot of weight on a 19th Century papal decree. I would suggest to you that not many Christians (except maybe some Catholics) care too much about 19th Century papal decrees. Christianity is a lot different to what you allege or envisage.

However, you do seem to show a lot of respect for Jesus and his teachings. One day you might further understand why countless millions of others do also.

To Waterboy (and to anyone else who understood what he was saying),

Thanks for helping to interpret Sells. I need all the help I can get. But I’m also scratching my head for some of your sayings. You conclude your previous day's post alleging that the creation v. evolution and faith v. atheism debates are only for the ignorant. Are all such arguments really invalid? Is so, then why have so many philosophers wasted so much of their time over the centuries?

Are you saying that there are no clear distinctions to be made between the creation and evolution positions? Are the differences between theism and atheism only to be discussed by those who don’t understand them?

Is there no difference between night and day, black and white? Does it require an enlightened person to say that apples and oranges are really one and the same? Are those who play Australian Rules football and those who play rugby all going to wake up one day and realise that they’re playing the same game?

Taking what you say a little further, when are we going to realise that that this web site is pointless, that debating anything is pointless, as there are no real distinctions between major categories? For if we scratch the surface a little deeper, we’d all realise that we all really agree with each other.

I do not consider myself ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of science and religion. However, when I’m asked to swallow that theism and atheism can be defined as somehow amounting to one and the same thing, I think we’re in danger of entering a zone where words become meaningless.

Is this the logical conclusion of discussing a Peter Sellick article, or should we conclude that all debate is meaningless and pack up this web site?

I was going to keep my peace in this thread and observe for a distance, but . . .

I would like to say, Peter, that I think you take things too far when you use bushfires as a prop to support your anti-establishment stance.

Where this post was really going, however, was to help others to understand why people who support the idea of intelligent design can also be content with evolution. This seems to cause some consternation at times. Certainly, if we are to take the Book of Genesis as a literal account, we can be troubled. I doubt that all of mankind stemmed from Adam and Eve. There's the obvious issue that, by the time Cain killed Abel, there were many nations out there to cast him out because he bore the 'Mark of Cain'. If Adam and Eve were the only inhabitants of the world before this time, they must have been busy . . .

On the other hand, if we are to take the creation story as a bit of a parable, and look at the acts of Adam and Eve as the moral (do the wrong thing and you end up losing the good things you had), it doesn't have to be thrown out completely. My Church teaches that Jesus was the physical, human manifestation of God Himself. Jesus taught using parables - there never was, for example, a prodigal son; rather, it was a device used to prove a point. Now, if the Bible is indeed inspired by God (who taught with parables), then why can't the Old Testament books contain - or be made almost entirely of - parables?

Certainly people are entitled to disagree. I don't believe that the world was created in six days; I do, however, feel comfortable with the idea that there may well be an intelligent design behind it all.

Oh wow Oto, the Old Testament might be made up of parables?
That totally blows my mind. Who would have thought? Really insightful stuff there. Keep it up.

Hey, instead of trying to reconcile two apparently opposing camps, why don't you have a really serious think about what is the most likely to be true. If you have problems with recognising truth, or what is the most likely, I recommend Karl Popper (with the caveat that you have to read the later of his works alongside the earlier, as he had the utmost integrity of admitting mistakes).

I have been getting a bit of stick about my complaints that the Victorian Bushfires are the fault of atheists. We have had a lot of debate about science as well; How about a bit of cause and effect. Everyone can make the connection between excess fuel, and a roaring bushfire, but it may be a little harder to make a connection between an Atheist Magistrate and Judge, and a buildup of fuel.

A state of fear is generated by atheist Judges and Magistrates. The landowning public are prevented by State government regulations made to capture the city green vote, from doing anything as a hazard reduction. No jury would convict a person for preventing such conflagrations, but an atheist Magistrate would and have done so.

Atheists have put Judges and Magistrates in the position of Almighty God for the personal gain of a great many of their believers. Instead of free access to justice, as the Magna Carta requires, it is now sold. The Magna Carta says in cl 29, We will sell to no one either justice or right. What is the Royal We? It is the plural of Almighty God and the Queen or King.

When Jesus Christ got really angry he plaited a whip, and drove the money changers and men of commerce out of the temple. In 1870, the English admitted lawyers back into Parliament after banning them for 498 years. These atheists, who worship the law instead of the lawgiver, promptly gave one of their number power to award costs, even if no trial had been concluded. This made a Magistrate or Judge really powerful. The Magistrates and Judges are truly to be feared. They are gods, and totally an atheist creation. The Constitution says judges so why do Judges deny.

It’s forty three years, since in 1966, Menzies made Judges, without a jury trial capable of making any person bankrupt for orders, awarded by a Judge or Magistrate, without any trial whatsoever; lawyers have become an atheist curse. Christianity separates church and state, by jury trials in a Church/court and abolishes fear.

Once again Waterboy, very well put.
I particularly like this paragraph:
"I speak of friendship and love only as examples of how we are formed out of the subject to subject relationships we participate in and that 'knowledge' of God is knowledge of this type, that being known by God we are 'created' into something more than the sum of our physical parts."
This echoes an argument (see www.thecomensality.com) I have been making for some time now about the true basis of egalitarianism; that it rests on the fact that none of us has any control over any the things that make us who we are, such as genetic inheritance, peers, and as you put it, subject to subject relationships.
Of course, as you clearly understand, this does not require the actual existence of God, to modify the essence of the individual.
It only the requires the belief.
I'm quite certain I am in some measure a product of having been raised in the Christian religion.
In fact, my disbelief in a personal God stems directly from that sunday school teaching.
How could I revere a God who so blatantly plays favorites; who relentlessly pursues his/it's own agenda in complete disregard for it's own adherents; who demands worship and offers nothing in return; in short, acts in a completely non christian manner?
I have nothing against people who believe in a God. If it comforts them, good luck to them.
Which conveniently closes the circle. Yes, it is Sells God which I don't believe in.
Well, actually I don't believe in any God, at least within this Cosmos.
But I particularly don't believe in the Christian God.

crabsy, no worries. with all the heat, it's hard to tell what to engage in. that's my criticism of sellick. he's not interested in engaging, only pretending to do so with deliberately provocative and misdirecting articles. of course i don't expect him to engage with me, since i (accurately) identified him as a clown. but he doesn't engage with anyone.

waterboy:

<<You both seem concerned, and rightly so, to preserve objectivity as a key attribute of knowledge particularly in relation to scientific knowledge.>>

waterboy, yes, for me at least, that's pretty much true. but doesn't say it all.

i don't think i have any great objection to what you write. as for other ways of "knowing", i prefer the word "understanding" to "knowing". certainly the way i understand my world, especially aspects of my world most important to me, goes well beyond science, or anything i'd regard as clear, quantifiable truth. (even if ultimately i believe that's all we are: a bunch of atoms, etc). i'm much less comfortable phrasing it as my knowing my world. that just has, for me, too much connotation of certainty, of definiteness. it sounds arrogant.

a lot of confusion we non-religious guys have is with the words you religious (i prefer spiritual) guys use. you like the word "god", otokonoko likes the expression "intelligent design". but, you don't mean "guy with beard, in sky", and otokonoko (i think) doesn't mean "junk science promoted by dishonest special-pleading pseudoscientific loons". but others, using the same words, pretty much do.

i would probably still disagree a lot (otokonoko, what i see is non-intelligent pattern), but i think you have to think about your words. do you really need them?

do you *really* need the word "god"? why? why not leave it to the literalising types? what would you lose?

Honestly, Bugsy, are you a teenager or something? Almost everyone else in this thread has, of late, managed to share their views without resorting to condescension, sarcasm and plain rudeness. If you don't like what I say, or think I'm stupid for saying it, then that's your opinion. Most adults are capable of sharing their opinions politely. Maybe you should try it sometime.

Peter the Believer,

"Atheists have put Judges and Magistrates in the position of Almighty God for the personal gain of a great many of their believers."

I suppose you'll be putting a submission before the forthcoming Royal Commission, giving the names of all the atheist magistrates and judges?

Oh, no, perhaps you won't. "The Magistrates and Judges are truly to be feared. They are gods, and totally an atheist creation."

But for OLO participants, dear Peter, would you be so kind as to give us a list of all the magistrates and judges who are atheists? What do we make of those of their rank who are frequently seen at Church? The Devil in disguise perhaps?

Daviy,

I do not have a copy of “Jesus the Man”. I was thinking of “Jesus of the Apocalypse”. I agree Theiring seems to delve into speculation.

What I do like about Theiring from the little of her work I have read is she looks at the historical Jesus from the perspective of Jesus the Jewish teacher and Jews ministering the Gentiles, towards the end of the fourth (Jewish) millenium. It sets a different scene than the Divine Jesus senscario. Here, the timeline laps into the first century based on the destiny of Judaism in Roman occupied lands.

With the latter history, Christianity develops in spurts from second century and accelerates after Constantine gives his endorsement. As Roman falls, the Holy Roman Church becomes entrenched.

Again I agree early records are the best. Matthew and Thomas the are earliest gospels. Yet, even these gospels were written after a period of spoken lore.

The Dead Seas Scrolls give some firsthand insight into religion in Jesus’ time. Not only the NT. Rewrites of parts of Genesis have been discovered.

Over many posts, I have unsuccessfully tried to encourage Sells to examine the history of the Christian Church and recognise the Creeds coming from Nicaea, are not representative of the historical Jesus. Also, that the Christian Jesus is an embellishment.

Regards,

O

Bushbasher

Its not merely a question of vocabulary. God is the appropriate word for my purpose.
Interesting that you should be moved to persuade me to modify my ‘beliefs’. Are you a ‘proselytising’ atheist?

You ask what would be lost. Well the first thing that would be lost would be a connection with about three thousand years of theological reflection.
Reference to the Divine differentiates theology from psychology and philosophy. It leaves open the possibility that there is more to life than biological machinery. We are, as you say, “just a bunch of atoms” but what a remarkable bunch of atoms we are. What other ‘bunch of atoms’ actually knows that it is just a ‘bunch of atoms’? What other bunch of atoms contemplated the possibility of the Divine. What other bunch of atoms can actually ‘imagine’ something greater than themselves, greater even than the vast expanse of the universe. What other bunch of atoms contemplates the purpose of its own being?

Science may help me to explore the universe but it does not help to be all that I might be. I don’t think I’ll abandon the G word for the moment , in spite of your admonitions.
God Bless

There is absolutely no conflict between believing in god and accepting the fact of evolution. The only conflict is between the fact of evolution and self-serving, ego-gratifying religious fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists don't oppose the teaching of evolution because they want to protect god from atheists, or to preserve the accuracy of science. They do it because they feel vulnerable and unimportant without the reassurance that they were made specially by god, who will reward them for their unquestioning obedience to a particular interpretation of a Bronze Age folk story. Without that to rely on, they are forced to make their own judgements and risk bearing responsibility for their choices.

It's a childish caricature of god that brings the concept of a divine creator down to the level of a father substitute who will relieve us of the burden of making our own moral decisions.

Oh, crud. I posted to the wrong thread. It's still relevant.

Error Above: “… Divine Jesus senscario. ” should read … “Divine Jesus scenario”. Sorry.
…
Atheism has donned many guises. A broad definition sees atheism, as a system of thought, in opposition to theism. Sometimes atheists were those, who did not worship the gods of their day. Early Christians were atheists to Romans. Earlier still, one could be called an atheist for being impious towards god. Both Democritus and Epicurus were labelled, “atheist”, not because they didn’t believe in the gods, rather their atomistic philosophy showed them to think/act “without” god. The privative a- in atheist signifies without.

Other atheists deny the very existence of god, absolutely. Here, Sells does not see the subtle difference between being against god and, being without god, by holding counter beliefs. How can an atheist be against something that does not exist?

What Sells sees as an affront to a spiritual entity, is, on closer examination, an attempt by atheists to argue an alternative hypothesis. In this skirmish, theists and atheists, participate in dissimilar ways. The theist plays the atheist-messenger, whereas the atheist plays the evidence.

Atheism is associated with materialism, in so-much-as materialists defer away from an extramundane explanation for the First Cause. Materialism in its primitive form sees matter, not god, as its own first cause. Today, we find a self-organising universe evident in the quantum cosmology and mathematics. At this juncture, we have a dispute between atheist materialism (and its modern extensions) and theist natural & supernatural pluralism.

Again, the atheist appeals to (testable) evidence, as uncovered by science and known to unbiased history. The theist maintains the supernatural is revealed via divine visitations and spiritually guided insights in concord with editorship of a priestly caste.

To the theist, god is ultimately unknowable: God is a mystery. To the atheist, the universe is ultimately knowable: The universe is a conundrum. The theist passively receives: The atheist proactively explores.

Oly.

waterboy:

<<Its not merely a question of vocabulary. God is the appropriate word for my purpose.
Interesting that you should be moved to persuade me to modify my ‘beliefs’. Are you a ‘proselytising’ atheist?>>

christ, that's a long bow! waterboy, how you can possibly interpret anything from my previous post as an attempt to modify your beliefs, is simply beyond me. i was simply talking about words.

if you feel the need to use the word "god", that's your business. it is just a word, but i didn't really expect you to give it up. people fight hard for ownership of that word. i questioned your need for the word, because i couldn't see anything in your posts which required it.

perhaps i misunderstood you, or you left things unsaid. i'm not sure what you gain from that 3000 years of theological reflection. my guess is, the more you gain, the less is our common ground.

finally, you seem to be setting up science as a straw man: science doesn't explain everything, hence theology or god or whatever. i fundamentally don't buy this. i explicitly stated that my understanding of my life goes beyond science. but the fact that science is not enough is for me no argument for god or universal meaning, or anything of the sort.

yes, consciousness is amazing. it is amazing that a bunch of atoms can contemplate the possibility of the divine. but i find it no more amazing than a bunch of atoms simply being able to contemplate its own consciousness, it's own feelings and fears and desires mortality.

you seem to be trying to slip the Divine (whatever it means), and thousands of years of theology (whatever it implies) through the back door. whatever you mean by that, if you expect me to to see the need or the value, you need to argue for it. and the fact science is not enough to make sense of life and of consciousness is a totally insufficient argument.

My assertion that all Judges and Magistrates are atheists needs clarifying. Even those who regularly attend church, and if Roman Catholic take confession, are atheists because neither their church, nor there own personal studies have taught them that in order to be a Christian, a person must not take the place of Almighty God.

I am an Anglican, and even within that communion I have people who think that it is alright for a Magistrate or Judge, to be a lawmaking god. Lets us just take the prayer said in the Commonwealth Parliament, from both Matthew 6 Verses 9-13, and Luke 11 2-4, and examine what it says.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, Anglicans now say, now and forever, amen. Every Judge and Magistrate who makes a law binding on another individual, without first following the teachings of Jesus Christ, in John 5 Verses 22 and 23 is an atheist. To Honor Almighty God an individual must Honor Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ in Luke 12 Verses 10-12, says anyone who does not consult the Holy Spirit, is a blasphemer, and commits the unforgivable sin. That sin is atheism.

The Prince of Peace, referred to in Isaiah 9 Verse 6, is Jesus Christ, and if a Judge or Magistrate was a Christian, and not just some play acting bureaucrat, he or she would refuse to rule, in any way repugnant to Christian teachings. The Bible, in Matthew 18 verse 20 says that where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I amongst them. This is a living cogent Almighty God who has been as promised with us in the Spirit, until he physically returns.

A Judge or Magistrate who puts himself above two of his fellows, and makes a law for one and destroys another is defiling the memory of Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ in a jury of 12, really knows the truth. It is called a just verdict. The jury is of the Christ King