Absolute rubbish Trav. Atheists simply can't believe in something for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence for anything supernatural, so they don't believe. There is nothing more to it than that. Ascribing motives to atheists seems to come from your own insecurity.

Mr Young seems to have overlooked the two absolute fundamentals undepinning Western thought and influencing the expression of those influences throughout the Western world.

Firstly Christianity which we absolutely recognise as denouncing Abrahamic thought and practises. See Christ's Sermon on The Mount. Try to understand that was why, not the Romans, but the Jews had him condemned to death. They feared his teachings and understood his law, which we basically follow, would led to the demise of not only Abrahamic ways but also Judaism. Which history show has occurred.

Secondly the great influence of the Greek heritqage which holds, the exact opposite to Abrahamic thought, we have more than a little influence over our own destiny through our application of logic and debate. Abrahamic thought teaches the almost predominance of predestination as shown in the prophesies of the Word of Abraham ie the Old Testament of the bible.

It's no wonder we're becoming muddled.

I know of no school which undertakes studies the development of western culture and philosophy. I often see the mistaken belief we draw more on the ancient Hebrew text than from the New Testament of Christ.

Teach those and we'll all start thinking again.

Miranda,

There's plenty of evidence if you'll open your eyes. You just reminded me of a famous quote: "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

However, that was a completely irrelevent tangent you went on. Why? Because whether or not there's evidence has nothing to do with whether atheists like the idea of a being greater than themselves.

"Ascribing motives to atheists seems to come from your own insecurity."

Actually, it comes from reading what atheists say. Straight from the horses mouth. If you spend enough time watching debates and reading atheist blogs, you'll see my point has some merit.

Here's an example. Vox Day (author of The Irrational Atheist, blogs voxday.blogspot.com) was responding to a question where he was asked: If God gave you irrefutable and undeniable proof that he was the God of the Universe, and then asked you to kill all the children in the world under 2 years old, would you do it? Vox's answer- Yes. So some atheist writes a blog going on and on about how immoral that is, and how he'd never ever do it, (despite the fact that the message came from God and that said atheist would be a mere ant in comparison to the God who'd be instructing him.) It was incredibly obvious that said atheist has issues with authority, which is the very point I'm making here.

That scenario is an interesting thought experiment. Regardless of how impossible it seems, even to the most devout religious believers (eg: a good grasp of biblical theology, in context, will show that the Christian God, most likely would never ask anyone to do this today), the fact is that IF there was a being, ANY being, who created the universe, and gave you completely undeniable proof of their identity and asked you to do something, you'd do it. End of discussion. You wouldn't whinge, you'd just do it. No matter what that being wanted you to do.

Unless, of course, you had serious issues with authority and were very much wrapped up in your own prideful morality ;-).

Trav, look, I understand that you really, really believe in god and want everyone else to do the same. But you are arguing from false premises. It is silly to say that atheists don't like authority and therefore are not open to the idea of god. That doesn't make any logical sense, because the two things are not connected.
The idea of a god expecting one to commit infanticide is not an interesting thought experiment - it is meaningless without having a basis in reality. When you say "...the fact is that IF there was a being, ANY being, who created the universe, and gave you completely undeniable proof of their identity and asked you to do something, you'd do it." But Trav, there isn't such a being. There is no proof that such a being exists. There is simply no evidence, so why pretend? It is nothing to do with one's attitude to authority and you are not entitled to draw any conclusions about my or any other atheist's attitude to authority based simply on the fact that we require some factual basis for the views we choose to adopt.
I find it simply sad that you suggest that the Christian god "most likely would never ask anyone to do this today" - that is, kill children. The god of the bible certainly did, but for some reason (to accommodate your own sense of morality no doubt) to say that this has changed.

Trav, Methinks you really ought to read by blog reference Common Sense Atheism re the genocidal nature of the old testament biblical "god".

And of the nature of the "god" that the said christian philosopher advocates too---essentially the same genocidal "god".

Miranda writes

'find it simply sad that you suggest that the Christian god "most likely would never ask anyone to do this today" - that is, kill children. The god of the bible certainly did, but for some reason (to accommodate your own sense of morality no doubt) to say that this has changed.'

I take it she ignores the thousands of unborn babies murdered as a sacrifice to convenience and women's rights (wrongs) each year. I doubt whether you will find followers of Christ involved in this genocide. Then again don't let truth get in the way of your bigotry.