Poor Sells, if he was any more solid he would be like a rock. Plus his writings have as much poetic sensibility as a rock too.

Like all would be theologians he begins with identification with the mortal meat-body, which he knows is going to die, and then he tries to argue his way back to to The Divine Conscious Light.

By contrast True Philosophy begins from the perspective of the Perfect Knowledge of The Divine Conscious Light. Which can thus write about Saint Jesus of Galilee in these terms.

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/EWB/EWB_pp436-459.html#jesusandteaching

And thus talk and write about Reality and Truth and The Beautiful as explained in these 2 references.

http://global.adidam.org/books/perfect-knowledge.html

http://global.adidam.org/books/ancient-teachings.html

You're scraping the barrel here, Sells.

>>While the humanists cherry pick the events that appall us all they ignore the social triumphs brought about by Christianity: the abolition of slavery, the care of the poor and the sick, the establishment of centres of learning in the great monasteries, the social justice movement in the 20th century.<<

All, these "brought about by Christianity"?

The relationship between Christianity and the abolition of slavery is identical to that of Christianity and the creation of slavery. In other words, it wasn't a case of "heathens were slaveowners, Christians were abolitionists". You mustn't believe everything you see at the movies, Sells.

Caring for the poor and sick was a Christian invention? Phshaw!

Establishment of centres of learning? The Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Chinese etc. were also somewhat active in this area, I believe.

The social justice movement in the 20th century, the brainchild of Christianity?

Sells, you really need to get out more.

Your worldview has narrowed to the point where its only justification is itself.

And that cannot be healthy.

Incidentally, at what point in the article is "The impossibility of atheism" addressed?

OK, so I'm convinced.

Christians do exist.

But beyond that, what is the article saying? Should I believe in God just because Christians do? Indeed, the article seems to be seeking to further muddy the waters as to what it is that Christians actually believe.

Perhaps the argument was to the effect that atheism is impossible because what atheists claim not to believe is not what Christians would have them believe anyway. Not that even that argument would stand up.

I came in expecting to disagree with the author, but he's said so little of substance, that there's not much there that's capable of being disagreed with.

Sylvia.

Pericles has summed it up well.
There are plenty on unlucky and disadvantaged adults and children who need help getting to the doctor or with their shopping and other chores. At 78 and reasonably fit I find it rewarding to tutor the oldest child of a legally blind young woman and to ocasionally drive her somewhere or help with some other chore.
The key to a happy and satisfying life has been well defined by Peter Singer and I prefer to follow his suggested path than to follow the teachings of some 2000 year old being who probably never existed. There is plenty of evidence presented in The Jesus Mysteries which suggest that much of the gospels was 'lifted' from earlier work by the Greeks and others.
Sells, you seem too influenced by, "Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so." I am sure that the hypothetical Jesus would objected to someone inculcating a child to believe, "I am weak but he (Jesus) is strong."
Do something useful for a change.

Sells

Just what do you have on Graham Young?

Tell me. Promise to keep it secret.

The probability of another Sells lecture next month: 99%.

I see the whole wretched business of the idiotic attack on atheism and the futile defence - you know, the 'you can't prove god doesn't exist'; 'atheism is just a belief, too' kind of rubbish, which Sellick, too, is constantly veering into, when all is said and done - as a framing phenomenon. The biggest ever.

Anyone read George Lakoff's book 'Don't think of an elephant'? Of course, George is mostly interested in political framing and its effects (eg. the insidious insinuation into political discourse of the term 'tax relief', such that all discussion is predicated on the premise that tax is per se a burden), but it pertains here. What is the first thing you think of when exhorted not to think of an elephant? Strangely, it is impossible not to think of something that doesn't exist, but easy to think of something that doesn't! So, when saying 'I don't believe in god' it appears you are imagining god.

Effectively, five thousand years of this god, including 2000 of vigorous, often murderous proselytising, has framed the matter so thoroughly and completely that it's virtually impossible not to think of that imagined numinous entity, especially if exhorted, 'Don't think of god'. God is a frame, the mother of all frames, and this frame makes believers think they are on top in any dispute, ad infinitum. Hence, Peer Sellick. They'll never go away; atheists need a new frame.