Boxgum, George et al,

To the Romans the Christians were Atheists. The Pangi were social people, whose society encouraged cross-worship and syncretism of divinities. The Christian churches associate the word “Pagan” with the occult ad evil, yet etymologically, the word’s meaning is closer to, “civil”.

Ancient Jews, including Jewish Christian Sects, were exclusive and would not worship other gods nor allow Romans to burn incense in their places of worship of their God.

Likewise, converted Gentiles were given a lowly place in Jewish hierarchy, as mere god-farers not true Jews, until after Hadrian expelled all Jews, including Christians, to Pella. By necessity Christian Jews became Jewish Christians to regain access to the Holy Lands.

So in the first and second centuries CE, whom was labelled Atheist, depended upon changeable frames. But gods were within the universe.

Moreover, Christian religion largely saw the universe containing the natural world, Earth, and the supernatural, space. Herein, we still call space, “The Heavens”. Galileo destoyed this assumption, showing the hel separation false: The natural world is the universe.

With the retreat of the anthropomorphic principal, Christians ultimately adjusted to the new reality, while the domain of their tangible Heaven shrunk; wherein, the universe became the locus of the Creation, and, havin an emphasis on intelligent design advocacy.

Romans and other theists throughout history, until more recent centuries, would have been at best unclear on the distinction of a God “within” the universe or God “outside” of the universe.

Noting the latter demotes the Creation and the place of Humanity in the scheme of things; God progressively became more remote and, the anthropomorphic principal again is diminished.

Boxgum, owing to Science stealing the universe from underneath the Creator’s feet and, anthropologists & historians explaining how religions work, Atheism and Theism transmuted, from disagreement over differences in what god to believe in, to evicting gods from the universe.

Thus, Atheism, today, becomes opposed to all gods. Modern understandings drive the debate from the physical to esoteric: A timeless designer god (theist) or a self-organising universe (atheist)?

george:

<<One cannot defend one‘s world view, or just point of view, without attributing some negative features to positions that one thinks one has to defend it from.>>

sure. i agree. i'm working as hard as i can to attribute negativity!

just a joke (sort of). as i said, i don't have a particular problem with the negativity, possibly less than you. i'm not offended by offense. it seems you're a gentler fellow, and prefer a gentler mode of discussion. that's cool too.

the problem with sellick isn't the negativity. it's the needless, wallowing incomprehensibility. who on earth redefines "atheism" in such a manner if they really care about being understood?

that's the overwhelming absurdity of sellick's post. why not, at least, title the post "the irrelevance of atheism [to christianity]"? that would still create heat but would be a damn sight clearer.

and of course a much better title would have been "the compatibility of atheism and christianity". many would possibly still disagree (and i'd conjecture more christians than atheists), but at least there would be a clear claim with which to disagree.

the reality is, he just doesn't care. he simply doesn't pay close attention to what he writes. he then compounds it by taking not one ounce of responsibility for the garbles he produces.

i have a hell of a lot of time and tolerance for people who struggle honestly to convey difficult or controversial ideas. i have no time for clowns who lazily churn out article after article after bloody article of half-baked slops.

Foxy, I don't think you should have to apologise for for the Cargill quote on an Opinion forum. Surely he is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else; arguably more than some, as he is funny and entertaining.
Otokonoko, I sympathise with your position. I too, retain a -probably irrational- belief in God.
As I see it, we have 3 basic choices.
1. Complete atheism. A disbelief in any God, anywhere.
2. Belief in a personal God. This requires one to accept that such a God is powerful, and can intercede in human affairs, if IT wishes, but chooses not to; at least not any more.
Or if it does, IT is very choosy about who IT helps and who it ignores or punishes.
Like the 2 men of religion in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the personal God seems to spend IT's time crossing the road, and therefore -in my opinion- is unworthy of worship anyway.
3. Belief in a God which exists outside our Cosmos, and by the very natural laws of this Cosmos is incapable of intercession.
Such a God would be irrelevant to our situation, so a belief in such a God is essentially the same as atheism, since IT does not exist in our Cosmos, and cannot affect our Cosmos.
Why believe in such a God? Ironically, it was Dawkins who convinced me of ITs existence.
Well, originally Darwin. It seems to me, that if we have evolved from single celled organisms in the space of a few billion years, where will we be in another few billion?
I firmly believe in a Cosmos the size of ours, given the almost infinite room for complexity, the evolution of at least one species to the point where they can step outside the space/time bubble is almost inevitable.
Could we be that species?
Bugsy will no doubt point out that belief in such a being has no point, and he's probably right. But science is about understanding why.
Better a religion that seeks to understand God, than one which purports to already do so.

Foxy,

Thanks for your support. I do lose patience sometimes with a couple of constant haters.

I like your quote from Voltaire: "The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it."

You wonder what would happen to an Arab/Muslim Australian if they quoted "only the bad bits from the Old Testament across various threads, and continued on with a series of escalating messages filled with emotion-filled opinions, words, and upper-case letters."

Of course they'd get arrested by the Federal police

One way or the other we have no choice. As Pierre Schlag from Denver, Jurisprudentist, said, the Law is god by other means. You can be a Christian and insist on Christian Law, which has not been done for forty years in New South Wales, or you can have the Law of Atheists rammed down your throat. When the Law becomes god, and you must worship parliament or be severely punished, you have become a compulsory atheist. There are nine God factories in Australia churning out laws, many of them contradictory. It is no wonder many of us are schizophrenic.

Before we allowed the Aristocrats of the Law, barristers and solicitors to run for parliament, and confined them to their proper role, which is to examine laws made by parliaments, sort the good from the bad, and chuck out inconsistent ones, we had a chance of freedom. As atheists believing in the law and not god, these fifth columnists have undermined the whole system, and made us all into slaves. As members of the pseudo aristocracy, lawyers were prohibited from the House of Commons for 498 years. Since they were allowed back in, or crept in without challenge, the law has become asinine. They have made an Aristocracy of the Federal Court of Australia. The Family Court, and the High Court, and all the wannabees are serving the scam, because otherwise they will never be picked for the aristocracy themselves. There is not one lawyer in Australia who can effectively argue Constitutional Supremacy. That is the Christian Rule of law.

Many on this forum know the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is law. It destroys the aristocracy, so they will not admit it as enacted. It destroys the States, it destroys the Law Society and Bar Association monopolies. It say the State must pay for the sins of its servants. It is the principles of the New Testament as a law. Father Frank Brennan is a lawyer. Which god does he serve first, the Law or Our Father which art in Heaven. Is he in reality an atheist

Peter Sellick has been getting his articles published on OLO since August 2002.

At (approximately) 83 articles over 6.5 years, that is an average of 13 articles a year (rounded off to nearest whole number). More than one a month! During which he regularly attacks atheists.

How does he manage it? Are the editors at OLO really that biased? Or does Sellick simply blackmail them?

Why am I not addressing the topic? Because Sellick never really changes his topic, it always translates to Sellick's version of Christianity = Good, anything else = Bad.

Of course this jibe will be dismissed as babble. But if we have to have a religious discussion, why can't it be someone like Father Bob, who has a sense of humour and is actually interesting and the hapless OLO reader doesn't need a freakin' degree in Theology to follow?

Just a thought.