Sylvia Else Thank you, you said

I don't see why you think Australia is a Christian state. The constitution makes no such claim, but instead expressly prohibits (section 116) the Commonwealth from legislating in respect of religion.

The Constitution does make such a claim, but it is not spelled out quite clearly enough. S 116 prevents the Parliament of the Commonwealth from changing from Christian to Muslim or Jewish systems. The Liberal Party did it anyway. We are now governed along Muslim or Old Testament lines by Judges as individuals instead of the judges, ( plural) of s 79 Constitution.

Because the Queen or Her Majesty appears forty times in the Constitution She brings in Christianity as the State religion by the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp). Without a referendum the Liberals changed it. They are the great atheist party. They started the push to atheism in 1927 in South Australia. The atheist Liberals in New South Wales did it in 1970, the atheist Liberals made the atheist Federal and Family Courts in 1976. The atheist Liberals made the High Court atheist in 1979, and at the same time made it the exclusive territory of the atheist aristocrats, the lawyers. ( s 78 Judiciary Act 1903)

Atheists have changed the spelling of the word court, by adding a Capital letter, and created Judges by adding one too bringing on atheist government. Atheists will face their judgment. Einfeld is simply a bigger fool than most. All Justices take an Oath to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. Einfeld made himself a Judge, because he is a lying atheist fool. We are now governed not on Christian principles, but by Judges, and these individuals are not Christian.

The great seminaries of atheism are the law schools where they teach law without honor. Law is atheism and a false God. When the English allowed lawyers back into Parliament by reclassifying them as commoners, they planted the seeds of their own destruction. We have a Rule Book lawyers simply cannot understand. It is called the Bible. Most lawyers hate juries and Christianity and fear justice

Sells has admitted that there is no rational reason to believe in a religion.

His trite "of course there is a place for such rationality in the scientific laboratory and in practical dealings with the physical world. - Scientific rationality cannot be applied to the arts or to the affairs of the human heart. - they rely on a different kind of rationality that is more suited to its subject."

Which is a feeble attempt to use the argument of extremes, anything based on pure emotion would also be sterile.

What one believes in cannot be based entirely on rational, however, belief without reason is gulibility.

As one of the main tenets of both main religions is that non believers will burn in hell. This de humanises them, and facilitates conquest in order to "save" them. The good deeds done by a few believers cannot be separated from the atrocities.

The fact that most people of faith inherit their religion from their parents indicates that it has very little to do with choice and more about back ground.

Athiest come from all backgrounds, and as such are the real free thinkers in this debate.

Belief by athiest is not the all consuming devotion as belief in religion. I believe there is no god, as I believe that CO2 is a main cause of global warming. It is a tempory belief based on the available evidence at the moment, and will change if there is persuasive evidence.

The silly argument by some that as the existance of god cannot be disproved, thus all is possible and thus agnosticism is the only real alternative, equates god, allah, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny. This line of reasoning is pathetic beyond speech and can only lead to a mental la la land.

Sells attempt to define the god that athiests don't believe in is like asking if you are a catholic athiest or muslim athiest. The answer is that we don't find any reason to believe any of it.

"It is obvious that those who object to any kind of theological discussion on the grounds of scientific rationalism could not in fact live according to their creed. For how would they ask anyone to marry them?"

I found: "You wanna get married?" worked rather well for me.

"How would they relate to their children?"

Also rather well. In fact, my two high school girls told me they were almost alone, in still living with both their biological parents (I'm starting to wonder if I'll ever get rid of them). (sarcasm).

"How could they maintain rich friendships?"

I have a number of good friends -though sadly, none of them are rich...

"What do they do when they begin to feel strongly about anything?"

Well generally we discuss, or even argue the matter, often in forums such as this one.

"Any attempt to reduce life to the logically demonstrable is dehumanising and this is one of the most dangerous products of the modern age as the bloody 20th century has aptly demonstrated."

So, while it is wrong to 'cherrypick' those (religious) events which appall us, it is acceptable to cherrypick historical events.
First you would have to prove the 20th century was less religious, or 20th century wars were less driven by religion, than any other century.
Even in the 21st century, George Bush was still invoking God, in his righteous invasion of another country.
As for 'dehumanising', what can one say about beliefs which absolve individuals of responsibility?
Clearly, God made some men rich, and some men poor. It must be God's will.

I too have been trying to stay out of this discussion... I sit somewhere in the middle... I am neither athiest nor believer in the bible.

But I have two photos to show. Both Pulitzer prize winning photos, one a source of inspiration, the other one most depressing...

PLEASE DON'T LOOK AT THE SECOND IF YOU ARE A SENSITIVE PERSON ... IT IS ESPECIALLY TROUBLING....

Where was God in the second photo?

http://pulitzerphotos.wordpress.com/

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_odditiesultimate_in_unfair.htm

We don't know what happened to the child in the second photo... We do know what happened to the photographer!

Innocent children are starving!

Australian Churches sit on phenominal wealth if this article is anything to go by. They have massive incomes and assets!

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16261.htm

How much is the combined wealth of all religious institutions in the world? I know money is spent widely by the churches and good Christians and Athiests!

Jesus allegedly said (Matthew 6:24) "..... You cannot serve God and money...",

Jesus also allegedly said in Matthew 6:25 "....isn't life more than food....",

Jesus also allegedly said Matthew 6:31-32 "...not to worry...."

Jesus also allegedly said Matthew 19:21 ".... sell sell sell...."

It seems to me that we can all sit in our middle class Christian/Athiest worlds debating, but, in the end, God doesn't intercede with starving children! Can there be a God?

"Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?"

No, I blame hoarding religions!

If the churches did sell their assets to save the people, maybe, a few people who have left might still be there...

I hope people when they enter their cathedrals & churches next, take communion next, and read the bible next, that second photo burns in their consciences. Your prayers aren't being answered!

If there is a God he doesn't intercede! He would, however, expect us to intercede, and his church to stop hoarding wealth (as a bare minimum), and to follow Jesus' teachings... Enjoy your Sunday!

Rev Dr Peter Sellick what do you say now?

Sorry the link didn't work in the second photo on my post

PLEASE DON'T LOOK AT THIS IF YOU ARE A SENSITIVE PERSON ... IT IS ESPECIALLY TROUBLING....

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/ultimate_in_unfair.htm

All babies are atheists. Would Sells please explain which god they're not believing in? And which god it is that they should not believe in?

The 'wrong' one or the 'right' one?

The god of their parents, school, culture or nation?

Annina you are welcome to believe in Christ's message, however don't forget that Jesus was following the philosophy set out clearly by many others before him such as Siddhartha Gautama 500 years earlier and well before the bastardised Constantine version of Christianity.

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.”