george, i wasn't in any way implying that your beliefs amount to a cartoon christianity. my apologies if you got that impression.

my point is, cartoon christianity does exist and is anything but rare. it is a cheap shot to identify all christianity as cartoon, but it is no automatic straw man either. by comparison, sellick's "atheist" resembles absolutely no atheist i know.

i simply referred to you because you like to compare atheists' behaviour here with sellicks' and that of other christians. i don't dismiss the possibility or reasonableness of such comparison, but in this case i see a distinction.

of course, cartoonishness is no great concern. it's nastiness which is the issue. viz, the st. mary's business that candide pointed out: just smug authoritarianism from god-thug bathersby and his charming mate pell.

i see bathersby as a classic product of and defender of cartoon christianity. his letter to kennedy is laughable: the biggest laugh, him signing away with "sincerely in christ". but christ, it sure isn't funny. it's just revolting.

but george, perhaps bathersby and his catholic thuggery is not cartoon christianity? i don't really care. i'm happy for you to decide whether it's a cartoon version of your faith. what it undeniably is, is medieval and disgusting.

bushbasher,
My post was about those who themselves draw a cartoon version (distortion) of what they want to criticise - theism or atheism, Christianity or what you like - and then draw conclusions from it, usually referred to as the straw man argument. Not about particular Christians, Muslims or atheists who behave or act improperly.

You are referring to the affair with St. Mary's in Brisbane that I do not know the details of, neither am I familiar with the civil and/or canon law details that would apply. Neither can I extract any factual information about the case from what you wrote, although I note your emotional need to express yourself about the affair and its participants in the way you did.

So please excuse me if I do no want to start a new thread starting with this, among other reasons also because of lack of necessary expertise. It is related to the notion of Christianity as such (or even the theism-atheism controversy) only in the same sense that the proper or improper behavior of one particular Australian politician is related to the criticism or defense of the Australian political system.

The article quoted by boxgum was posted by a christian advocate.

If you read it it says that 20% claimed to have no religion, the other 80% who believed in "God" did not clarify this.

From other surveys, church attendance is below 6% and the 80% would probably not rule out the existence of a god, but few actually take any cogniscience of his existence and pay him as much attention as the president of Peru.

If a more detailed survey included who actually uses scripture to guide one's life, I think the numbers would be far fewer.

Spikey,
with regard to vilification laws enacted by Victoria’s Labor government,

You claim that nothing in these laws prevents robust discussion of other religions. So you claim. But I’ve already given a counter example. Would you like to comment on it?

Danny Naliah and Daniel Scott are educated, eloquent and respected members of the community. They were dragged through Victoria’s courts after offering their opinion on another religion.

When you speak of the rabid zealots who previously preached hatred having been tempered, I’m wondering who you are referring to. Who was this rabid preacher? Was it the result of a religious argument or a religious rally? I don't remember these people. If there were any that were inciting violence, then they could have been dealt with adequately by the Crimes Act, which you mention.

Speaking your mind openly is part of our heritage as Australians. I don’t see the need for politicians to tinker with that.

AdamD,
You wonder what is the point of believing in something far beyond our comprehension (3/2/09)?

Perhaps it is humility.

A Christian believes he knows who is behind the wonders of creation, a being whose capacities are beyond our finite comprehension. I interpret your question as meaning that you’ve nearly got it all figured out, or that anything that you don’t know about is not worth knowing.

You ask, can you know you’ve got the right God? Christians believe that God’s revelation of himself to mankind is adequate. Though not comprehensive, it is sufficient for all we need for a godly life.

You say that the inevitable deduction that life exists on other planets arises from rationalising probabilities. This assumes that a group of inorganic molecules has a capacity or likelihood for arranging themselves into life forms given time and natural processes. This is a big assumption.

But we dare not say too much along these lines without risking the wrath of Peter Sellick, who has tried valiantly to steer discussion away from the Cosmological argument.

100% of Australians today are practicing atheists. We must go the church when summonsed. That has not changed. In 1900 people had to as well. Until 1970, to be an Judge in New South Wales a Supreme Court Justice, needed consent. No one has had choice since, and if sought, the request to worship Jesus Christ by having a jury is refused. Is this so fantastic? In 1975, 1976 and 1979 it was extended to the Family Court, and other federal courts; Hard clear evidence for anyone to see for themselves.

Where does the Broad Church of the Liberal Party come from? The Manly Daily quoting Tony Abbott. Oh what a murderous church it is too. If we had an honest media, we would have every day, reports of seven suicides, and that includes Sundays. Add to that the murders brought about by temporary insanity, such as Darcey Freeman, claimed to be simply the tip of the iceberg.

Add in the hundreds of thousands deprived of their licence to drive a motor car, without any due process in the atheist sausage factories, the Magistrates Courts. Then add the 300,000 odd people at risk of losing their homes, because the atheists have removed their equity of redemption, a Christian concept developed to give lenders a fair go, when juries ruled. A mortgage could not be foreclosed in less than a year before the atheists started ruling, now the atheist Judges give possession in thirty days. Don’t talk just take is bank management.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 was enacted by the Liberals, and its administration is pure atheist. The federal sausage factories: the Federal Magistrate and Federal Court: strictly atheist, strict liability, no defences allowed. Dishonest, absolutely, Christian No. The division in the Labor Party between Catholics and Anglicans, allowed the Liberal Party Church to become all powerful.

We have a man leading Australia who professes Christianity, and demonstrates his faith weekly. There are signs that he is going to restore the Christian Commonwealth, and abolish the fractured nine church abomination, created by the atheists/lawyers in government in the last forty years

"Christians believe that God’s revelation of himself to mankind is adequate. Though not comprehensive, it is sufficient for all we need for a godly life." - Dan S de Merengue

Dan,

Can you please eleaborate? Surely, if you were born in Ancient Greece, you would be worshippong Zeus, given your perchant towards religiousity?

Have you tested the claims made by Christianity, against what anthropologists now tell us about the development of religions from the time of Sumer, later the Axial Age and later still, the development of Middle Eastern religions in the first and second centuries CE? My view is that Christian claims do not standout. The patterns found in Christianity are evident in other religions.

O.