Sorry to cram two responses into one post here, but I don't want to outstep my quota.

Sorry also if I state the obvious!

I've come to realise why the original article didn't sit well with me. It makes the assumption that atheists have a specific god in mind when they profess their lack of belief. Atheism is not a disbelief in a god - it's a disbelief in any god at all. The article builds a model of God and assumes that this is what atheists don't believe. The reality is that he could have constructed an infinite numer of gods and the result would be the same: atheists don't believe in any of them. I don't believe in Santa Claus, regardless of how he is represented. It's not just the jolly old man in red I don't believe in - it's Santa. I think I can safely say the same for atheists.

Secondly, I have finally worked out how to explain my unease with the conclusion of the article linked by Sancho. Certainly, if we are to take a very literal interpretation of all that has been said about God, it is very hard to rationalise His existence. My mind, though, keeps looking for the 'step before' each new scientific discovery. If there was a big bang, what caused it? How did a bunch of atoms get together and become 'life'? How did such complex ecosystems and organisms come into existence? Surely the odds are stacked fairly well against these chains of events. Which leads to my openness to the idea of God. I don't think I really understand who or what God is, but I don't think the idea of a superior being is completely irrational. It certainly explains some things in our world. If science can eliminate all of these questions for me, I'm happy to rethink my views. But at the moment my religion provides me with some pretty solid and agreeable guidelines for living AND a possible explanation for things that man has yet to explain in any other way.

But Otokonoko, the reality of the situation is that positing god as the basis things not understood explains NOTHING. No useful information comes from using god as an explanation, quite the reverse in fact. In many people it stifles inquiry and leads to accusations of transgressing the sacred or defying the natural order.

As for useful guidelines for living, every society in the world has those and it's entirely possible that some are better than yours.

It's a funny thing about unlikely events, many of the most unlikely of events occur every day due the laws of large numbers. Billions of years is a long time and it's a BIG universe.

Despite everything several of us have written some, as shown in Foxy’s last post, are still not actually reading the original article. As I tried to point out in my previous post, Peter Sellick is saying that the “atheists” are NOT dark and evil. He asserts rather that “there are no real atheists”.

Otokonoko has just echoed a point one or two other posters have made in their own ways. E.g. “Atheism is not a disbelief in a god - it's a disbelief in any god at all.” I have to respond that the word “god” in itself can mean different things to different people. To say you don’t believe in “any god at all” still leaves you open to the question: What do you mean by that word ‘god’? Peter’s article holds up some of the interpretations of the word for examination. There may well be others worth looking at.

Nevertheless, from reading and listening to people who call themselves “atheists” my strong impression is that they are denying belief in one or more versions of the “god” concept that the article describes and tears down.

PtB: << 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 >>

Oh yeh. Speaking of whacko:

BoazyPorkyPuppet: << I'd call certain Muslims from Melbourne as witnesses >>

I'm wondering on what basis Porky thinks he could compel anybody to give evidence if he were to be charged with contravening his favourite Victorian legislation?

I think that as a lawyer, Porky makes a good Islamophobic frootloop.

BOAZ_David,

"Dear Dear Spikey :) I love you..I really do!"

Yuk, that's obscene! I can assure you your 'love' is neither wanted nor reciprocated. Nor do I invite your sexist condescension.

It seems you have a bizarre pathological need to twist everything that your opponents say and pretend that they are really supporting your case.

"I have a feeling you don't have the slightest clue about the implications of what you presented and how much it supports pretty much everything I've been saying ad nauseum about Islam :)" You're do a good line in parody and sending yourself up. Truly weird and wacko.

Now get out of the way and let me talk to someone with intelligence.

crabsy, accidentally or otherwise, i think you've located the solid ground. you paraphrase sellick:

<<there are no real atheists>>

given sellick's title, this seems fair enough. and i suggest the zen response is:

<< there are no real atheists if and only if there are no real gods >>

but of course this is absurd. if there are no real gods then atheism is not only meaningful, it is also true, and it would be wise and correct to be atheist.

this points out the fundamental problem with sellick's article: he is so addicted to being cute, he forgets the value of being comprehensible.

what is sellick really saying? the pivotal line is:

<<My point is that modern expressions of atheism are an objection not to the Christian God ...>>

so what it seems sellick is claiming is that atheism is irrelevant to and consistent with belief in the christian god. we've all been disbelieving the wrong gods!

now that may be true or false, depending of course upon what one means by "christian god". as i wrote in my very first post on this thread, i think sellick's article is much more problematic for "christians" than "atheists".

so, in fact sellick could have been setting common ground for atheism and what he regards (correctly or incorrectly) as christianity. does he do this? nope. he grasps schism out of the jaws of consensus.

no, sellick has to give his article a ridiculous, inflammatory title. and he has to have a bizarre second page, effectively redefining "atheism" in a pointless and bizarre manner. he may be cute, but he is obscure as all hell: and in his follow up posts, it is clear that he takes absolutely no responsibility for the inevitable misunderstandings.

so, what's the common ground? i think we can all agree that sellick is a clown.