David of the atheist foundation.
Your insistence of evidence ignores the bible. The evidence therein contained is not evidence of the supernatural, although many writers used the supernatural to express theological truths, nor is it evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, although that is the way language has to run. Belief in God is not an intellectual guessing game, it relies on seeing the truth of the gospel and the way that truth transforms our lives. The evidence is the history of Israel and the life and death of Jesus. Again this must be qualified by the times in which the writing was done and their circumstances. But the only evidence, I say again, is how this person Jesus represents a humanity that overturns and renews the world.
Of all the statements to which I can object this one cries out: “Religion would have some credibility if the determiner for supernatural beliefs systems were not geographical location, were consistent in interpretation, not propaganda dependent, had evidence universally accepted and such a belief caused no harm.”
This represents a desire for a religion divorced from anything earthly, it is Platonism, mysticism, a desire for the universal idea shorn of anything as coarse as the life and death of a man. The church has been seduced by this since it began because it wanted faith to be rational and able to be received by any reasonable person.
However, when that has been tried we found that Christianity lost its grounding in the real, the earthly, in blood and sweat and tears and became pure ideology, a bit like that which abounds today that baptizes any seemingly good and fashionable idea. Christianity will always be the enemy of such spiritualizing. That is why it insists, against all reason, that Jesus rose from the dead, bodily and that he ascended into heaven, bodily. That is why Christian eat his body and drink his blood. I am amused at your writing for the atheist foundation yet you long for a religion that is purely spiritual.

Peter Sellick

David (continued)
Let us examine your proposal in a more detailed way. Firstly all religion is tarred with the same brush as being a supernatural belief system. Christianity is supernatural only in that it cannot be derived from our observations of our lives and the world. It cannot be reasoned into existence because it relies on an historical event. Israel set the scene, unique among the nations, for a purely natural understanding of the world free of spooks and ghosts. It did this in the first creation narrative that sees the things of the earth as themselves only and not as gods.

Your insistence that religion not geographically located is a denial of the real, strange for an atheist. All culture has a place and a time and particular men and women. How could that not be? It is true that Christianity is particularly scandalous in this in that it centres on the life and death of a man and a history of a nation. Anything else would be ideology or wishful thinking.

Consistency in interpretation is another impossibilty. All scientific theories have multiple interpretations why should not all theologies? However, as all scientific theories are anchored in the reproducibility of observations and postulate causes and effects, so theology has its dogma or foundation. The foundation for Christian theology is not the existence of a supernatural being but the doctrine of the Trinity, as we have seen a far more difficult concept. Multiple interpretations are inevitable.

When atheists talk about science they talk about education when they talk about religion they call education propaganda.

There is not such thing as universal acceptance of anything.

And finally you insist that such belief causes no harm. The gospel recognises that belief will divide people bound in the closest ties of family and nation. That cannot be helped. Some will come to faith and others will not and we do not have an explanation as to why this is so, it is the realm of the Holy Spirit. But harm will come when the truth will out.
Peter Sellick

Dan S de Merengue,

I have obviously wasted my time on giving you the facts - and you have certainly wasted mine. You are not a seeker after truth. Your mind is locked tight to facts that don't support your predetermined position.

Ephesians chapter 6 obviously answers all your needs. Go read brother and may all the false gods in your head be torn down by prayer.

Sells,

Let me state unequivocally I have no desire for any religion to be true or not. There just happens to be no way of ascertaining if one or more of the thousands is/are correct. If one or more were true, I would accept it on evidence. Most religious people think that such evidence exists, as do you in your reliance on scripture.

That so called ‘evidence’, is not reliable. It fails the historical accuracy test of independent cross reference support. Because some of the ideas written a long time ago tie up with contemporary thought does not make them the words of a god. Human desire for happiness has been the same throughout history. Before science started explaining the world, such thoughts were attributed to gods. We now know better.

Even if we put aside the sexism, homophobia, belief disease is demonic, a reliance on the Old Testament fables, which are included in the NT and presumably acceptable to the alleged Jesus, if he existed (Which is highly doubtful) his words do not make him anymore than a person expressing common desires which have been in humanity since the year dot. These alleged words do not make the alleged Jesus a god.

What makes you think that Atheists cannot evaluate the same ‘evidence’ you claim that exists, and reach a different conclusion to religionists. Atheists tend not to discount the immensity of suffering unfairly distributed in humanity and other sentient animals. Atheists are not satisfied that a god’s creation can be explained away by a god working in mysterious ways.

It would be reasonable of you to respond to other points I have made, for instance the indoctrination of the malleable minds of children making the adult. The books you have failed to read are about these things and more. I suggest you read them.

It is understandable that the panic experienced by those of faith caused by overt Atheism has caused a reaction against it. Atheism expects this, is somewhat regretful and most wish there was another way. The unjustified self-protectionism of religion is at fault.

David

David the Atheist
Peter's position is not one of elitism. Name me a prophet who is of the elite. They normally do it tough. What Peter is proclaiming is based on sound exegesis and theology upon which thousands of volumes have been written over the last half century. Indeed I find commonality in it with writings of Pope Benedict XVI on the core stuff of faith.
Can I suggest we have a common cause to take on the god of gaps and magic and out there spooky supernatural?
Even if you half agree here is a proposition. Your website's definition of Atheism: Is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific.....

As such, I assume the Atheist society remains open that a scientific finding one day into the future may provide such evidence. Yet while waiting it may miss, or fail to evaluate, the millennia of praxis that prefaces such a moment. Praxis that may see earthly fulfillment and completion, or earthly oblivion. It is coming down to our human choice : human flourishing v earthly decadence - a common task for atheists and the faithful.

So whilst waiting, perhaps your Foundation's objects should include the evidence based analysis of the various faiths, and their various major and minor threads, and benchmark them, removed from prejudice, for the information of all mankind according to their story, origins, ritual, historical path, social good, propensity for evil, teleological and prophetic value for society. It is good to know your enemy.

I notice also on your web site you direct recommended reading material towards children. They, like children at church, are influenced by their parents more than any other external entity. What is the ethical difference between putting a Bible into the hands of a child and placing before a child a copy of An Athiest Manifesto? None, as ethics has no play in this. Both sets of parents have intent to provide a basis for life from which the children make up their own mind.

Dear Spikey
Sorry for not replying earlier. For some reason I overlooked pressing the appropriate button that tells you that comments have been posted.
1.I would have thought "Jewed to Death" may "incite people to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs"
2. No problem
But 3 and 4? I leave that to other contributors. I would have thought the Star of David superimposed on a pig may "incite people to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs".
But I suspect the racial vilification legislation has not prevented these demonstrations of anti-Semitism. But others may disagree.
Regards
Blair.