Peter the imbiber,

What on earth are you talking about? Have you any idea of what the topic is, or have you simply been smoking too much "natural" produce to care.

Shadow Minister,

Isn’t it interesting how internally produced natural endorphins resulting from religious fervour create similar delusions in the brain as do the ingested variety of hallucinogenic and mind altering drugs? It raises a whole heap of questions as to why the former is perceived as ‘good’ and the latter as ‘bad’. :))

David

Shadow Minister
Your posts are exactly what I was talking about in my article 'The Age of Reason' You tell me what I think or believe and even though it is rubbish I cannot prove it is rubbish. It is what I called 'The Reverse Hiroshima Principle.' That is what I am offended by.
If you are interested in what I think or belief I am capable of telling you, but as soon as you start telling me what I think or believe you are off with the fairies. This is the reason why the human race spends so much time out of touch with reality, and the reason I am so against judgmental crap. If you cannot say what you want to say without judgment and putdowns you have nothing to say.
Peter
The core of Christianity is that women invented original sin, and are the cause of all sin and suffering in this world. Unless you belief that ridiculous proposition you cannot be a Christian. That is the problem with female priests. It would be putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup.
Christianity and the Law? In a way you are right. Christianity is not really religion, it is a legal system. Along with Judaism and Islam it originated from the law of Abram.
The Abramic system is the Church can do anything it wants and remain free of sin because they are Gods lawyers on earth and anything they do must be Gods will.
This has permeated our legal system to become 'Provided it is legal we can do anything we want and remain free of sin. The law replaces God
The next step down is 'Provided we are right and the other person wrong we can do anything we want and remain free of sin.' We become as gods knowing good and evil.
This why all the stuff from the Christian side focuses on the law, and what is right or wrong. God is only there to give legal status.

(OT) Just a brief aside, Daviy.

>>You tell me what I think or believe and even though it is rubbish I cannot prove it is rubbish. It is what I called 'The Reverse Hiroshima Principle.<<

I can tell you are inordinately proud of your little inventions, the HP and the RHP, but I'm afraid they are each, in ther own way, bunkum.

You describe the Hiroshima Principle as "judging the negative to be true because we cannot prove the positive", which sounds all nice and cosy until you try to find a practical example that is not about total ignorance.

We have vastly improved means of testing and simulation than they did back in the forties - if Oppenheimer had had access to one of today's supercomputers, there would have been a far greater understanding of the nature of radiation sickness etc.

[Incidentally...
>>They had no idea about radiation sickness, acid rain or any of the other side effects of nuclear weapons<<
...acid rain is not caused by nuclear weapons. Sorry.]

So I'm afraid that your "Hiroshima Principle" is not strong enough to support the analogy of nuclear bombs in wartime, with genetic modification in modern laboratories.

And the reverse HP is equally nonsensical, I'm afraid.

>>It is improbable that you are thinking about robbing a bank, but it is impossible for you to prove you are not<<

Well, duh.

You even had to invent the "example" that supported such irrelevancy.

>>Bush then goes on television to say that while there where not any weapons of mass destruction there was indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein was thinking about producing weapons of mass destruction<<

No, Daviy. He said that there was evidence of a clear intention to do so. Means, opportunity and motive were all present, plus the irrefutable fact that Saddam had blocked inspections at every opportunity.

I wouldn't normally mention such obvious stuff. But you are starting to use your "theories" in the most banal manner, and I think you should reconsider their value to a debate.

Thor the Thunder God and a man were debating one day. The man was winning and Thor started thundering away. The man said. Now I know I am right because you are playing the man and not the ball. When people start playing the man, the subject is too painful for them to face.

It is time that atheists faced the fact that atheism does not work, and atheism is not a satisfactory form of government. Atheism as a form of government manifests itself in the assumption by the State of the Role of Almighty God and what follows is that Almighty God can do no wrong. One of the central philosophies of Hillsong Church, mentioned elsewhere is that God makes no mistakes.

Atheists fear God, just the same as Christians do, so they have set out to destroy Him, and replace Him with a State. In the last forty years, the State has become absolutely unaccountable to its subjects in Australia. This is because Almighty God has been replaced by God substitutes, and instead of Almighty God being our maker and our judge, and governing us with compassion and justice, we are now governed by an all powerful State, that is absolutely unaccountable. Nine of the mongrel atheist beasts in fact. The Government of Australia is vested in about 150 Judges and many more magistrates, and each State has appointed its own.

The purpose of Atheism is to shield the State from accountability. The point two five of one percent of the population who are lawyers, actually govern. From them come the State Atheists who replace Almighty God in our daily lives. Judges and Magistrates

Before 1986, everyone murdered or damaged by the State of Victoria because of its negligence in failing to control fuel levels in land it controls, and interfering in the land management of that it does not control, would have had a remedy in tort against it, and a jury would have made them pay. Start playing the ball and leave the man alone. The results are horrible to contemplate. The Piper must be paid

Peter the Believer,

"It is time that atheists faced the fact that atheism does not work..." What do you mean 'work'? I could also ask for your definition of 'atheists', 'fact' and 'atheism'. But that would only encourage more gobbledygook.

I see that you have given a programmatic definition of 'Atheism as a form of government' which leads you to some weird conclusion about the power of god and to an evidence-free assertion that "Atheists fear God, just the same as Christians do, so they have set out to destroy Him, and replace Him with a State." So are you saying that in essence atheists are Christians?

"The purpose of Atheism is to shield the State from accountability. The point two five of one percent of the population who are lawyers, actually govern." Funny thing, the five lawyers I know personally are all Christians who love god.

And in any event, since you say, "...atheism does not work", what are you worried about?

I think we must live in parallel universes.