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.