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.