AdamM
A lot of judgment in this post. My parents where 'born again' atheists. No baggage about religion to overcome.
Are you talking God or religion? I consider the possibility of any of the worlds religions being correct pretty much zero, but what has this to with God? Are you Atheist or anti-religion? If you are anti-religion I am with you on that one.
Logic is a very miss-understood word. Logic is the justification of a pre-determined prejudice. Used correct it is very useful.
An engineer designing the structure of a building uses logic. The pre-determine prejudice is that the engineer wants the building to stand up. The engineer starts with the macro. What the building will weight, the bearing pressure of the ground, the wind loads on the finished building and so on.
From there on he works backwards to where he must start from in order to build a building that will stand up. The start is a set of plans to give to the builder who then works forwards to a building that stands up.
That is what logic is all about. Work backwards from where you want to end up to find out where you must start from.
Logical deduction is a backward process not a forward one. So you have worked back from where you want to end up to find out where you must start from to prove your point. If you wanted to prove something else use logic to find where you must start from to prove that. This way you can prove anything, but it would be a total miss-use of logic.
Basically I see your post as being a mixture of judgement and switching between religion and God. 'But if an Agnostic really ….. etc. That one sentence is a mixture of judgment and confusing the Agnostic position as having anything to with religion.
What makes it more confusing is that you put in (as described by religion) so it seems that you do possibly understand the difference between God (if or not it exists) and religion

Oliver, thanks for answering my question.

You finish by presenting us with two options regarding the trinity. These options are elaborate, and I hardly think that they could be the only possible explanations available. There are elements within both that I disagree with. In particular, I would disagree that the idea that the trinity is not revealed in the OT and NT. Without a doubt, the word ‘trinity’ is not present, but many theologians have demonstrated the concept in many parts of the Bible, starting from page one and continuing through.

However, your wider point, if I understand it, is that religion is a social construct, and did not originate from divine revelation. Yet here I think you have misunderstood the nature of revelation. It is not a scroll that fell from heaven. This is one occasion where I think I can understand and appreciate one of Sells' points.

God has continually made himself known within the midst of people, whether through the prophets, through our consciences, the nation of Israel, the church and especially through the person of Christ. That there is a human element, and that humans are usually far from perfect, is a given. Consequently, that religion is integrally entwined with human or societal constructs is not an argument against Christianity.

In fact, that is the mystery of the incarnation for Christians; who was this man Jesus? How can God take on skin and bone and become a man? The trinity is a frail, human attempt to try and make sense of that event

AdamD and Daviy,

An Atheist is a person who disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This is different from having a certainty that there is no god. In fact certainty without absolute proof would almost be a belief system akin to a religion itself. If this were the definition of an athiest, it would be a contradiction in terms.

Thus many people that classify themselves as agnostics are in fact athiest, who shy away from assuming the label that has been vilified for centuries.

19% of the population claim to have no religion (this would probably be higher if this was not also a cultural question, I know my wife happily ticked the anglican box for us, as our families are from that background, in spite that neither of us actually believe in a god) yet only 5% claim to be athiest.

This shows that while church attendance has dropped to record levels of about 6%, the vast majority for whom religion plays no part what so ever in their lives prefer to use the softer more acceptable term "agnostic" rather than coming out of the closet and admitting they have no actual belief in the supernatural.

If you asked the question "do you believe that there is a god who answers your prayers and who has a direct influence in your personal life" The numbers who don't believe would be much higher.

Dear Michael,

Thanks for the clarification.

Dear Daviy,

I don’t think there’s very much we disagree on.

Perhaps I was a bit loose with my use of the word “logic”. I’ll re-phrase by saying that since there is not the slightest bit of evidence for a personal god - zip, zilch, nada, nothing - one can reasonably conclude with a high level of certainty that no personal god exists.

When I was talking about Agnosticism in regards to any of the world’s religions being right, I probably should have actually specified an Agnosticism about the existence of the kind of intervening god that Democritus mentioned in the last paragraph of his/her post. Please note though, that I doubted anyone would actually fit that description.

I’ll take your criticisms on board, but I’m willing to risk being judgemental if it means stating it how it is. Religion has done a lot more harm than good in this world and I don’t think pussy-footing around will get us anywhere.

Dear Democritius,

Spot on!

I would consider most Agnostics Atheists, possibly even Daviy.

There’s a lot of confusion as to what an Atheist is. I remember speaking to a friend of mine who said: “I don’t believe in god, but I’m not an Atheist”. When I asked him what he meant by “not an Atheist”, he said: “Well, I don’t HATE religious people. I just don’t believe in god.”

He thought he was Agnostic because he didn’t hate religious people.

Given that Sells so frequently makes weird observations, I'm not entirely sure why this one stands out for me. But it does.

>>The foundation for Christian theology is not the existence of a supernatural being but the doctrine of the Trinity<<

I guess this must be the part about Christianity that has so far eluded me.

It's not about God at all. According to Sells, anyway, the foundation of his religion is not the existence of God, but about doctrine. About dogma. About theological arguments, that seem to have moved on from pondering those angels dancing on a pinhead, and into university libraries.

Sells, I do believe that you are doing more to destroy faith in your religion than any number of atheists could possibly achieve, even if they were of a mind to.

>>the bible... is not evidence of the supernatural... nor is it evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, although that is the way language has to run<<

I suspect that would come as a bit of a surprise to many. As I recall, it involves itself in the supernatural from the very first chapter, and doesn't seem to let up all the way through.

Although it is a long time since I read it, so my memory may be faulty.

Religion is about emotional responses to the unknown and unknowable. Trying to "ground" it in non-supernatural terms, i.e. without admitting that there is a God behind all the goings-on, would seem to me a most destructive and thoughtless act.

But I might be missing a subtlety here. Wouldn't be the first time.

I think the greatest failing of Christians in Australia is their failure to teach their children, in some cases that Christianity is not just for the hereafter but for today. Atheists don’t have a hereafter, and unlike Christians don’t have a guiding light, to show them how to interact with their fellow man to mutual advantage. The Holy Bible is that guiding philosophy.

It takes a special type of person to be an atheist. He or she must be extremely selfish. He or she must have no compassion and not care in any way whatsoever how he or she is governed, so long as he or she can obey the rules. And what set of rules? The set of rules not hammered out over 2000 years, but those made by the Johnnys come lately who gather as elected representatives in a congregation in Canberra and each Capital city.

The Holy Bible is a Statute adopted by the English Government as binding in 1688. The word Royal means God. The Gospels are central to the Constitution of Australia. The Holy Bible warns everyone against lawyers, and lawyers are essentially atheists. In 2000 years not one spot on their hide has changed. Everything they touch turns to dust.

Atheists have no touchstone. Atheists have no benchmark to measure good from evil against. Each sets his own mark and that is essentially selfish. An atheist never goes to church, or feels the fellowship of his fellow Christians in the presence of Almighty God. They still fear god, so have killed him by abolishing his courts. We have all been compulsory atheists since 1970 in New South Wales. Atheists believe do good get good, do bad get beaten. The place where the beatings occur are the Courts of the atheists. Before 1969, the Magna Carta vested all punishment in Almighty God and a jury set the penalty. The atheists in the Parliament of New South Wales abolished Christianity in 1900.

The seminaries for atheists are the law schools. Atheists are essentially rebels, who fear god, but fear accountability even more. Atheists have abolished accountability