george, you suggest that dawkins' sense of atheism is "positive". i'm not really sure what that means, but i note that your dawkins quote has a hell of a lot negations in it.

not that it matters. as you, and others, have pointed out the real question here is why sellick chose to pick an irrelevant and ill-defined fight with "atheists".

i suggest that sellick is simply a stirrer, and not a particularly pleasant one, not for any sense of good. his remark above of "At last an intelligent question, thank you" pretty much captures it. that remark was purely and simply a cry of triumph, that he'd pissed off a bunch of atheists, or "atheists", or whatever.

as i wrote above, sellick's article actually didn't piss me off. i just find the author, as usual, distasteful.

Everyone has a God. After the end of the Roman Empire, until the start of the adoption by the English of the Christian principles of government in 1215 at Runnymede,we call the Dark Ages. We are reverting back to the dark ages, because Atheists have made the State into a god,and expect the State to be able to deliver miracles.

There is no God, say the atheists, yet each and every day, one individual is making a judgment on another, all over Australia. This individual is acting as a god. I once told a devout Roman Catholic Judge, he was playing at god, sitting on a raised dais, dressed in pretty red robes, but not following the Rules laid down by Almighty God, in the conduct of a Supreme Court. He nearly had a stroke, but he did resign very soon afterwards, as the enormity of his sin was realised.

Atheists even when they go to Church, write Rules defining and regulating human conduct. Jesus made only two Rules, one was that a man can never be God Almighty, and the second was to love your neighbour as yourself. He did not judge the woman caught in adultery. he forgave her. In fact Jesus Christ calls judging, blasphemy, and condemns all who do.

Jesus set up a system, where two or three sitting together in His name can call on the Holy Spirit to be the judge, and avoid blasphemy. We call such a gathering a jury. The State Gods, atheists are compelled to worship, created since 1970 in Australia are all lawyers. Does that tell them something.I would say God Almighty has a sense of humour. S 79 Constitution was inserted to avoid blasphemy. The word used there is judges.

Sellick writes:

"I have not read any of the recent books that attack belief in God because I sense that they say nothing new. I sense that the God that is held up to ridicule is the same old tired product of the modern age obsessed as it has been with the material world."

Coming from an academic, it is surprising that you treat your peers with such contempt that you ignore their work and merely use your intuition to "sense" what they have written. Of course, this is not unexpected in those who call upon the supernatural to guide their thoughts.

This article is, I sense, hogwash, but I didn't get beyond the section quoted above.

Dear_Daviy (and your yapping (puppy?) supporter 'Spikey' :)

You blokes miss the suttle_nuance and sinister nature of the RRT.

The issue, as defined in section 9 is "motive is not relevant".

This is WHY I am adamant that the Act be ammended such that "motive" is AB-so-bladi-lut-ly always taken into consideration in any court case arising from a vilification complaint.

But for your information.. a read of the (erroneous, in my view)judgement of Justice Higgins in the Catch the Fire Ministries debacle will show that it does matter what you INTENDED that counts..but what is PERCEIVED!

But in the case of calling Christianity "a Lie" this is blatant... unambiguous and clear. It is vilification.

There are ways to put things which avoid the penalty of law, and these should be learned by all would be vilifiers.

Terminology is critical.

-"Christianity contains some irrational ideas in my view"

-"I find the violence and mass executions in the Old Testament to be abhoirrent"
-"I don't see how Christians can call themselves tolerant yet reject homosexual behavior"
-"Christianity contains many ideas which seem at odds with current science"

are all quite acceptable.

What is NOT acceptable nor legal is the statement "Christianity is a lie"

The reason this is illegal is that it does not differentiate between various branches of the faith (Higgins words) and it also encompasses ALL that Christianity represents. It does not single out specific doctrines or teaching.

Yes, you did mention some specifics later..but those specifics can be treated in isolation....they cannot be used to support the wrongful and illegal claim "Christianity" (in total) is a "lie"

If I had the time, I'd be willing to run this as a test case (along with Ruby Hamad's effort, which I've not forgotten)..but there are much bigger fish to fry :) at least Daviy is not trying to overturn Australia's way of life (that I know of) nor is he supporting terrorism, marriage, sexual abuse and divorce of children, domestic violence against spouses, nor the call to arms against all non 'his mob' to bring them under his mob's rule....

Wake up Australia, when a father is driven mad enough by the atheist system installed in Australia, to throw his daughter off the Gateway bridge, its time you mongrels who would make us all atheists woke up.

Further it is time the violence mongers who parade around VCAT, the Family Support Tribunal, the Family Court and Federal Courts of Australia realised that they are the problem, not the solution.

Many deranged fathers, put upon by the atheist system, denied justice in their eyes,simply retreat into a sullen resistance, refuse to pay child support or work,and virtually go on strike in protest against the lack of justice. Justice is a Royal prerogative. In my Christian Church, God is King. Jesus Christ did not want to be a King, so the Jews crucified Him. Unless a Judge is like Samuel, and anointed by God Almighty, he is an abomination.

Her Majesty never had the Authority to consent to the Family Law Act, the Federal Court Act, the High Court Act 1979, and install royal substitutes in Australian Courts. Lawyers love the cushy jobs and high salaries, but since they have sold their souls to the State for thirty pieces of silver, they exclude all who would challenge them in their lairs. It was not the man who threw that poor little girl off the bridge, it was the demons who drove him to it that should answer.

With the Trade Practices Act 1974, as amended in 1995, excluding ordinary electors from courts was made illegal. The lack of will by the Commonwealth to enforce its laws, and make its agencies obey the law led to the death of one of our little ones. Wringing hands will not do. Bring back honesty and integrity. A court with a jury has integrity. The Justice must then be honest.

Sells, I have not read your article as from the title I'm guessing you've not added any new insight into Atheism.

Think about it Sells I do believe in the existence of one more god then you do.