The other best seller in Australia should be the Constitution. If you are in a football club and you don’t obey the rules, the Constitution you are expelled. This document deserves more respect. It so terrifies atheists that they got their advocates, lawyers all, to make it unenforceable. The House of Atheists in New South Wales repealed the common law in 1970, because the common law demands all statutes to be called into question and tried at law. Atheists cannot stand that accountability.

The Constitution, a pure and honest law, can stand any test. This is not so for many of the sixty thousand or so rattled out by nine Parliaments in Australia. Christianity gave us the gift of a threshing floor, where the chaff can be sifted from the grain. That threshing floor is a court without a Capital letter. Chapter III Constitution guarantees that congregation. Lawyers in Parliament deny us that basic human right. This forum, is a substitute for a jury trial, for you are all members of a big jury.

It frightens atheists that they will have to answer to Almighty God for their sins. They have abolished juries. Seven atheists who sat on the High Court abolished Christianity in 2004 with the High Court Rules 2004 when they took the Queen off all process, in open defiance of Parliament. The Parliament of the Commonwealth is still Christian. The seven Capital J Judges, who wrote the Premier Rule Book in Australia should be indicted for insubordination and sacked.

In a court without a capital C, ( without being rude, a Capital J Judge sits in a capital C Court), there must be a Justice, a jury of twelve, and two protagonists. This is uniquely Christian. The word judges, is in S 79 Constitution. I have never seen a Judge with two heads, plural, even in Tasmania. The word judges means judges of fact, and a jury has the power to find as fact, if any law is indeed made for the peace order and good government of the Football Club. Two heads are better than one.

boxgum,

If religions want to impose themselves on society, then they must prove their claims to be true. It is not up to Atheists to disprove the thousands of religions.

Should humanity assume that one day we might encounter extraterrestrial intelligence or that fairies actually exist and indoctrinate children with the appropriate belief system just in case?

No Atheist I know wishes to indoctrinate children with any ideology. We are suggesting, and strongly so, that a wide version of history be taught to children, how belief depends on location, historical relevancies of the many faiths, how many religions there are, that great harm can result if allowed into politics and that there is no evidence for anything supernatural.

Why is that not reasonable?

Indoctrinating children with false hopes and fears does not only produce bad results in the Hindu religion, the Muslim religion or the Aztec religion, it does likewise in Christianity. It is common to them all.

Most Atheists stand by the incontrovertible idea that particular religious induction with the accompanying threat of a hell or the promise of a heaven is child abuse. Most Atheists acknowledge that acceptance of a particular religion by children is a by-product of evolution where messages in infancy are readily retained as a survival mechanism. These adult authorised messages do not have to be correct for acceptance by children. By examining other religions, it is obvious that the ensuing adult retains these messages as an inherent part of character.

Denial of the effectiveness of (Ones own) cultural programming is a serious problem with all religions. Not denying this makes one complicit in fraudulent behaviour or at the very least, guilty of delusional religious chauvinism.

Don’t get me wrong, DRC, if practiced in private between consenting adults wouldn’t cause too many problems. Atheists might still consider this strange but would be supportive of such an arrangement

Peter the Believer,

You are showing signs of paranoid behaviour. What unjust laws are Atheists attempting to force onto the public? Atheists frightened of your non-existent invisible friend? What utter piffle!

David

If something exists it exists. If something does not exist then it does not. No amount of 'logic' or debate is going to talk God into, or out of existence.
The Descartes type ontological argument that I can conceive God therefore God exists also applies to Martians, who some might say have a higher probability of existing than God.
The reverse is also true. Does God exist? None of us know.
This debate about Christianity and Atheism completely missies the third position. Agnostic.
Supernatural only means that we cannot yet explain something in natural terms we understand at this time. What would have been made of a Boeing 737 four hundred years ago?
I have studied Jesus for many years. Jesus, not Christianity. Free of the Christian envelope Jesus becomes a fascinating character and philosopher, even if, as some claim, he was fictional character.
Basic story. Jesus is born heir to the Davidic throne, and the Pharisees contrive to make him the Messiah as well. The purpose is to overthrow the Romans. Jesus and John where educated by the Pharisees to fulfil the need for a leader the people would believe in to lead the uprising.
The uprising was supposed to start to the baptism of Jesus, but instead Jesus and John instead turn against the Pharisees and declare there own agenda. From that point Jesus became the enemy of the Pharisees and had to be destroyed.
Back to the original topic.
Does God exist? We do not know. The only evidence is that we cannot prove God does not exist.
Is God a construct? We do not know. The only evidence for deigning the existence of God is that we cannot prove God does exist.
The only reasonable position is to be Agnostic.
If only I could convert you all to the one true faith of not knowing we could get on with solving real issues.
Shadow minister. Correctly if it is just an idea it is an hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that works. This probably means little to your arguement because you meaning is clear.

This thread is facinating has certainly got out there.

In August 2008 the City of Florence officially lifted the death sentence on Dante for writing his three poety books on the Inferno, Paradisio and Purgatorio, 665 years after his death. I particularly liked his description of what happens to "Popes" when the go to lower hell.

Was Dante an atheist Peter?

Dear Daviy,

I don’t think there are many Atheists out there who believe with absolute certainty that a god definitely does not exist. To speak in terms of absolute certainty is unhelpful and useless. Technically, most Atheists are Agnostic because none of us can really know for sure. But we can - through logical deduction - know with a high degree of certainty that a god (as described by religions) does not exist.

I also don’t believe that any thinking Agnostic seriously entertains the idea that any of the religions around the world might actually be right (or even close). From what I’ve observed, people who describe themselves as “Agnostic” are either slowly coming to their senses after being indoctrinated as a child; are indifferent about the topic of ‘religion’ and have never really thought about it deeply enough to say what they believe; or have a very broad definition of "god".

But if an Agnostic really has given it a lot of serious thought, and still considers it possible that one of the world’s religions may actually be right, then I would have to disagree with you that Agnosticism is the most reasonable position to take in that particular instance. Athough I don't think there would be many (if any at all) who fit this description.

It all depends on what you class as ‘Atheist’ and ‘Agnostic’.

Spikey,
I’m sorry that you feel you’ve waisted your time by discussing an issue with someone who disagrees with you. However, that is what forms the core of this Forum page and this website in general.

I hope you aren’t confusing ‘facts’ with opinions. In my opinion, those who claim that they deal with ‘facts’ while others don’t need to make a check on which website they’ve clicked onto. This one is called ‘Online opinion .com’.

If your ‘facts’ were so clear and straight forward, then they should add up to a conviction of wrongdoing for Scott and Nalliah. This fact is missing from your equation.

Adam,
The movement of individual chess pieces is not difficult to understand or follow. Most eight-year-olds can learn piece movements fairly quickly. However, the sport of chess is about developing strategy at the very deepest level. The near infinity of possible moves in any decent length game means that it is impossible that someone can become good at chess simply through memorisation. Champions require years of learning and developing their skills of tactics and strategy, as well as being blessed with a mind capable of seeing quicker and further than their opponents.

I’m sorry if my analogy fell a bit short.