crabsy,

Like most non-religious people (unlike many religious people) I don't object to others' religious belief, unless they want to impose their particular superstition on me. However when someone presents his or her ideas in an open forum, such as this one, they're fair game, we don't live in a theocracy,for now.

The word "Wrong"accurately describes your argument. Are you seriously presenting the ideas and fantasies that occupy our brains as "reality" equal and separate to external reality? You've just described the origin of religious belief.

Your comment on JPW2040's post demonstrates that you have missed the point, completely. Again the straw man argument, I don't "decline to believe in god", the burden of proof is entirely on believers, atheists are not required to prove the negative. It has been pointed out that the term "atheist" is misleading, I'm not aThor, aShiva,aZeus or aEaster Bunny, why should "atheists" define themselves in terms of non existent deities? We don't care what sort of god, it makes no difference.

I'm reminded of a passage in 'Catch 22' when Yossarian condemns god as a callous cruel bastard who gets fun out of watching human misery. His girlfriend cries because god is not like that at all, he's kind and gentle. Yossarian says "I thought you were an atheist" to which she replies "I am but the god I don't believe in is not like your god."

It's a funny passage in a satirical novel ... not so funny when it's presented as a serious proposition.

As an atheist I dont care what god you believe in. I dont agree, because I have no evidence, in any sort of magical, supernatural imaginary friends who can do tricks and violate the laws of nature. I dont believe in taro cards, astrology, palm reading, ghosts, telepathy, reading tea leaves, Iching, demons, spirits, life after death, the devil, faith healing/prayer, spoon bending, l ron hubbard, telekenesis, vampires, werewolves, ogres, bigfoot etc etc.

I dont know where you get this idea mr sellick that athiests would be different if only they knew the "real" god. Whatever it is you think that is. Im still not sure after multiple reads of both your recent articles.

If it does magic tricks and demands worship then it looks and smells like a god to me and no matter what mr sellick says it will always be impossible for me to be anything but an Athiest.

Im reluctant to admit it but there is a certain mount of evidence in the responses to this article supporting Sell's thesis. If this sample of comments is indicative of the language of atheism (many posters here have explicitly identified themselves as atheist) it is almost exclusively the language of objectivity and rationalism which pretty much is the point Sells is making.
Is there anything wrong with this? Well! not when you are doing science. Any other language would be out of place there.

At the level of human relationships (and theological reflection) some problems do arise with 'pure' objectivity.

In science, objectivity means studying objects (things other than ourselves), observing those properties which distinguish it from other things, including ourselves. Another way of saying this is that science deals only with those properties of things which are independent of the observer. That is why it is inappropriate in science to formulate theories that are predicated on the beliefs of the observer (for instance creation theory is predicated on a belief in God and therefore fails the 'objectivity' test for scientific theories).

Relating to our fellow creatures as objects in the way of science has proved over and over again to be dangerous and 'unacceptable'. One only needs to consider the eugenics theories of Nazi Germany to find an obvious example. The inquisition is yet another example (to draw from the Church's own dark history). Pure objectivity is every bit as dangerous as pure subjectivity (maybe more so).

Objectivity has its place but like all other powerful ideas it has its dangers and there is a right time to set it aside and use different 'reasoning' to guide our actions and construct our realities. That will lead some people to faith (as opposed to 'believing'). Its not inherently evil although it is, like all the other great ideas, potentially evil particularly if God is objectified and manipulated to serve our own selfish ends. There is no merit in 'believing' in God if that means God as an object to be studied and controlled. That is the problem with religion.

You say that Christianity is iconoclastic,Peter,so then why has it left the Nicene Creed and all it contains intact these hundreds of years?

socratease

Good thinking, Ken_L.

Since there's little hope of intelligence in this discussion, let's try to get some humour into it:

http://www.someecards.com/upload/lent/id_consider_following.html

Now *that's* an empirical outcome I could work with :-)