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.