One of the fundamental faults of practicing Atheists is their dishonesty. If they were honest, they would not attend Christian Churches on a Sunday and be atheists all week. Three events in the last 23 years illustrate the dishonesty of Atheists. One is the Australia Act 1986, which vested the majesty of Almighty God in a Parliament, and removed the right of the Queen to reserve Bills from assent. This abolished the Royal Prerogative, exercised through Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second to disallow Parliamentary Laws. It followed that courts, comprised of lawyers only, then refused to include ordinary people in the judicial process, except in a very limited way in criminal cases.

The second is their dishonesty in refusing to accept and apply the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was enacted in 1986, confirmed in 1988 and 1995, in three Acts passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, The Evidence Act 1995, (Cth), The Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), and Privacy Act 1988. The atheists on the High Court including Kirby and Gleeson, have consistently refused to accept it is law.

In 1996, 2006 and 2007, the High Court has recognized what is called a “Kable Principle”. In 1995, the just retired President of the Court of Appeal in New South Wales lost an argument in the High Court, by four to two, and like a spoiled child, or atheist, refused to accept that loss. Kables four judges, said the States were not free to legislate as they pleased in respect of courts. If followed the right to jury trial was restored by the High Court. In a case called Gerlach, 2002, the High Court refused to apply the “Kable Principle”, because atheists as barristers, and Kirby and Callinan, were unable to persuade Gummow, Gaudron and Gleeson to apply their earlier decision. Kable was not argued.

To their credit, KR and Chris Bowen, have had the Labor Government, recognize Kable, and replace the word Court, with court in the Trade Practices Act 1974 . A court must have a jury. It keeps the bastards honest

Bushbasher

The tone of your last post was somewhat strident and not really in keeping with the conversation we had up to that point but lets move on from that.

You had suggested that I might do without the word God. While for you God may be just a word I seem to have a somewhat different take on language and its relationship to 'reality'. If you are familiar with the phenomenologists like Paul Ricoeur then you might be aware of the idea of intentionality or intentional objectivity.
Quite obviously, scientific obectivity is too limiting to allow for the full range of human experience, knowledge and ontological reflection. Intentionality extends the notion of objectivity, recognising the noetic power of language to 'realise' objects that science cannot grasp. It provides a framework within which it is possible to talk about God without the need for any referent in either a physical or metaphysical dimension.

Suggesting that I abandon the word God is tantamount to dismantling the greater part of my identity, hence my assumption (mistaken as you say) that you were 'inviting' me to adopt your point of view. I may share your rejection of notions of God based on metaphysical dualism but I cannot dismiss God as 'just a word'.

"One of the fundamental faults of practicing Atheists is their dishonesty."

How can an atheist practice atheism? There are no rituals.

Atheism is a practice the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Waterboy,

As with Sells' belief, I can appreciate your belief in a god is genuine and is a significant part of how you see yourself:

What is unclear is, why Christians typically a priori accept Jesus' trinity as "the" god, without first testing all the philosophies, histories and theologies which would reasonably precede such an important commitment.

[I have used with term a priori several times to Sells, yet he seems to not address the concern. An unseen white elephant in the room?]

Else put, before one can say one's god is "the" god, god must be known to be. Given god(s) does exist and the artful watchmaker is real, then how does one know one's own nominated god is the real McCoy? Most people would consider a few vehicle makes before chosing a car: Would not choosing a god be a bigger discussion?

[When religionists skip steps in retaionalising beliefs, atheists and agnosistics, see white elephants everywhere. It all seems too much "bolt out of the blue" and poorly researched

Oliver
It seems that many of the participants in this debate have not looked at the history of the Christian church. As I said before I studied the history of Christianity and Jesus when I was considering joining a Christian church. The more I learnt the more I agree with Jesus (whoever he was) and the more I vehemently disagree with Christianity.
I class myself as an agnostic because I do not know, but if anyone from either side can give me evidence (not 'faith' and 'belief') that stacks up I am open.
My two areas of major interest in the history of Christianity are the early Gnostic Christianity and the Gnostic argument that original sin and the divinity of Jesus cannot both be true, and the genocide of the Cathars. Politely called the suppression of the Albigensian Heresy by the Christian church .
Also the part played by Dominic Guzman (Saint Dominic) in the genocide of the Cathars the setting up of the inquisition by the order he founded. It is a source of disbelief and amusement that a person such as Guzman could become a saint. There is still hope for Adolf Hitler.
After that there is no way known I could become a Christian. But Jesus is different. I agree with Arthur Guirdham that Jesus has been held hostage by the Christians for two thousand years.
The history of the Christian church includes many crimes against humanity that are beyond comprehension. To use the name of Jesus to justify these events is an obscenity.
Back to the original article
I see Sells article as being just another use of semantics to justify the unjustifiable.
If the article had been a balances critique of a belief in God and Atheism it might have gone somewhere, but to make it Christianity vs Atheism is laughable.
Regards