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.