I find your logic fascinating, Peter the Believer. And fantastic.

Your first fantasy:

>>Atheism is a religion based upon opposition to Christianity<<

On the contrary, atheism has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Nor Islam. Nor Judaism. Perhaps you might like to swot up on your religious knowledge - Wikipedia, for all its faults, is a great place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

One useful phrase for you to mull over is "there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere"

This is a key concept - one that, incidentally, many Christians pick up on to accuse atheists of a "make it up as you go" attitude towards morality. You can choose to accept this or not, but if you reject it, it would be instructive if you were to describe exactly what "set of behaviours" is common to all atheists.

Unfortunately, this lack of consistency on the part of us atheists makes something of a mockery - not only of the "atheism is a religion" argument, but also of your claim that:

>>Atheism was made compulsory in 1986<<

If there is no common pattern of conduct between two, a thousand or a million atheists, what exactly has been made "compulsory" here?

And to further the mystery of your mental contortions, you tell us that:

>>The Broad Church of the Liberal Party has made us be atheists whether we want to be or not<<

The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that you yourself are actually an atheist, which, given the tenor of your many posts on the subject, I find somewhat difficult to believe.

To unravel your thought processes, let me reassure you that i) you are not required to be an atheist, although you may if you choose, ii) religion in general, and the practice of Christianity in particular, are both alive and well in Australia, and that iii) atheism, far from being a religion, is simply a lack of acceptance that there is a God. Any God. Yours, or anyone else's.

have a great day.

My dear atheists. Are you who you say you are!
From those of you posting here I would say yes!

Alas! Apparently most other atheists are not of your great profoundness.

Refer to extract from Sydney Morning Herald article 2/2/9 : extract below

My many atheist friends and others I meet in conversation reject the institutional church and find the new age pentecostals and old style bible as literal churches just stupid. Whilst they have expanded their knowledge of things of the world they have not exposed themselves to matters of faith with their "theology" still that learned in the days of a dying "counter reformation" church. I know a few who still indeed "practise" from the same basis.

So Peter has done well. He has highlighted the god who is both rejected by mainstream atheists ( non hard core) and "paid homage to" by so many believers ( including too many of the clergy - I am RC) who have not availed themselves of enlightened theology Peter expounds. The theology of God as Event, revealed across time through a people in history, made personal in a man and in glory as the Risen Lord. The stuff of faith, and understandably rejected as an insult to reason by those whose sole diet is the cold porridge of measured, evidence based reason.

I know no "dark" atheists. None that meet Peter's prescription of denial of displayed goodness. You are not a bad lot


--

Extract: http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2009/02/02/1233423135426.html

....Its most recent survey reveals that 80 per cent of Australians said they believed in "god", 85 per cent believed in the "soul" and just 5 per cent described themselves as "atheists".

..... In a recent interview for publicchristianity.org she cited research showing that people who describe themselves as "atheist" in surveys do not necessarily deny the existence of God. For a large number of them the tag "atheist" functioned as a protest against formal religion.
End of Extract

boxgum,

i'm honestly not sure what you're getting at with that post. your quotes seem no big concern for atheists, hard core (?) or otherwise.

the first quote, which you don't seem to take exception to, seems only to emphasise that there are many who in fact do practise and believe some type of cartoon christianity. (george, are you paying attention?)

i agree, sellick's "christianity" may well be non-cartoon. the problem with sellick's post isn't necessarily his beliefs. the problem is sellick's hijacking the term "atheist" for a foolish and failed rhetorical effect.

the deeper problem, which george has (too) gently pointed out, is that sellick needn't have written about atheists at all. it is a complete distraction from the main point: the nature of christianity, or (more controversially) of the christian god.

sellick has created a conversational swamp. the very least he should do is acknowledge it. but, somehow the humble bit of christianity ain't his strong suit.

as to your second quote, i'm not sure what point you're making. if it is that the clear majority of australians profess to (and presumably do) have some kind of religious belief, i wouldn't have thought that anyone would have said otherwise.

but, the nature and strength of religious belief can vary markedly. i'd suggest what lies behind that 80% is dramatically different from such an 80%, or more, a hundred years ago.

Peter the Believer,

Atheists don’t believe in “god”, because alternative explanations are more plausible. Science provides clear physical explanations, regarding matters religionists claim within the realm of their god, Christian or otherwise.

On the other hand, atheists don’t believe in “religion,” they do not believe in god, in the first place. And, by way of refinement, atheists don’t believe in “religion,” because forensic history underlines a multitude of identifiable fabrications by religions.
Peter, envisage a decision tree, with the first branch dividing on the question, “does god exist?” permanently and immutably ticked, “yes”. The propositions remain untested. All decisions are made with said box ticked.

Alternatively, atheists, in my experience, while brought-up in an environment, where the vastitudes of old religiosities remain strong, nonetheless, atheists (and agnostics) are more tentative, before making commitment, herein, deliberating on other possible explanations. Atheists understand the ramifications of the ticking the “no” god box, before setting the “yes” box aside. As noted, religionists are typically less willing to consider the opposing case. Religionists don’t understand the ramifications of the ticking the “yes” god box, before setting the “no” box aside.

Thus, the Field of Consideration is smaller for the religionist and the atheist. The latter has serious considered competing propositions,whereas, typically the formare has not.

Pericles and bushbasher, thankyou. I appreciate the clarity of your thoughts. Please note; this does not in any way indicate that I agree with you, -although I do- it is merely an appreciation.
Oliver, I think I probably agree with you. Clarity, however, is somewhat lacking.
this, I think, is the principal difference between Atheists, and theists.
I can appreciate a good, well reasoned argument. I'm not at all sure theists can.
As I have said in an article before, we are all prisoners of our preconceptions.
Sells was obviously indoctrinated from an early age, and is incapable of overcoming that indoctrination. He sincerely believes atheism is a rejection of only his God. He simply can't get his head around the concept of no God.
Not any.
None.
No spaghetti monster.
No Vishnu.
No allah.
no celestial teapot.
Just us.
People.

bushbasher,
you twice mentioned “cartoon Christianity” in connection with my name.

cartoon (“simple drawing showing the features of its subjects in a humorously exaggerated way”)

Well, I can make a drawing of you with, say, a long nose which you might or might not find funny, but I cannot offer a serious criticism of your looks based on the “fact“ that you have a long nose. Unfortunately, this is often being done here by those who start their criticism (or worse) from a caricature that they themselves drew.