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.