There is not an anti-Christian crusade, it is a movement asking for freedom from religion, et al. And, witnessing the endless cesspool of irrational religious violence that plagues the world, who can blame us?

The author accuses Dawkins and Hitchens of judging faith by vulgar caricatures. This is nonsense. As Richard Dawkins explicitly stated in "The God Delusion", these are not whacked-out fringe beliefs, these are mainstream, commonly-held religious views.

Perhaps there are first-year theology students wincing, but first-year theology students are very much in the minority. From the pulpits, in the mosques and madrassas, and in the street, the voices of religious fanaticism are loud and clear.

It's interesting that C. S. Lewis figures so prominently in your review; yes, he could be a very persuasive debater, but for someone who was trained in logic he was also capable of making some appallingly bad arguments. His "liar, lunatic or Lord" argument is a sterling case in point.

clownfish beat me to it. graham, this is not anti-christian. this is not about you. your beliefs don't garner that much respect.

and clownfish is right, that this is not about "vulgar caricatures of religious faith". barney schwartz just wrote of a survey suggesting that 54% of australians believe jesus rose from the dead. i don't know if that would "make a first year theology student wince", but it sure got a shudder out of me.

the trouble with the "non-vulgar" christans at OLO is that they seldom state clearly or coherently what they DO believe. (e.g. what does GY believe? i haven't a clue). it becomes a matter of "you don't/can't/won't understand". well, it's true, we other guys don't understand. but that is your responsibility, not ours.

it's up to you. if you guys want your hugely implausible beliefs to be respected, if you claim membership of some non-vulgar version of religious belief, the onus is upon you to state clearly what you believe, and why. if you don't, if you repeatedly fail or decline to do so, it is only natural to treat such beliefs with contempt. you may have faith in your god, but you are giving no reason for a non-believer to have faith in you.

Epicurus on "God":

"Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

Quoted in one of the books that you deem "intellectually and philosophically impoverished" - try reading them and you'll discover which one I refer to.

Answer Epicurus' conundrum and then perhaps we can have a logical conversation about all this.

You almost lost me @ "These are intellectually and philosophically impoverished books", but I pushed on. These books serve their purpose well, they hold a mirror up to faith, we can't help it if you don't like what you see.
To expand on what Clownfish said the more liberal elements of religious faiths ( I'm not picking out Christianity here) are to busy attacking agnostics and atheist that they haven't notice what the inmates are doing. The more scholarly member of the faithful may have moved on from a simple view of their religion but the masses haven’t. This is a charge the Christian are happy to level at Islam for instance, but not recognise it in themselves.

The fact is there is no solid evidence for the supernatural, Why are Christians convinced by the arguments against Australian dreamtime stories or The Norse Gods, the evidence against their faith is the same. These are beliefs that were once held to be true. This goes to the heart of the matter. The religious don’t seem to understand just how silly their beliefs looks to an agnostic or Atheist. When the religious say that the non religious don’t understand their religion enough to comprehend the arguments. I’m reminded of a star trekker who has studied all the shows, knows the line off by heart, spends hours talking to fellow trekkies about warp drives and replicators. These people know star trek but in the end who cares it’s just a story

I also noted the Lewis comparison and felt it was rather unfair.

Despite what one may describe as the flaws in his methodology Lewis was, after all, one of the giants in his field.

Also he was writing at a time that Christianity was still a dominate paradigm and where those who would, nowadays, declare themselves as unbelievers were still at least paying lip service to this dominant construct.

Both he, and the much-neglected Dorothy L. Sayers were also professional writers whose secular books are classic in their field. They were not writing against a strident background of a population pre-disposed to to argue against them. Their role was to illuminate rather than to defend to a dominant base of sceptics and Atheists.

Its a little like comparing Virginia Andrews to Virginia Woolf.

The seemingly diffident approach of an author cognisant of current world-views may have been the result of a pragmatic decision to approach 'slowlee, slowlee' and gamble on at least some consideration rather than outright condemnation?

With dogmatic edicts emanating from the guardians of Christianity to abhorrent practices against women in fundamentalist Islam and inhuman behaviour by Zionists towards Palestinians,theologists have only got themselves to blame for the mass departure of believers from their folds..The sheep have moved on and it's the shepherds who are lost.

It is true. Much of the trouble in the world IS caused by benighted GODLESS exoteric religionists.

The only source and living Demonstration of Spiritual Truth in the world has always been the Realized Saints, Yogis, Mystics, and Yogis.

It has never come from anywhere else. And certainly not from godless, uptight, pleasureless left-brained third rate hacks such as C S Lewis.

Only men and women of pleasure KNOW the truth, and are thereby qualified to speak of the truth.

Everything else, including the stuff written by Lewis, is just hopeful mutterings covering up the awful despair of someone who has lost the FEELING Heart connection to the Living Divine Radiance.

If you look at photos of Lewis does he look like a man of pleasure? A man sublimed by the love-bliss-radiance of the Living God? On the contrary he looks entirely and completely pleasureless.

In a word up-tight! His godlessness was written all over his stiff pleasureless body and face.

He didnt even know how to relate to women, let alone make passionate love to/with a woman until late in his life. He didnt even like the company of children---he was threatened by their spontaneity, their emotion, their happiness.

Any man who is not capable of unconditional love of, and even the company of both children and women, is not even fit for truly human company, let alone to be considered to be an "authority" on religion.

Did Lewis ever use the words Consciousness, ecstasy, love-bliss, radiant energy. Did he ever lose control or spontaneously babble. Or even know how to sit in contemplative wordless silence for significant periods of time even for a few minutes.

And besides which there is no Truth to be found in the awful prison of the exoteric entirely reductionist religiosity that Lewis promoted.

And in christianity altogether for that matter.

Why do you think Jesus was executed?

Because he was a threat to the power of the then ecclesisatical establishment of his time.

The same condition still applies.

And why only Christianity. What about all the other existing faith traditions "great" and small.

Thanks for the review, Graham. I reckon someone like the Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart could be just the man to produce an entertaining and incisive reply to the media event which is the 'new atheism'.

Despite the endorsement of the 'outraged' regulars on this forum, the new atheists are indeed philosophically impoverished, as you say. They are by no means in the league of the contributors to, say, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism or to 'Philosopher without Gods' (Oxford UP) despite the fact they can quote a philosophy text here or there. Dawkins is perhaps the worst. I see no evidence that they have ever read any worthwhile philosophers who disagree with them on the questions they pose... not that there are easy knock-down answers for either 'religious' people or atheists.

There are stupid and violent people who use all kinds of systems of thought--religious or political--to further their agendas. Nationalisms and Imperialisms regularly attempt to hitch religion to their dubious or immoral causes. That doesn't make 'religion' their cause. Life is much more complex... isn't it?

There are atheists who are moral and religioninsts who are immoral and perhaps both are inconsistent in many ways--but one thing is for sure: there is no historically plausible general condemnation of 'religion' such as is often trumpeted here.

The tone, let alone much of the content, of the regular 'religion-bashers' on this forum does not give me much faith in their atheism to provide the difference they hope for.

Not that arguing on forums and in blog comments actually changes minds...

The reason the 'New Atheism' is getting so much press is basically because they're entertaining writers. Not because of the power of their intellectual arguments. Most intellectuals laugh at the philosophical arguments put forward by them, even atheist intellectuals like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini. All the New Atheists are also embarrassingly ignorant of history, and pretty much make stuff up- as has been pointed out in detail by John Dickson, Dinesh D Souza, Vox Day etc etc.

But of course most of the public don't know these things, they just want to read entertaining books. And so the New Atheists have sold and sold and sold.

If you DO want an antidote though, your best bet would be William Lane Craig. He just demolished Hitchens in debate, according to everyone there (including numerous atheist bloggers). Craig also asked Dawkins to debate him, and Dawkins refused because it "wouldn't be good for his career". He seemed to think Craig was a nobody and claimed to have not heard of him. Well, Craig's actually the most well known fulltime Christian apologist in the world. He's written something like thirty books, selling thousands of copies. He's also one of the greatest philosophers in the world. He's spent most of his career in apologetics and doing philosophy on issues relating to God. And these are the topics which Dawkins has spent his life trying to refute, and now he claims to have not even heard of William Lane Craig! I guess that anecdote illuminates Dawkins' real level of intellectual commitment to anything outside biology

I might add that I haven't actually read any of the New Atheist books from cover to cover, but I have been interested enough to skim through some of them while in a public libraries and bookshops. Based on my experience, I'm not surprised that they've been chastised by so many philosophers and historians.

I spent half an hour or more skimming through Michel Onfray's book in Borders once and dear me, by the end of it I was shaking my head in disgust at the fact that so many ignorant people would end up reading the stuff, and God forbid, believing it. He makes assertion after assertion about history without ANY footnotes or corraborating evidence to back up his big claims. I'm no expert of course, but I did know enough to realise how much crap he was making up, especially on topics like the New Testament, Tacitus, the existence of Jesus etc etc etc

I must be reading a different forum. I see much more atheist bashing in the articles than otherwise.

Just a tip for those wishing not to offend - using terms that imply some form of moral bankruptcy or impoverishment of ideas on the part of atheists would be more likely to incite religion-bashing.

Atheists in general are not religion bashing, the various denominations do enough of that between them. Until recently atheists have been silent and when an author like Dawkins or Hitchins raises their head it is mercilessly chopped off as irrelevant or impoverished.

I am more scared of the religious nutter than any comment that might be made by an atheist. Having dealt with many of them I can tell you they are a sad and deluded lot but I won't judge the mainstream or more liberal Christian by the actions of another in the same way that I hope all atheists are not judged as one homogenous group.

Atheists are not a group in the same way that religious people are. It is just a descriptive label that means non-belief in God.

We don't meet in groups and run anti-religious sermons or the like, we don't judge others as morally better or worse merely on the basis of belief or value systems. Simple.

I would be interested more in knowing why people believe in their particular brand of religion? Or why they believe in God.

The truth is there is demonisation on both sides of the religious divide. We can cherry pick the worst characteristics and traits on both sides but it still comes down to one basic difference. Some believe in a supernatural entity some don't. It is the reasons we differ that are of interest. What makes some people turn to 'faith' while others don't?

I would love a psychological and philosophical article on this subject if it was possible.

Pelican

'I would be interested more in knowing why people believe in their particular brand of religion? Or why they believe in God.'

One of the reasons I believe is because Jesus words describe exactly every person on OLO and in fact every person I have ever met. The prophecies concerning His death and resurrection (written hundreds of years prior) are 100% accurate. It is not a 'brand' that true believers believe in but the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ. As every other word that Jesus has spoken has shown to be truth so His mention of heaven and hell many times also will prove to be true. Hopefully as many as will humble themselves will receive forgiveness. It won't be good people in heaven but forgiven people. Unfortunately the rest will be in hell.

'Pelican',

Your post is (mostly) a welcome change to many of the kinds of posts that I read here, from 'religionists' and atheists and the whole gamut around about.

My point wasn't about the articles (though I can't remember an 'Atheist BASHING' one) but the comments that flow on from these articles and particularly the irony that when 'religion' is blamed for all the intolerance and social ills we have, the proponents of such views do little to distinguish themselves from the behaviours they are apparently outraged at.

Naturally, we are more sensitive to and critical of those comments that speak against us.

I wonder though why you think that 'religion-bashing' is basically to be expected if a position like atheism is critiqued for, say, alleged 'moral bankruptcy or impoverishment of ideas'. I would guess that one could expect that there would be 'religionists' that would respond in an emotive and overly polemical way to an article critical of them but would we--should we--simply excuse it?

As some atheists and others regularly tell some of the Christian(?) contributors here, their tone and sometimes cockiness runs contrary to the ethos they say their faith espouses. Likewise, if atheists declare on here they have an equal or better footing when it comes to morality or merely manners, you'd expect the same kind of calling to account.

I don't know whether or not it's true whether "Atheists in general are not religion bashing" because I only here the ones who are. I'm encouraged to hear there is a great number out there (hence 'general') who are not represented by some here. I would like to think they generally have your tone as do most of the Christians I know. There are Christian nutters, religious nutters, atheist nutters (see some comments on Dawkins' website), neo-con nutters,... I'm wary of them all. I am more scared by any nutter than any comment that might be made by a religious person.

What is the great calling of Jesus?

To FIRST love the Lord thy god with all of ones heart, mind and soul, and THEN on that basis practice self-transcending love in ALL relations.

Meanwhile there is some farcical comedy here when Dinesh DSouza is quoted or pointed to as an "authority" on religion. He is a raving-looney-psychopath. The fact that he is taken so seriously in the USA is only an indication of the cultural and Spiritual poverty, and intellectual bankruptcy of those who try to promote christian religiosity in the USA.

And even worse, William Lane Craig who everbody knows is an apologist for genocide, justifying it because his horrible god commanded genocide to be done.

See for instance Creationists For Genocide at:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Genocide.cfm#christ

Remember that "god" told George to invade Iraq!

Same genocidal psychosis as practiced over 2000 years ago.

Plus John Dickson and the crew at the Institute for Public Christianity are a bunch of literalistic simpletons, and also great fans of C S Lewis. There is not a jot of esoteric religion or Spirituality to be found on their website, or the links they provide.

Neither is there a good word to be said about the teachings etc etc of ALL other faith traditions, from any of these dudes.
Their church is in sole possession of the "truth". And they have "gods mandate and commission" to convert all others to the one "true way"---or slaughter anyone who refuses to be converted.

Which thus INEVITABLY becomes the bloody applied politics as described in reference above.

The only thing "militant" about today's atheists (myself included) is that we dare to write about, expound upon, and make our arguments against religion public - and for that we are called militant in order to equate us with terrorists.

We have always existed, but have been kept at bay (sometimes of our own doing) from explaining our case. Now that that has changed and we feel wonderfully free to talk out loud and make our case as necessary we get branded militants.

It is interesting that this type of branding is equivalent to a political correctness that would make most right-wingers go into a fit (and rightfully so).

We will not go away, we will not sulk away, and we will not be stop from writing or making our arguments when, where and how we see fit.

Hi packman

Points taken. I do get rankled about being perceived as morally bankrupt or impoverished on the basis of my non-belief. My point was that if atheists are demonised then, while not condoned, some religion bashing is inevitable. In the same way that a religionist might be insulted by being referred to as brainwashed or less than intelligent for believing in 'fairy tales'.

I get your point that in some ways these discussions are a natural part of the debate. Perhaps these confrontations cannot always be avoided. As an atheist it is difficult to convince a religionist that you can have a strong moral compass and be 'spiritual' in a sense without a religious framework.

Your point about nutters is taken. Any nutter can be scary if their dogma is extremist in nature.

runner
Even if I was predisposed to believe in God I could not believe in a God that would allow a forgiven person into heaven as opposed to a good person. To think otherwise means that an innocent child might be sent to hell or a serial killer to heaven.

My reference to 'brand' of religion was not meant to be derogatory. Perhaps I should have said creed but there are so many denominations within religions that many of them have become brand names with intentional marketing via a branding strategy. Hillsong comes to mind but there are others.

runner, you still have not really answered my question. All you are saying is that you believe in the scriptures but why do you believe in them? How do you know they are authentic and not some construct of man? Please don't say faith, because it has to be more than that otherwise any snake oil salesman could spin the idea of 'faith' for ill ends eg cults. Faith is just believing in something that someone else has told you without evidence. There has to be more to your belief than that.

These are the sorts of discussion I would be interested in, preferably without harsh judgement on either side, but that may be idealistic. :)

Graham,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the book.

I recently read 'The God Delusion' and found it very thoughtful. But Dawkins should have mentioned environmentalism as a religon - he didn't.

Anyway, you thoughts on how diverse the beliefs systems of different Christians can be inspired me to write something about environmentalism.

I've titled it 'Easter Musings on Life and Enviromentalism'. It's here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/easter-musings-on-life-and-environmentalism

I have come to this thread late and the responses by the atheists/agnostics here have covered much of what I would like to think I could say.

A response to packman's claim: "My point wasn't about the articles (though I can't remember an 'Atheist BASHING' one)

Read any of Peter Sellick's articles. We atheists/humanists/liberals and calathumpians are regularly presumed to be selfish, greedy consumers without a care for anyone else by the likes of an article writer of Sellick's standing as well as by the extremist religionists such as runner who, as Pelican as pointed out, condemns all but those who adhere to his 'brand' or 'creed'. This would be enough for us to refute but add in the dictates by the likes of Pell, Nile even politicians like Abbott, all of whom would have everyone governed by the rules of Christianity with particular regard to the status of women, the teaching of science and the right to freedom of belief.

So many religious demand freedom of belief for themselves but deny something as inoffensive as 'nonbelief' to others, how can we not shout "Hypocrite!"?

For centuries agnostics and atheists have remained quiet (mainly to save our lives) but since 9/11 we have begun to question ALL religions not just Christianity.

Graham you are free to believe what you like, however when your supernatural belief receives special treatment in the form of tax-breaks and influences legislation, your beliefs are having a direct impact on the lives of people who do not share them.

Religion is very Orwellian in just who and what it accepts. Atheists just want to get on with our lives, please leave us to do so.

It is my view that the difference between religious and non religious individual is a question of mental make up. Let me say here and now that I am firmly in the atheist camp. To my mind belief in god, gods, goddesses, angles, devils, etc is plain daft.

The claim that the ranting of a Mohamed or a Jesus or a Budda etc., as they are told to us, are in some way sacred is sheer nonsense. Especially of note is that the sects and sub-sects within each major grouping seem at times to hate each other with a deep visceral hate. The same degree of hate that may be experienced by some sets in Islam, Judaism Christianity, to all members of some opposed religion. Is there only one chief spaghetti monster or is there a three headed version a sort of trinity. Who knows? Yet many think it of importance. Why I know not?

This is the dichotomy:

• My version of atheism requires evidence that can be supported by observation, or statements verified by experimentation. Not only once, but many times and always with the best methodology of the day. Reason that is the rules of logic and arithmetic can be applied to statements (axioms) to derive other statements (theorems) that can then be empirically verified. The final test is pragmatic does it work. As an atheist I do not seek the myth of absolute truth. By the same token I have no interest in trying to answer imponderable questions, such as what is the purpose of existence?

• The religious camp derives its beliefs from, faith, revelation or some ancient text. Some religious sects use strict logic to derive further statements but do not demand empirical verification. Such a belief system with out empirical evidence has about as much structural integrity as a “house of cards.” Yet other religious sects say they relate to emotion and /or instinct and argue that rules of logic and consistency have no place in their system.

I am a protestant and an evolutionary biologist, somewhere round C.S.Lewis territory. I am not a creationist but I reject materialism. It reduces the mind to a machine. How can you then trust it? Where will you find the free will to choose good over bad (ethics) or truth over error (reason)? When skeptical and atheistic commenters denounce the lack of rationality in religion, have they asked these questions about their own belief system?

Commenters often denounced religion for not making a perfect world. Would they prefer the impeccably religion-free societies of marxism (body count 100 million)? Do not take the relative blessings of Christian society for granted. And remember, when people stop believing in the traditional God, they believe not in nothing but in anything - marxism, fascism, the sort of environmentalism that blocked DDT use against malaria in the third world, producing another body count in the millions - anything.

I find the whole concept of "New Atheism" as ridiculous as the basis on which the Abrahamic religions base their Godly claims.

I find it amazing that atheists buy books like Dawkins when they allegedly don't believe in a God. I might write a book about nothingness and make it a snappy read... Please buy it...lol

Why do people need any book other than the Bible, or the Qur'an or similar? I don't need to read an Atheist book to pull holes in religions and religious books!

This God stuff sure is a money spinner... Wasn't it the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh of the Orange people fame who said "Always sell an intangeable"!

Well Atheism is selling books on non-belief in a God that they say doesn't exist... the success formula continues!

When a Christian can show me proof that "an amputees leg" was regrown through God's grace I might listen!

When a Christian shows me "God feeding the starving" like he allegedly did in Exodus 16: 14-15 I might listen!

When Christian Churches follow Jesus teachings on money I might listen! Christianity is a get rich quick scheme!

When Christians actually follow Jesus' teachings and tell the truth about the Bible... I might just listen!

When a creationist tells me where Cain's wife came from, other than an incestuous relationship with a supposed (never mentioned) sister I might listen!

But to read books on Atheism is laughable.

I don't believe in fairies either but I'm not going to read someone's views on the non-belief in fairies now am I?

There is no "new Atheism" like there is no "new Christianity" ... They are old ideas rehashed over and over!

If you want to disprove God use the Bible.. It is excellent for that exact purpose

For 20 years or so out of my 51 I described myself as an atheist. I have friends who are atheists (my last long-term partner was one) and I have friends who are Christians. I don't ascribe virtue to all Christians, nor do I ascribe vice to all atheists. When I was an Atheist I tried to live my life on Christian principles. Now that I describe myself as a Christian I still try to live my life on Christian principles.

Christian principles infuse our society and they are a force for good. They make this a more humane society than most others now and before.

We are about to celebrate Easter. What is Easter about? Easter is about a man who turns his back on the possibility of wealth and power and is executed as a criminal because he believes it is God's will and that it will save the world. It inverts the normal pyramid of values. And here we are 2000 years later and we still commemorate it.

This is a really special moment in our history. Whether you believe or not you can't dismiss these events and the beliefs that surround them, or villify them, as Hitchens and Dawkins do. Someone who really follows Christ is not going to damage their fellow man. If someone does, then you can say with certainty that they are not acting as a Christian. To say that "God is not good" is just a patent nonsense if you mean that belief in the Christian god has been a bad thing.

I agree that there are many strange beliefs that various Christians hold. That's one of my criticisms of the book - that he does not try to defend the whole gamut of believers. But most of us, Christian and non-Christian, believe things that are wrong, or not wholly right. If we are going to start condemning people for that, then everyone is condemned and the conversation has nowhere to go.

Ok Graham, you described yourself as an atheist, whatever.

The truth is you (alongside everyone else on this blue-green rock) don't know exactly what you are commemorating this weekend.

The reality of this world is that everyone has their internal mental models of how the world works and none of them are truly 'correct'. But many of them approximate reality well enough that they allow one to thrive or at least don't get them killed.

Witness economics. They were so sure they new how the economy worked, had their models approximated reality well enough that they thought they had it all worked out. Wrong (obviously so). But the economists and their ideas and models are still here. For religion, it takes physical or conscious wiping out of a sect or peoples beliefs (eg Arianism, Gnosticism) to get rid of the inherited historical link, but even then the ideas remain, even if as 'ghosts'.

I have no idea whether you know what the majority of "Hindu principles" or "Buddhist principles" are, but I assure you that the countries that live by them do fairly well (because many of them are the SAME principles as anywhere else), and many of the inhabitants of those countries that I know personally don't really want to be anything else. So-called "Christian principles" that are unique to Christianity are not even necessary for survival or even thriving. Many codes of conduct are conducive to civilisation.

Noone has a "wholly right" belief. It is this absolutism and belief that their religion is actually "right" and that any idea is or can be "wholly right" (or 'perfect') that I object to. The other thing I also object to is the false dichotomy argument that says if one holds that nothing can be "wholly right", then nothing can be "wholly wrong" either (i.e. atheism leads to open slather). That is just plain stupid.

Having skimmed both Dawkins and Hitchens, I can say as an agnostic that I'm not much impressed. Hitchens in particular is a vigorous polemicist, never shy of using a cheap shot to discredit other views.

Having said that, I've also read some modern (mostly American) Christian apologetics. Comparing modern apologetics to Dawkins et al is like comparing Harold Robbins to Shakespeare. Perhaps I've read a poor sample, but this is a literature in dire trouble. For example, I think the best use for Lee Strobel's bestselling "A Case for Faith" is as a primer for students learning about logical fallacies. The thing is stuffed full of strawmen, argumentum ad populum, invalid analogies, false premises etc etc. (even a few argumentum ad Hitlerum, including a Christian Hitler True Scotsman fallacy)

I may well read 'A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists', it certainly sounds better than the tosh served up by Dinesh D'Souza, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias et al. And I'm unlikely to read anything by Vox Day/Theodore Beale, who denies God's omniscience. After all, I might not believe in God, but the God I don't believe in is omniscient.

Actually, just because I realised this was a book review, I wouldn't bother reading anything with 'God' in the title unless it's science fiction. Honestly, I have found all the atheist/religion genre to be about the least useful piles of steamers I have yet to read. Honestly, if you want to find something out about the world and be entertained at the same time there are plenty of other authors out there. Douglas Adams would be a great start. Seriously, if you are so angst ridden that you have to resort to reading Dawkins or Lobel in the same year, you are seriously messed up and they are unlikely to be helpful.

Pelican you ask

runner, you still have not really answered my question. All you are saying is that you believe in the scriptures but why do you believe in them? How do you know they are authentic and not some construct of man?'

There are several reasons why I believe that the Scriptures are not some construct of man.

1. Christ's birth, life and death was written about accurately hundreds of years prior to the event.

2. The apostles who deserted Jesus while being taken away to be crucified were completely changed after having seen the resurrected Lord. Many of them willingly went to horrible deaths knowing that they to would be raised from the dead like their Master. Unlike many religions these men from different backgrounds were not brainwashed but convinced of an afterlife after meeting their Lord.

3. Jesus was who He said He was otherwise He was a liar. I can't find a word He spoke not to be true.

4. Their is no other person in history who was sinless other than Jesus.

5. The teachings of Jesus are not matched anywhere.

6. It is obvious to me that men are born with a conscience although many have now been seared. Science can not explain this. Even those who claim not to believe in absolutes are absolutely sure they are right.

7. The bible still has the most plausible explanation for origins despite some very poor attempts to disprove.

8. The predictions about Israel spoken by Jesus and the prophets have proven to be true.

9. I know that myself and all others display the Adamic nature. The last Adam did not.

10. Life without God is nothing but vanity and serves no useful purpose.
These are just a few of the reasons I believe

The next believer who uses the words 'militant' and 'violent' in regard to atheists should explain why in the survey of news events maintained at

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard

violent deaths due to religious beliefs outnumber violent deaths due to atheist beliefs by about 800 to one.

'Militant' atheists demand evidence. Militant believers kill people -- including themselves. Anybody see a double standard here?

Christian intellectuals can debate scripture for eternity, but virgins don't give birth, people don't rise from the dead, and god clearly isn't intervening in the world.

We had an Enlightenment, folks. Why is our society still dragging this rotten ideological carcass around?

[quote]"I would love a psychological and philosophical article on this subject if it was possible."[/quote]

I doubt a clinical psychological appraisal of the god belief would get an unbiased hearing here, myself and another put together an internal study paper on psychological analyse of religion at Melbourne uni in the 70's, for a bit of a stir. When presented at a lecture, it went down like a lead balloon with the christians. Many interrupted the reading, becoming vocally abusive. They reacted as we described as symptoms of our imaginary illness.

[quote]If you want to disprove God use the Bible.. It is excellent for that exact purpose[/quote]

Logically and using empirical data, you can use to the bible to disprove god very easily. I know of no substantiated fact supporting biblical events as claimed. Every archaeological or anthropological discovery leads in the opposite direction.

In ideology, we find varying degrees of involvement, making it hard to make qualified individual analysis. Psychological and philosophically, you gauge their state as a patient, by their actual outcomes, supported by verified data. Abusers of all descriptions, psychopaths and those with behavioural problems, deny emphatically verified data displaying their truth, compared to their delusional demands. The psychological state of a believer and for that matter anyone, is determined by their associated outcomes. To determine the psychological state of an ideology, in this case god, you use the verifiable and viewable data associated with the outcomes. You don't listen to denial of assault, or denial of association, when injuries, supporting video and witness statements show the opposite. So why would you believe what supporters say regarding god, when we have a history of verifiable and witnessed outcomes, depicting the opposite.

To me this only leads to one conclusion, the more you rely upon and believe in ideologies, the more you display the symptom of psychological illness. When you collate the data for the actual outcome for god, it's philosophy and followers, you see all the symptoms and outcomes displayed in psychopathy in varying degrees.

The Goddess Eostre blesses all who continue to celebrate in Her name, she bids the consumption of eggs, breads and tons of choccy.

Although She remains bemused that Her festival includes the idolatry of a murder, given that She wishes new growth and new hope upon all - irrespective of belief.

Blessed be.

'Christian intellectuals can debate scripture for eternity, but virgins don't give birth, people don't rise from the dead, and god clearly isn't intervening in the world.'

Beautifully put Sancho.

Theologians can use all their convoluted thinking to extract a god out of the Universe if they like. However, for the average person it is the bleeding obvious that virgins don't get pregnant that proves the Bible/Koran is no better than Homer's Iliad.

When a person has faced death not once but nine times, and the whisper that saved his life every time, came in time to do so, not once but nine times, then it is hard not to believe in Almighty God. I am not a cat either. It is a mystery just how this happens, but when a person has lived on the edge, and survived, and when the chips are really down, and the end will come unless immediate action is taken, and somehow time slows down, and the world temporarily stops, so that evasive action can be successfully taken, there must be a God.

I am of Celtic roots. The Celts were a vastly spiritual people, and their roots are heavily dependant on a belief in Almighty God. Because I am a Celt, I have had some deeply spiritual experiences, both inside and outside church. I love as a Celt to hear stories, and our history abounds in stories. The Holy Bible is a book of stories. The Sharnickie or Celtic story teller was much revered and the Celtic society always treated women as equals. It was after all women who were given some of the most amazing gifts and the Christian Church, under some Monarchs, considered these gifts Satanic, and burned the poor women at the stake.

Celtic literature is replete with stories of people who have known the future, before it happened. Recent Christian literature carries the story of 400 plus Christians on Aceh, who on the morning of the Tsunami, were worshipping on a hill. If the little voice tells us to do something, it is better to do it.

The Holy Bible says that if you give everything up to follow Jesus Christ, right after He says that a rich man will have as much trouble entering the Kingdom of Heaven, as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle, He also says, that if you are obedient to the Holy Spirit, then the rewards on this earth, and not only hereafter, will be a hundredfold. Matthew 19:29. Good odds huh

Meyers writes in the preface of his book:

“The faith tradition that has nurtured me shares
considerable common ground with the new atheists.
It encourages the humility and curiosity that underlies
free - spirited science. It assumes the unity of mind
and body (rather than Plato ’ s bodily imprisoned
immortal soul). And it does not view God as a celestial
vending machine controlled by our prayers.”

Last week I attended an intensive three day seminar, held in a lecture hall and in the magnificent grounds of an old monastery. The attendees included scientists, clergy, believers and atheists and the lecture was packed to capacity.

Having been a graduate of this course in 1992 I was surprised to learn of the speaker's emphasis on the union of quantum mechanics and theology. He constantly touched on the unique shift in religious history and the current, intelligent development of humans who are able to reconcile science with theology without being stuck in the time warp of religious dogma.

How refreshing to witness the new spiritual journey taken by many enlightened Christians who practise their religion but take only from that religion what their own conscience dictates.

However, when one is constantly presented by the egotistical edicts of Christians who declare that:

“We should not allow environmentalism to become a form of idolatry, where the “rights” of an inanimate planet and its non-human creatures are held in higher esteem than God.”

then one may be excused for believing that there is no hope for God’s “inanimate” planet and that man’s destructive forces will continue as a pseudo-appeasement to a primitive, supernatural deity who believes that only his devotees are on a higher vibrational level.

On completion of the seminar I attended, I and all others profusely thanked and embraced the speaker, a truly courageous and humble Franciscan priest (not yet excommunicated!) who assured me that the embrace from an atheist had equal importance to the embrace of a believer.

Pelican, your measured response is a breath of fresh air, opening up possibilities of understanding across our differences and inviting further conversation… though the word and posting limits are sure to make that difficult. :-)

Fractelle, I pity the calathumpians also, misrepresented for so long, and I’m sure we’ll be among the first with our backs to the wall when the calathumpian revolution comes! My ‘claim’, as you put it, is that I don’t recall any atheist-bashing articles… and of course I’d be disappointed to see them if produced. I have to admit I don’t see Peter Sellick’s articles in that vein. I would be surprised if he would claim that any given individual atheist is or must be a “selfish, greedy [consumer] without a care for anyone else” but my reading is he is saying that the tenets of atheism do not themselves provide the moral resources for a culture to resist those aspects of political liberalism and capitalism that are inherently divisive and corrosive of our connections to moral sources. But you won’t find such criticism only from Christians like Peter Sellick, but various sociologists and philosophers. Some themes he expounds and interpretations he gives of our culture are not dissimilar from much of what I read in my humanities degree.

Actually, I would think that what Sellick writes is more critique—even if you find it erroneous—rather than mere ‘bashing’. But perhaps that’s not how it feels on the receiving end. If you do insist it is merely bashing, it might be a constructive exercise for all if you were to articulate the difference in style so that his next attempt at critique—which I’m sure you welcome as a freethinker—is read simply as that and not a ‘bash’. From my end as a Christian, I have no problem with critiques of Christianity (since we have those internally also), and even with a bit of wit thrown in (at least Hitchens has that), even polemics, but needlessly derogatory language is never welcome (Dawkins, Dennett) or helpful to persuade others. I can’t recall the latter from ‘Sells’.

(cont'd below)

[Cont’d]
As Pelican said, comments to Christians about being in the league of believers in ‘fairies and aliens’ or believing in some ‘chap’ in the sky is mightily unhelpful to a discussion forum. (I think Terry Eagleton’s TLS review of Dawkin’s ‘God Delusion’ was on the money here.) It only exposes an intemperate unwillingness to understand where others are coming from—something we should all avoid—and only draws yawns or sighs from one’s opposite though it undoubtedly illicits a few laughs and slaps on the back from one’s drinking buddies or cyber-allies.

I haven’t seen any articles by ‘runner’ so I don’t see a need to defend any particular comments he’s made—though, FWIW I think his ‘apologetics’ claims are often overstated, perhaps even more than the recent post by ‘stormbay’ moving in the opposite direction.

Fractelle, I am right with you in opposing those ‘religious’ who “demand freedom of belief for themselves but deny something as inoffensive as 'nonbelief' to others”. I’m surprised there are “so many” as you said. I can’t say I’ve met many. (Actually, I can’t think of any I know who say that, though I suspect a few out there might be sympathetic.) I certainly don’t find non-belief offensive. One has to be genuinely persuaded, not coerced.

‘Tax breaks’ don’t relate simply to the fact that a groups has a ‘supernatural’ belief. I think you’ll find the rationale has to do with voluntary organisations and is aimed to empower that attempt good in the community.

Everyone’s ‘beliefs’ affect others. We live in a pluralistic society. People will make arguments based on their convictions about ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’.

Using your words: You may get on with your life. I leave you to do so. Same for me too. But where we’re neighbours, we’re going to have to find ways to compromise and work together.

Pelican, I likewise "would be interested more in knowing why people believe in their particular brand of religion? Or why they believe in God." And vice versa

If you walking through the woods today you might come across a teddy bears picnic. In fact we have one every year in the country down in which I live.

But what if you came across a bloodied tortured body hanging from a tree, nails through his hands, and with a crown of thorns on his bloodied forehead you would be horrified.

Even more so if you happened to see this horrible torture/murder actually being done. Try banging a nail into your own hand! Or even hanging from a cross/tree until you lapsed into unconsciousness, with pooh and piss trickling down your legs.

And yet in todays Age Dickson writes about "the beauty of Jesus' death on the cross".

Very strange indeed.

Dear Mr Graham Young

In case you hadn't noticed, it is not sufficient to assert something to make it true. You have asserted that the books by Dawkins, Hitchens etc are "intellectually and philosophically impoverished". but I can equally assert that these books represent a high point of human intellectual and philosophical achievement and the only difference is that I am asserting this while you are asserting the opposite.

I actually find these works far more intellecually satisfying than the silly old bible. Let's face it, all human religions are human constructs. As previously pointed out, virgins do not give birth. My friend, virgin birth is not just a physiological impossibility, it is just plain silly - really, incredibly, enormously silly. The Holey Bible is intellectually and philosophically impoverished, as Dawkins and Hitchens say it is - shot through with contradictions, murderous nonsense and just plain confusing rubbish.

Yes, The Holey Bible was written by people, and why on earth would anyone want to surrender their common sense to believe it?

Oh, so Christianity has a transformative power and must therefore be the one and only true religion. Saints preserve us! Almost anything can be transformative - in particular the belief that showing kindness to other people (altruism) is an eminently sensible way to live one's life (the other way is a bit unsustainable as a way of ordering society to mutual benefit).

Truly did Einstein observe that he knew of only two infinite things - the universe and the stupidity of human kind.

I despair that we are even still discussing this superstitious human-invented stuff from desert tribes of long ago. Open your eyes, wake up and jettison this small-minded stuff. As Dawkins and Hitches say, the universe now being revealed to us is far more wondrous and inspiring than the limited world that the bible in its clumsy and improverished way tries to sketch out.

Packman

Thank you for your thoughtful and well reasoned reply. Very welcome indeed. While I agree with most of what you have to say, I do indeed take Sells’ definition of ‘liberal’ to be so erroneous as to be deliberately denigrating.

For example, in his article “The trouble with liberalism” Sellick claims: “Liberalism quarantines serious discussion and suggests that the evils we witness in the world are easily solved by a resort to tolerance.”

That “liberalism quarantines serious discussion” and “tolerates evil” is simply absurd as it is simplistic. He plays a game of semantics which not only insults our intelligence whether you are religious or not, but he rarely fails to cast aspersions on atheists, agnostics and any who stray from his particular definition of Christianity. He wanders far from “mere critique”.

As for ‘runner’; he does not write articles, a running judgement on all who do not share his POV is his style, for example:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8753&page=0#138837

As for tax exemptions for charities, I have no problem. I do have problems with the additional tax-breaks religions receive in the form of land taxes, school funding and profit making businesses which apply not only to mainstream religions but to all registered religions, for example, Scientologists, Exclusive Brethren.

Finally, why am I an atheist? Because I simply cannot believe in a singular deity who has nothing better to do in this vast and wondrous universe than to treat humans as lab-rats.

packman,

>> comments to Christians about being in the league of believers in ‘fairies and aliens’
>> or believing in some ‘chap’ in the sky is mightily unhelpful to a discussion forum.

why? i don't see how such beliefs differ in kind from the common belief that jesus rose from the dead. to tar all christians with such a brush is absurd and unfair. but to claim it is irrelevant, and merely some kind of fringe belief is ridiculous.

as for sellick being a critic. yes, that's true. he's an obtuse critic, who specialises in straw men, ignores all criticism, and ends every bleeding essay by spooning a tonic of christianity on top, in an entirely unjustified manner. his tone is mild: his relentless insinuation and mischaracterisation, his total failure to peek through the gaping holes of his "arguments" – it may not be bashing, but it is really bloody annoying.

Agree packman these sorts of discussion are much more useful when there is no malice. It is interesting to discuss why and what makes us tick.

GrahamY, I enjoyed your post. My view is that I don't know whether our society would be better or different without the strong Christian influence that has shaped our culture and values. There is no doubt that our moral code has been shaped by the general Christian ethos.

This still does not prove the existence of God. It might prove that the manufacturing of the concept of God and associated fables were important in developing the social mores throughout the ages; and may have assisted in developing our civilised world. We have nothing to compare this with in our own culture.

Would we be very different without the influence of Christianity? I don't know the answer. I suspect that over time man would have evolved to a higher plane using the argument that Thermoman uses above to explain the natural common sense in altruism as a strong influence in our survival - from a scientific view.

Perhaps religion was borne of this altruism. Some might argue that it was borne of the need to control and hold power. In all likelihood, there was probably an element of the good and bad.

Anthropologists have shown that 'religion' or other tribal belief were important in many different societies. This suggest the nature of man is to yearn and seek answers or a truth.

I believe we all have the right to choose the way we live in a spiritual sense as long as it does not cause harm to others.

Most people I know live what some might describe a 'Christian' lifestyle whether atheist or religionist. This is the power of altruism no matter what has motivated it. Community spirit is found among both believer and non-believer. Thermoman said similar in that it is in our collective interest to be altruistic.

Sancho writes

'Christian intellectuals can debate scripture for eternity, but virgins don't give birth, people don't rise from the dead, and god clearly isn't intervening in the world.'

Well in actual fact it is easier to believe the One who never lied than those who have a blind faith in evolution and global warming and then call it science. It is the dishonesty of the secularist which re enforces the truth spoken by Jesus. It is true that virgins don't give birth but one did. It is true that people don't rise from the dead but One did and I think it is obvious that throughout history God has protected Israel which largely accounts for the hatred shown to that nation by many religous and irreligious people.

I cannot comment on "A friendly letter.." as I have not read it, but I do feel compelled to comment on the few who are stuck on Mary (for and against), and her virgin birth.
Remember, we are talking about a society 2,000 years past, which not only condoned, but actively encouraged the stoning of women who indulged in sexual congress outside wedlock.
Today, a virgin birth may appear miraculous, but I rather imagine 2,000 years ago, virgin births were somewhat more commonplace.
I also wonder, on what basis or by what comparison does the author make the claim that Dawkin's "God Delusion" is "intellectually impoverished". Certainly I can make no claim to be an intellectual, yet I found the book to be logically consistent, exhaustively researched and well reasoned.
Three claims which cannot be made about even the New Testament, much less the Old one.

Grim, virgin births are a dime a dozen in heroic-mythological circles.

In fact, legends of virgin births are so common (Sargon, Mithras, Zoroaster, Gautama Buddha, just to name a few) that some Christian missionaries were led to wonder if the Devil had gone before them, muddying the waters by sowing "false" legends of virgin births, so that their "one, true" legend of a virgin birth would be disbelieved.

And runner ... are you forgetting Lazarus?

Your spirituality is about relationships with people.Belief in God is irrelevant.Belief in god is narcisstic since we are assume that we are all important.

Just listening to George Pell tonight repulsed me.The religious jackals are at it again,preying on those who fall on hard times.Our hell will be the religious halcyon days.People will swap debt slavery for religious slavery.You don't have to believe in Yahweh,Allah or Jesus to be a worthwhile human being.

Runner,

I know it is Easter but it also the Pentacost - the alleged slaying of all first-born Egyptians in Moses' time but I had to question your 10 points.

1. Some people state that Matthew's writer in particular went back through the old teachings and because of his love for the Jesus story aligned the alleged prophecies corruptly.

Whilst the exact dates of the writing of the gospels is unknown some suggest they were written prior 70AD because they don't mention the Temple in Jerusalem's destruction which occurred in that year. 68CE is one guess.

Many believe Mark was the first gospel written and if this is true Matthew is alleged to have been copied from Mark with a few additions. The virgin birth does not appear in Mark OOPs!

If Matthew was first like some believe ...Why would Mark leave out the virgin birth if copied from Matthew?

2. The claim that the disciples abandoned Jesus is wrong. They fell asleep prior to his arrest but that is hardly abandoning. Peter allegedly denied knowing him 3 times and without poor Judas being allegedly used by God - the crucifixion wouldn't have occurred.

3. Jesus said John 10:30 "I and my Father are one"

John 14:28 "...I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Which one is true? OOPs

4. If Jesus isn't God you maybe correct, however, if Jesus is God then he ordered many OT atrocities eg. Numbers 31:13-18, or the passover Exodus 12:29-31. Is killing a sin?

5. I might agree, except a reasonable person would teach many of these things without being a God.

6. Science calls a conscience "a conscience" - problem solved!

7. Would God be proud that many creationists argue that Cain had an incest with an unmentioned sister?

8. Depending on when the books were written this could be correct.

9. Do you blame your wife for all the sins you have committed Adamic Runner?...lol

10. How many athiests/agnostics do wonderful things through a compassionate heart NOT an obligation to God... Is an athiest helping others vanity?

OOps did I say Pentacost... OMG I'm shocked

Of course I meant Passover.... Double OOps

But it does give me a chance to say more on the Passover.

Why would anyone want to celebrate such a story?

Seeing we are in the period of Passover (9th - 15th), although Jews commence it on the evening of the 8th) it is a great time to ask yourselves "Could my allegedly loving God have ordered these things?"

Exodus 7:2-3 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

So on it went with God (your Bible said it not me) hardening Pharaoh's heart through plagues of - Blood, Frogs, Gnats, Flies, Death of Animals, Hail, Locusts, Darkness and then finally the killing of all the first born of Egypt. Exodus 7-12

How could a loving God who created us all equal, all from Adam and Eve, then go and kill so many innocents (who were still his children) when he had deliberately and intentionally hardened Pharaoh's heart, so Pharoah couldn't let the Israelites go?

The Bible sure presents a strong case for a loving, compassionate caring God! NOT!

With all this ugliness I think people should be thrilled that Atheists and Agnostics are so peaceful and take out their frustrations by writing books and blogging.

If there is a God, he surely couldn't have done such a horrid act as this or the flood of Noah! Could he?

If you are a Christian who believes in God's goodness & grace you really only have two options.

1. Treat the Bible with contempt, as a book written by man and worship your God as an intelligent being who would never have allowed such horrors,

OR

2. Keep your head in the sand and continue to blaspheme by allowing this sacrilege to be taught.

This is my friendly letter to those who are religious amongst us

<<Well in actual fact it is easier to believe the One who never lied than those who have a blind faith in evolution and global warming and then call it science.>>

Sorry, runner, you wrote "blind faith" where I'm sure you meant "recognition of overwhelming evidence".

“I haven’t seen any articles by ‘runner’ so I don’t see a need to defend any particular comments he’s made—though, FWIW I think his ‘apologetics’ claims are often overstated, perhaps even more than the recent post by ‘stormbay’ moving in the opposite direction.”

My post is not overstated, but a clinical analysis using available evidence. I replied to this thread because someone asked for a psychological assessment of it. Denial of fact and reality is common within the human race, no matter what their belief.

I find discussions about god boring, anyone with half a brain can read the verifiable history and dismiss the belief as primitive fear and superstition. if you haven't evolved beyond this infantile understanding and paranoia, to bad, you missing out, as life is much more interesting and responsible without it.

Psychiatric institutions and practises are overflowing with people in serious psychological trouble because of their belief in god. From my years of clinical experience, the break down would be 80% religious problems, 5% substance abuse, 10% social or relationship, 5% chemical and physiological imbalance. An interesting statistic is the number of religious believers who require long term psychotropic suppression to function, compared to non believers, the ratio is about 80 -1.

Opinonated2 - your last comment is a pretty good example of cherrypicking. Christians believe in two testaments. The old and the new. The new supersedes the old. So in order to criticise Christianity you pick on the superseded testament. I'm afraid that doesn't work.

What I don't understand about this thread is the hatred that many of the posters have towards Christianity specifically. Given that we all believe things that other people believe to be wrong, why can't you just leave Christians alone to believe what they like? Afterall, these beliefs have led them to minister to the poor, build hospitals, schools, universities and campaign for free speech and equal rights. They might be wrong beliefs in your view, but they have to be admitted to have good outcomes.

The lack of tolerance that I see from some avowedly atheistic posters doesn't speak well for atheism as a force for good. But I'm not going to characterise atheism by the behaviour of a few of its adherents, anymore than I would Christianity on the same basis.

“There are those who, like me, subscribe to the Darwinian model of evolution and see competition and adaptation, sometimes against a backdrop of catastrophic climate change, as fundamental to understanding and accepting the nature of life on earth.”

Jennifer Marohasy’s allusion to Darwin and her acceptance of “the nature of life on earth” has me perplexed. Did Darwin include in his model of “evolution, competition and adaptation,” the industrial pollution of soil, water and air; the threat of nuclear waste and accidents; maniacal religious wars, destruction of the ozone layer and ecosystems from man-made organochlorinated chemicals; the greenhouse effect; possible loss of planetary oxygen through reckless deforestation and poisoning of the ocean plankton and rivers or the dangers of toxic additives in our food?

Is this what Jennifer perceives as ethical and fair "competition?" How does the planet and its non-human species “compete” and “adapt” to the synthetic environment manufactured by the malignant hand of humans?

To this, can we add species extinction, proceeding at an astronomical rate, Australia’s mining giants trashing the lands of poor nations, the absence of hope and positive perspective in the victims, loss of meaningful connection with Nature, and general alienation?

“Blind faith” in global warming claims a Christian? Are these people's eyes glued on or do we have only apocalyptic Christians on this forum, driven by their own ignorant "blind faith" in believing that it is entirely the hand of *their* supernatural deity bringing the world to an end and therefore we cannot and should not resist it?

But Graham, Christians cherry-pick the superseded testament to pick on homosexuals don't they?

As for your "good outcomes" argument, many peoples atheistic philosophies lead them to pursue good deeds as well. Many of the doctors working in those hospitals are atheists. Many charities are borne of a decidedly non-religious viewpoint (Doctors without borders, CARE international, Fred Hollows Foundation) and they save many lives and improve the lot of people around the globe without having any alternative mission to preach to them or convert them. Cannot their "good outcomes" thus be used to justify atheism?

Personally I don't think you can describe atheism as any kind of "force", let alone a force for good or evil. It is simply an absence o superstition. That view is in opposition to Christians who believe that everyone is required to believe as they do (what are missionaries eh?).

If you feel that we should leave Christians alone to believe whatever they want, fine, I'll be good with that. Just leave US alone first.

Opinionated2

I am glad you realized that their is a difference between Passover and Pentecost as the rest of your bible knowledge also looks dubious.

First you accuse the apostle Mathew with deceit. Your explanation makes no sense. Why would men invent this story about Jesus if it was not going to win them any friends and quite likely to be killed? I think the ‘some people’ you mention are telling porkies

The virgin birth was prophesied approximately 600 years before Christ appeared on earth. Again I think you are believing too many porkies. Not all gospels record all events as you rightly point out.

2. Re read the gospels and Isaiah' prophecies and you will see you are wrong.

3. Both Scriptures are right.Have a read of Philippians 2 and you will get the picture. Taking an isolated Scripture out of context really is not an honest way to interpret Scripture.

4. I hardly see ordering the destruction of nations practicing child sacrifice, perverse sexual practices, murder, rape etc etc as an atrocity. Would you like to live in a nation where no one is safe and people have no consideration for anyone but themselves. Besides that it is incredibly arrogant to question the integrity of your Creator. Remember you are the created one and the heathens really have a very poor record when pointing the finger at God. When He does intervene in man's affairs He is judged as harsh and when He does not He is criticized. You seem to have a bit each way (ie question HIm when He does and criticise Him when He does not.

5. 'reasonable' is in the eye of the beholder.

6. 'Science calls a conscience "a conscience" - problem solved!

Yes but it still can’t explain where it comes from

7. Would God be proud that many creationists argue that Cain had an incest with an unmentioned sister?

Yes (to be con't)

Graham Y wrote:

"Christians believe in two testaments. The old and the new. The new supersedes the old."

Dear Graham Y,

Please explain. What does it mean when you say that Christians believe in a superseded and a New Testament. If the Old Testament is superseded why believe in it?

Bugsy, you're running a straw case. I've never said that atheists don't do good. But I don't pick on atheists for being atheists per se, and I'm asking why you pick on Christians for being Christian per se.

And Christians wanting to convert people is not the same as them being contemptuous of people who don't believe what they believe. I think anyone is entitled to try to convince someone to change their mind. What they're not entitled to do is to treat them unfavourably because they won't. It would be very unChristian to look down on someone just because they wouldn't be converted.

You seem to be wanting to have it all your own way. I can't try to convert you, but you are entitled to tell me I have to change my way of behaving because you don't agree with it.

GrahamY

"What I don't understand about this thread is the hatred that many of the posters have towards Christianity specifically."

Substitute the word "Islam" for "Christianity", Graham and see if your sentiment changes.

"The lack of tolerance that I see from some avowedly atheistic posters doesn't speak well for atheism as a force for good."

Again, substitute the word "Christian" for "atheistic" and "atheism" respectively, and see if your sentiment changes.

"I'm not going to characterise atheism by the behaviour of a few of its adherents, anymore than I would Christianity on the same basis."

Spot on, Graham. But it's worth contemplating why so many OLO posters seem to need to vent their hatred so regularly.

Come on Graham, you make it sound like I go around sneering at Christians, just because they're Christians. It may appear that I am contemptuous of Christians, but I am only contemptuous of obvious superstitious thinking. That most Christians take any attack on their faith generally as an attack on them personally is not my problem.

You never said that atheists don't do good, no, but appeared to say that you do believe that Christian belief deserves respect because it leads some Christians to do good? Has it occurred to you that there isn't much of a link between doing good and religion, and that the attribution of doing good to ones religion or belief system is actually a product of fallacious thinking? You know, the type of fallacy that leads millions of people into thinking that homeopathy does good also, when in fact it's another (and more interesting) phenomenon altogether. Presence or absence of Religion in people's lives is not much of a predictor that they would do good, look after their families, neighbours etc.

Anyone can have faith about anything and find that it will do them 'good'. I personally have found that all one needs to get up in morning is faith that the future will be better than the past and that it is part of my job to try and make that so. But I am under no illusions that that faith is based (or even needs to be based) on anything other than my wish to make it so. The illusion that your religion and every other religion on the planet is that you think that it is and needs to be based on something. Hence, the ancient shepherding tribes book of legends, it's as good as any I suppose.

Graham

"I'm not going to characterise atheism by the behaviour of a few of its adherents, anymore than I would Christianity on the same basis."

"...why can't you just leave Christians alone to believe what they like?..."

I'll accept your claim as stated. However, we ARE affected by religion everyday:

1. Homosexuals
2. Status of Women (is the Pope a man?)
3. Reproductive Rights (Abbot and Pell for example)
3. Tax breaks for schools, land and businesses run by religious groups
4. Enforced closure of business on particular 'holy' days
5. The imposition of chaplains and religious classes in secular schools

I have no doubt others could add to this list of religious (particularly Christian in this country) imposition on other citizens.

And finally, maybe you personally don't tell others how to live but a great number of your brethren do.

You're running a straw-man case yourself, Graham: that posters here hate Christianity. I hate no religion, and there are a number of moderate Christians who post here who attract no anger whatsoever.

What's "hated" is the behaviour of fundamentalists who would roll back the Enlightenment and turn Australia into an Antipodean version of Saudi Arabia rather than confront their fears of mortality and uncertainty. There is no spiritual aspect to their belief. For them, Christianity is simply a convenient ideological box to hide in, where their ego is shielded from the doubt and challenges associated with living in a large and complex world.

I'm sure you've noticed the ongoing crusade against the theory of evolution. But where is the argument against the heliocentric theory of astronomy, or the theory of a spherical earth? All three of those scientific discoveries contradict the Bible, but only one infringes on the belief that humans are the special creations of god, which is why it's attacked so stridently.

We cannot tolerate attempts to destroy everything Western society has achieved in the last thousand years simply because some people are frightened of complexity. As long as we share our community with people whose attitudes are no different to the Taliban's, you shouldn't need to ask why their views are "hated".

Dear fellow OLOers

As Woody Allen said so entertainingly, "God almost certainly doesn't exist, but you can't prove it - you've just got to take it on faith".

Or as Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have said in Parliament one day, arguing the case for something or other "As God said, and I think He was right ...."

Bugsy,
>> I am only contemptuous of obvious superstitious thinking. That most Christians take any attack on their faith generally as an attack on them personally is not my problem.<<

Well, would you then be happy with this concatenation of two sentences:
"I am only contemptuous of obviously naive and irrational thinking. That most atheists take any attack on their atheism generally as an attack on them personally is not my problem."?

I read most of the atheist contributions (here and elsewhere) as statements not about religion, Islam, Christainity, the Pope etc. but as statements about the author of the post. Reading them, and trying to understand what makes the author tick, makes me also better understand my own world-view. Like learning a foreign language might be a fun on itself, but also helps you to better understand (e.g. the grammar of) your mother tongue.

This is one thing. Another thing is to make derisive and offensive statements about what I think makes somebody else tick, be he/she a self-proclaimed atheist, Muslim, Christian or what . As I used to tell my (maths) students: I cannot mark you on what I think you think, only on what you write down. Well, in this case replace "mark" by "try to understand".

pelican
>>Some believe in a supernatural entity some don't. ... I would love a psychological and philosophical article on this subject if it was possible.<<

Of course, there are volumes written attempting to answer your question on both the psychological and philosophical (two very different approaches) levels. As you might remember I myself have been trying to write something on these topics here a couple of times, struggling to sqeeze what I wanted to say into 350 words. The most frequent reaction I got was that I was condescending, engaging in mental qymnastics etc.

Besides, I would reformulate your sentence as >>Some believe that “the Cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos 1980), some don’t<<.

Graham,

Did you just put your foot in it and not realise it yet?

1. If you believe the Passover is a load of codswallop please have the courage to say it... but don't play the OT & NT game, it’s flawed.

OR 2. If you believe that God killed all the firstborn of Egypt please tell us!

AND 3. If you believe in the trinity…that God, Jesus and Holy Spirit are one entity, aren't you saying Jesus ordered these atrocities?

Churches teach the OT Graham, many teach Jesus is God! The NT often refers to the OT. Christians trap themselves!

When will Christians know their bibles?

I've explained this elsewhere but I'll try once again.

Either Jesus' word is correct and Graham is wrong OR Graham is correct and Jesus is wrong!

Jesus, (Matthew 5:17-20), empowers the law of Moses & the prophets plus unequivocally states in verse 18 "As long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."

It varies slightly from version to version but Jesus explicitly empowers the OT.

He mentions the laws of the prophets (ie Moses etc) plus the commandments!...So all Moses' laws apply even the ugly ones eg. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 So much for that superceding argument!

Moses also allegedly wrote the Torah (1st 5 Books) If you have doubts about Moses, good for you, but the NT still creates big problems!

Jesus allegedly celebrated the Passover, so he allegedly believed it! Wasn't the last supper the passover meal? Matthew 26:17

If I can’t cherrypick then can you? Whose picking on Christians – I’m trying to educate them!

I don’t notice any hatred against Christians by atheists – Atheists never threaten hellfire and damnation Graham–do they? They generally don’t hate homosexuals! Yes Graham, Revelations is a NT book as are the backward teachings of Paul eg.1 Timothy 2 11-12! Ask your wife about Paul’s oppression of a whole gender Graham!

Oh also - I'm not an Atheist!

Opinionated 2

con't

9. Do you blame your wife for all the sins you have committed Adamic Runner?...lol

I would like to but I think you have missed the point. Every man and woman has the adamic nature despite what many feminist and courts would have us believe

10. How many athiests/agnostics do wonderful things through a compassionate heart NOT an obligation to God... Is an athiest helping others vanity?

Probably many athiests/agnostics do wonderful things. That was never in question. As to their motives you will need to speak to them. At the end of the day every thing is vanity if there is no god.

You write

'I don’t notice any hatred against Christians by atheists'
Where have you been hiding all your life. The mocking of Christians and their beliefs are a national sport for the national broadcasters. Ask Fred Nile what it is like to have urine over him by athiests and agnostics because he expressed a different point of view albeit peacefully. As for hellfire it would be a pretty sad Christian who did not try and rescue a fellow human being from an eternity in hell. This is far more compassionate than pretending it does not exist therefore calling Jesus a liar. I know no Christians who hate homosexuals. Along with other sinful behaviour they dislike what they do and the fruit of their deeds.

In the end it matters not what you believe,but how you treat your fellow man.

Metaphoricly i see a lot of'closet-gays'..[or is the'proper'term penus-envey]..were i as literate as many of the responses here i would use more clever words

but..lest_i_be_judged by_the_same/measure,...will speak in generalities,..to no-one in particular,..3/4 's of your posts claim'a-theism'..are you so'literate'you cant claim your own word?..[i am a thiest]..[your claim to be'athiest'is an absurdity]

you judge religions by the extreem's you fixate on as being religion.[there are good and bad in all religions,..to judge the whole by a minority,is plainly absurd]

there is a god..[for those who believe..[as well as those who think they dis-believe..[dorkins is as much a'god'to you athiest's..as'jesus'..is a god to many xtians..[or'mahamoud'..a god to many muslims..[or'budda'etc...[they are all figure heads..for your beliefs..you vairiously hold religiously

yes there is a god...[but he does not seek to change our freewill..

[it is not him to blame for your love of the vile,..he is a god of love...[the living loving love,..that allows you to believe[to love]ANYTHING you like

[totally unconditional[totally gracefull,..he dont judge you..just as you do not judge a field of flowers

never the less you have in mind an absent god..[a wrathfull delusion of god]..its time you understood god lives ever in LIVE TIME[all the time in this ever now LIVING MOMENT..not in dead/books..nor dead/works

god live inside you..inside all life..[sustaining our every breath sustaining your every heart beat]..giving logus[logic to your every living thought..

..[know the voice of your god is all the good thought..[every good wisper your mind did hear]..all good comes from the living good[god]

but freewill allows you also to hear.;.[then chose to do]the most vile..because gods good love is sustaining life]..he sustains but to prove your own freewil choice he allows your choice to do the most vile..[such is his unconditional love,..see you not he gives even the most vile their life?

evil allows the freewill chosing to be doing of good,!

..in truth only the good has reality,..see that resisting the evil is the best we can chose to do..[in our own time..[especially the resisting of the evil in ourselves]..judge not others..[it joins you to their vile]

good is all good...[all god]

One Under God,

You certainly seem to have an imitate knowledge of ‘God’.
--"he(?) is a god of love"
--"god lives ever in LIVE TIME"
--"god live inside you..inside all life"
--"good is all good...[all god]"

All previous posters have been up front their inspirational sources, either Christians(The Bible), Muslims(The Koran), "Dorkin"[ites](The God Delusion).What is the source of your knowledge?

Try to be specific now …don't give us rambling generalizations about the balance-of-nature but, rather, a source book we can all peruse .

Gan bei!

Opinionated2, you cannot read the bible as literal history. Not everything that Jesus is reported as saying is perfectly consistent. Sometimes when you look at the context he is being deliberately evasive because someone is trying to trap him. Read the gospels in context it is clear that Jesus does not believe that all of the laws apply, and that his followers didn't either.

To take one instance - the woman caught in adultery who is to be stoned to death. He stares down those who would execute her in accordance with the law using the famous phrase "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." When the crowd disperses he says to her words to the effect of "Where are those who accused you?" She replies that they have gone. And then he says "Neither do I accuse you. Go and sin no more".

Do I believe that God killed the first born of every Egyptian family? No. But 2000 years ago that might have seemed a just proposition. Should I discard the bible because it was written in a different age? No. We still read Aristotle even though he was wrong about a huge number of things.

Fractelle, you appear to be saying that Christians aren't entitled to allow their own opinions to inform their public arguments. You apparently want to privilege your own opinions over those of others. That would seem to me to deny Christians a right. We live in a democracy where we allow everyone to express an opinion, no matter how mad we might think it, as long as it does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of others.

I favour reasonably freely available abortion, but I don't deny Pell and Abbott the right to their own opinions. I don't approve of infanticide and I think there is a legitimate argument about when abortion becomes infanticide. It's not even a religious argument at all. If we presume to outlaw infanticide, then we have to have a debate about abortion. Abortion is not prima facie some inalienable right of the mother.

Graham,

I agree with you - The Bible can't be read as literal history. But the churches teach it as literal history - don't they? Likewise did Jesus say many of the things that he is quoted to have said? A few things are unJesus-like!

Jesus changed some of the rules in Matthew 5, 6 & 7. and rightly so! God didn't invent these laws!

Christian preachers are the ones who teach this book as fact, they teach hellfire and damnation and there seems to be a stronger teaching in the drug-induced rantings of Revelations in their teachings! Ask Runner he will probably tell you it is 100% accurate even the totally contradictory bits.

I have no problems with people having faith - but I do have problems with people who proselytize, who feed the starving whilst pushing the Bible down the poor (hidden agendas), with falshoods taught as fact and the culture busting history of the believers.

I object to Christians preaching the Bible and then doing the opposite to what it states regarding judging others, money, and who attend organisations that have covered up horrendous crimes, doing nothing to out the criminals, but then, having a say on moral issues. Jesus said it "First remove the log from your own eye" Matthew 7:3-5 The churches fail this regularly!

I find it morally reprehensible that a woman cannot follow her religious journey to reach the pinnacle within her religion just because Paul had women issues. Why are Christian men scared of women?

IF Jesus was the son of God he forgot to outlaw slavery, he forgot to insist that a rapist can't marry the rape victim, he forgot lots of stuff. There are two possibilities 1. A lot of what he said never got written down or 2, He isn't the son of God. (Why did he celebrate passover if it is a fib?)

I have always erred on point 1 but then I listen to many Christians and if they represent him and the kingdom of heaven... No thanks.

My prayer "Jesus please save me from your followers"...lol

Graham

Your post is evidence of how the various religions manipulate biblical passages to suit their own doctrines.

And if you consider the differences between the religions of the world, it becomes obvious these differences exist because they teach different doctrines. But why? (You would need to give us answers since the religious are good at ignoring them).

Otherwise, we are forced into one of three conclusions in that regard. Either there is no God, so there is no absolute standard of right and wrong (and so it doesn't matter what anyone believes); or there is a God, but either it doesn't matter to Him who believes what, or He hasn't indicated what He wants (and so it still doesn't matter what anyone believes); or there is a God, and there is an absolute standard which has been announced, and it does matter to Him what people believe.

God has instructed George Pell and the collective "conscience" of the Vatican to order humans to continue breeding like rabbits, despite the evidence that the planet is groaning under the weight of humans.

Now He permits the Catholic church to marry divorcees when once they were denied the sacraments - even excommunicated.

Why do Jehovah Witnesses deny a child a blood transfusion thus allowing them to die. Is this not infanticide?

And what is the correlation between infanticide and abortion when one sperm only fertilises an egg and your "merciful" God permits millions of others to die? Why does he not supply just one sperm for each individual conception?

I would also suggest to Runner that the irreligious can live equally or more morally than many religious, simply from a highly developed conscience (which is not innate but developed.) Most eminent psychologists agree with me. For instance when a three year old child kicks a dog, the child is either chastised or ignored. The child that is ignored, will continue to kick a dog! One does not need your God Runner to understand that a conscience in humans is developed over time and is essential for the collective morality of a nation!

Graham

You are now quite deliberately choosing to misinterpret my words, when you make claims such as:

“Fractelle, you appear to be saying that Christians aren't entitled to allow their own opinions to inform their public arguments. You apparently want to privilege your own opinions over those of others.”

In your wildest fantasies, if there was even a mote of truth in the above, I would've bailed on OLO long ago. But here I am, heh, heh.

I want there to be balance. Until recent years, atheists rarely spoke up and now that we speaking out the religious are reacting like a swarm of wasps to a stick. Where are the speakers to counter the outrageous claims made by high profile religious extremists? Where is the monthly article on humanism to counter Sellick's dose of Proselytising Monthly Tension.

I want separation of state and church. I want the special exemption that is made for all religions, by way of taxes and privilege, ended.

Abbot actively campaigned against RU486, is anti-choice for women AND let his religion rule when making legislation in the Howard government. While I agree abortion is a separate topic:

The point which you continue to evade is that religion impacts on all people not just the religious.

Pell has influence that carries into the general population rather than just a few Catholics. His latest pronouncement was to endorse the Pope's view that condoms encourage promiscuity, this after the closure of Father Peter Kennedy's church which expressed the ideology of Jesus far better than anything most variants of Christianity ever achieve.

As editor of OLO you should know better than to construct such arguments of straw. Do you not realise how biased you are making yourself appear?

I explained in very reasonable terms why I object to the labelling of atheists as Sellick and his ilk indulge themselves. Not once have I denied anyone the right to hold their belief.

I may ask questions, but I do not ever deny freedom of religion. Therefore, what I expect in return is freedom from stigma.

horus QUOTE>>--"he(?..god of love"<<love god love neighbour,..where god hate..then it would be hate neighbour to love god..[lol]..see how even the most ugly brutal beast yet loves it's young,..god is of course beyond sex[personally i think of him as her]but logiclly he gives life..[as man gives life to a woman]

>>--"god lives ever in LIVE TIME">>see me see my father...i see god/logus/logic in everyone,...adam lived because gods breath was breathed into him..[from adam to you,each man passes the living sperm,to give life]

read the stories[god spoke to mosus,in real time,jesus reveals even a beast knows the voice of its master..god is that good inner voice of good concious..enthroned in our heart..[where else could a[the]living god be ..but in live time...[he either is here now or he is thought captured in some holy text or other,...god is not to be caught into the spell-ing of any holy text...do we not pray to the living god who even now..'art in heaven'[first find your peace within]

>>"god live inside you..inside all life"....they seek him here[they seek him there,but he is within..its complicated to explain to those who deney he even egsists...knowing he is in everyone living helps to respect neighbour,thus respecting god[that we did to the least we did to him]

<<"good is all good...[all god]"..>>ya that comes from sweden borg, and m,ary baker eddie[and a course in miricles and hinted at in the holytexts of many beliefs[

<<What is the source of your knowledge?>>my reading comes from hundreds of texts[new test,koran,old test,bagda veta,gnostic writings,esoteric writings,anything about god or belief for the last twenty years]
try reading swedenborgs arcana celestia, or heaven and hell,or health and science
or http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/gonewest.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wsltoc.html

you either'know'god/good..is in your heart..or not

we are revealed by our works..not the books we read...no book is more true[or faulse than any other]..[except the talmud but then i havnt read it..[..only selective quotes from it..[it MAY have'some'good in it]
http://www.google.com.au/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=friedman+talmudic+truth&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

once you know god is love you learn..if its not all love..[its not of god]..i can ignore the vile..to find that good..[from god]..in any book..its AS i believe...[you believe as you will]

Well said Arjay - it is not what we believe but how we treat others.

George,
It doesn't matter which way it is phrased it means the same. :)

The mistake many make in questioning Atheism as a force for good. Atheism is not a force for anything it is just the disbelief in a supreme being.

Altruism is what this is about - whether or not humans have an inborn sense of altruism or whether we can only achieve it through belief in a moral divine being.

The reason I am an Atheist is because there is no evidence of God only books and documents that record the history and ethos of a man named Jesus who is purported to be the son of God.

runner, I find it difficult that you believe man might 'manufacture' global warming but don't carry this possibility over to the scriptures.

Posters that quote from the scriptures to prove God don't seem to get that this is not proof if the scriptures themselves are not legitimate.

I don't speak for atheism only myself in saying that I believe that we are most connected to each other in a spiritual sense and there are certainly things we cannot know or explain. It is okay not to know something.

I don't need to know the answer to why we are here or what purpose, I am more interested in the way we behave while we are alive - when I die I may know more or I may not, I may be compost.

Some argue religion is important because the idea of afterlife or reincarnation is the motivation for living a moral life on earth.

That may be the psychology behind religion but it still does not prove the existence of God. I am aware from the investigations by journalists into the Vatican (can't remember his name for the moment) revealed many priests do not actually believe in God, only the message and morality that the 'belief' encourages.

One Under God,

1)––"god live inside you..inside all life".... he is in everyone living helps to respect neighbour,thus respecting god[that we did to the least we did to him]”

If this is the case I’m inclined to think there must be more than one god, or else, “he” must have a multiple personally disorder,for it seems that many of our most religious are receiving contradictory messages.

And, if we read a few of the holy texts, a goodly portion seems to be assigned
to instructing us to exterminating our neighbours rather than live with them.

2) ––“my reading comes from hundreds of texts[new test,koran,old test,bagda veta,gnostic writings,esoteric writings,anything about god” ..
––“.no book is more true[or faulse than any other]”

It all sounds very cosy and ecumenical but, what of the contradictions, i.e.
where one “holy” source calls for something the other prohibits, how do you
reconcile such differences?

For example, Islam says: Mohammed was the “seal of the prophets”
there’d be NO FURTHER PROPHETS while, The Baha’i faith ( &
arguably Swedenborg have later prophets!) ..or, don’t you perceive any
contradiction(s)?

I'm not sure who is the most boring, the religionists or the non-religionists. Both groups seem to like an argument about nothing!

Fractelle, the Rationalist Society, which is atheistic, as I understand it, has just become a member of The National Forum, publisher of On Line Opinion, and I hope will be posting at least an article a month.

I'm not deliberately misrepresenting you, I'm just pointing out the consequence of what you appear to be arguing. Tony Abbott is at liberty to vote against RU486 and be anti-choice. That has no bearing on the separation between Church and State. If you say he can't do these things on religious grounds then you are denying him the right to his own conscience.

I agree that churches shouldn't get tax exempt status apart from for assets and wages associated with their charitable works. I also think that the car industry shouldn't get the government money that it does, that farmers shouldn't get drought assistance and parents shouldn't get the baby bonus. I could go on. You appear to be fixated with just one portion of government largesse to special interests.

Opinionated2 mainstream Christians don't teach that the whole of the bible is literal truth, and it's been a long time since I've had a fire and damnation sermon preached at me.

And you completely misunderstand Jesus on the issue of the law. He said that all that was necessary was to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. He didn't suggest that you could ever write a comprehensive code that would cover all things. He was well aware of complexity and deliberately encoded his teachings in parables which are frequently ambiguous. They give you a tool box, but not a solution.

As for hypocrisy, it exists everywhere. Christ had no time for hypocrites, and the fact that people who are members of his church can be hypocritical doesn't negate his teachings. The church is built for sinners, and Christians should be profoundly humble about their own shortcomings.

GrahamY wrote:

"When I was an Atheist I tried to live my life on Christian principles. Now that I describe myself as a Christian I still try to live my life on Christian principles.

Christian principles infuse our society and they are a force for good. They make this a more humane society than most others now and before."

Dear Graham,

Considering the above what changes has becoming a Christian made in the way you regard life, the issues of the day, your relations with those close to you and your relations with others?

My reading of history tells me that when Christianity was dominant in Europe western society was much less humane than it is now. That period was called the Dark Ages with good reason. The Enlightenment issued in a more secular and humane society.

My reading of history tells me that faith is the enemy of a humane society. Whether the faith is religious or in a secular ideology such as Marxism faith is too often a justification for atrocity.

The essential difference between a Christian and a non Christian is their belief that a particular man defeated death and rose from his grave site.

Someone asked what is the difference between those who believe and those who don’t. That’s just about the deepest of all questions. It has to do with many factors concerning our life experiences: inherited, educational, and circumstantial.

To respond to the people who’ve said that dead people don’t rise, I think that is not a particularly clever thing to say. By our clearest (scientific) observation of life, certainly dead people do not rise. However, that is the whole point of Christianity; that at one point in time, something incredibly unusual happened.

Compare it to that other regular April celebration, the Masters Golf at Augusta. For the last 73 years we’ve been waiting for an Australian to win that championship. But it never happens. By all accounts of historical reckoning, it is obviously impossible. Yet some historical events are rare or perhaps one off occurrences

GrahamY,
Cousin Id as he is known at home (examinator) banged on for months about the right for everyone to believe what ever “gained you a good night's sleep and got you up in the morning providing it didn't harm anyone else” He was however down on the inherent arrogance of dogma based beliefs that proselytise with more than reasonable grounds.
He argued that.
To do so logically implies the missionary has superior knowledge..
He argued if you can*t prove the existence of your God how can you then prove logically it*s superior let alone absolute?
I do remember all of us debating his responses and objections to the Atheist Foundation of Australia in that changing the name of the dogma still has the say results.
He cites the dramas social destruction of community cohesion cultures and tribal nations in PNG at the hands of both organised religion and atheism.
I have witnessed the same amongst Australian indigenous people. I too challenge your religious Darwinism.

You need to note that the same paternalism is practised to day.

Also not all Christian denominations acknowledge the new testament with the same reverence as the old. (Some Id's mum) follows the 7th Day Adventists who take the OT literally they have their own aid group and “Bible and builds” are common.
Id also quote an example where two tribes one catholic the other Adventist went to war over the day of worship.

We both agree that Tony Abbott and his ilk are elected to represent/enact the will of the majority of his electorate not HIS personal beliefs/delusions isn't that the point of Democracy? I doubt that the majority of Liberals agree with his Catholic views. Likewise I find the concept that “wisdom it learned from posterior contact with parliamentary leather” is preposterous.

Likewise I can under stand how non extremist Catholic women find his stance galling.
I admit much of this perspective has been gleaned from Id but its truth is rationally sound.
If Christians want acceptance then perhaps they should accept others too.

Protagoras

'I would also suggest to Runner that the irreligious can live equally or more morally than many religious, simply from a highly developed conscience (which is not innate but developed.) Most eminent psychologists agree with me. For instance when a three year old child kicks a dog, the child is either chastised or ignored. The child that is ignored, will continue to kick a dog! One does not need your God Runner to understand that a conscience in humans is developed over time and is essential for the collective morality of a nation!'

Without God you end up with the hopelessly flawed moral relativity arguements. That is why without God you can murder the unborn and pretend in the name of science that it is not a person. You can commit mass murder and blame your parents upbringing for it. Moral relativism as preached by psychology is but a poor excuse for bad behaviour. The fact that a 3 year old gets pleasure in kicking a dog demonstrates the adamic nature.

You are of course right in saying that many irreligous people live equal or even better lives than many religous. I have no arguement with that. The point is that all people fall well below God's righteous standards. That is exactly why we need a Saviour who fulfilled God's standards unlike any other man. It won't be 'good' men
in heaven but forgiven men. All who think that by their own works will gain entrance to heaven will have their self righteousness exposed for what it is (hopelessly based on moral relativism).

>> Christian principles infuse our society and they are a force for good. They make this a more humane society than most others now and before.

i see. and these "christian principles" infused society for the last two thousand years of the church's charming history? wouldn't these "christian principles" be strongest when the church was most powerful? is burning people still a "christian principle"? anybody got a true scotsman handy?

>> What I don't understand about this thread is the hatred that many of the posters have towards Christianity specifically.

it's not hatred, it's, at least from me, contempt. and it's not "christianity", it's a certain type of special pleading crap that SOME religious types like to indulge in. as to how this whiny "you don't understand me" form of religion gets to be a pasttime of privileged christians? who knows?

>> After all, these beliefs have led them to minister to the poor, build hospitals, schools, universities and campaign for free speech and equal rights.

yep. and others preach death-promoting nonsense about condoms in africa. good acts and bad acts are judged on their merits.

>> The lack of tolerance that I see from some avowedly atheistic posters

give it a break. it's not "intolerance". intolerance is throwing gays in prison because some charmers a few thousand years ago wrote that god is straight.

>>> you appear to be saying that Christians aren't entitled to allow their own opinions to inform their public arguments.

graham, do you know what the word "argument" means?

>> but I don't deny Pell and Abbott the right to their own opinions.

no one does. they have the right to their opinions. we have the right to hold their opinions in contempt. we have the right to question the basis of their opinions. we have the right to question the worth and wisdom of moral stances stemming from an unprovable god.

honestly, graham. there is no substance to your attacks. there is no enunciation of your own beliefs. all you do is whine.

eAnt wrote: “He cites the dramas social destruction of community cohesion cultures and tribal nations in PNG at the hands of both organised religion and atheism.

I have witnessed the same amongst Australian indigenous people. I too challenge your religious Darwinism.”

After settlement of Australia there was great loss of life among the Aborigines by disease and at the hands of the European settlers.

Without Christian missionaries the loss of life by the Aborigines would have been much greater.

According to “The Lamb Enters the Dreaming” by Robert Kenny the popular belief among educated secular people before Darwinian theory was accepted was that the Aborigines were a separate species so killing them was not killing humans. Many missionaries believing literally in the Bible saw all people including the Aborigines as descended from Adam and Eve and did what they could to prevent the slaughter.

According to other accounts I have read missionaries saw the indigenous peoples as human but inevitably members of a dying people so their first concern was to get them baptised before they died so they would go to heaven.

It was only after Darwin’s “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex” became generally accepted that people in general saw Aborigines as part of the human species.

GrahamY,

Jesus didn't say that about the law that's his extra commandment.

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

Here’s what he said about the law…

Jesus, (Matthew 5:17-20), empowers the law of Moses & the prophets plus UNEQUIVOCALLY states in verse 18 "As long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."

He’s emphatic with his toolbox!

I’m not saying to burn the OT....I said Christians should let it go! The Bible is a seriously flawed document and you’ve realised it.

You didn’t answer – Why did Jesus celebrate a fib (the Passover)?

Either Jesus (the Son of God) believed God killed all Egyptian firstborn or he didn’t!

And what of these?

HEALINGS (again) - When will the first amputees leg grow back through God’s grace?

Matthew 17:20...NOTHING will be impossible for you!...So no Christian alive has the faith of a mustard seed?

Did Jesus take credit for healing an epileptic fit? Mark 9:14-29 After a fit people go into a deep sleep…OOPS a fib?

PRAYER – John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”- I can’t see much evidence of this, can you? (See healings again).

I can go on but do you see amputed legs growing back? Perhaps amputees don’t pray! Let’s pray for just one!

Can you see God feeding the starving? Perhaps hungry people don’t pray either!

Or is it because Christians lack faith?… Jesus said so! Matthew 17:20 again!

So either Jesus doesn’t do what he states and is a fibber OR the TV showing starving, lame people is telling lies? Which one is it?

Lastly, Jesus on hellfire and damnation Matthew 5:22…Matthew 5:29…Matthew 10:28…Matthew 13:50…Matthew 23:33…Matthew 25:30…Luke 13:28 plus many more! Are churches now selective?

Runner I’ll get to you! I’m sure your God is so impressed by your promoting his lack of intelligence! Cain’s wife was his sister, Runner? That’s pathetic! Your religionusment educationamalisation needs improving!...Ha!

pelican,
>>Some believe in a supernatural entity some don't. ... Some believe that “the Cosmos is all that there is ...<<

Of course, for the man in the street both statements appear to mean the same. However, I thought your original request for a "psychological and philosophical" insight went deeper than that, and was free of the emotional baggage that usually goes with an apology. We all have things we believe to be true, and we might want to understand what the other person believes (usually supported by what he/she calls “evidence“ or lack of it) and I thought this was what you wanted. That, however, can be done only if we all can agree on the meaning of terms used to express this belief (or disbelief). Otherwise we just speak past each other, as happens often when religion is discussed also on this OLO.

That is why I prefer Sagan's description (Dawkins has a similar one) of what he BELIEVES, not of what he does not believe. I do not share his belief but it is clear to me what he means by it, since he cannot be accused of having a 19th century understanding of the material world (Cosmos), and the associated philosophy of science, as some atheist, as well as theist, contributors here seem to have.

This cannot be said about concepts like "supernatural" or "supreme being" created by Western metaphysics, probably to reconcile the Hebrew and Greek roots of our cultural heritage. People have many different understandings of this concept, some of them rather naive, thinking it covers also phantasies like fairies, Spaghetti Monster or the Easter Bunny.

Like one can have a pre-QM understanding of elementary particles but then one cannot enter into serious discussions about contemporary nuclear physics. Such a person can either try to “uncritically” understand what specialists tell him/her - and not all physicists are good popularisers - or get himself/herself “personally involved“ by studying a lot of physics (and mathematics). The same about understanding what e.g. a Christian, informed by contemporary science, believes.

The skeptics and atheists are far more dangerous that we realize. The fundamentals of good government are contained in the New Testament with guidance towards them in the Old Testament and both books are essential to a full and complete understanding of the system of government introduced by Jesus Christ. We have many posters who decry the barbarism of continental Europe. They attribute this to Christianity but it was more a counterrevolution against Christianity, than Christian.

The golden age of European settlement both in Australia and the North America came about because the fundamental principles of the Holy Bible were incorporated into the very fabric of society. They were incorporated into the two great Constitutions the United States and Australian and while places like Argentina and all of South America and most of Africa have descended into barbarism, under the teaching of a church based in Italy, the British based societies have remained relatively stable.

However because we have a small but vocal core of atheists who do not believe in one God, and a lot of poorly educated fellow travelers, we have had self seeking individuals enter our Parliaments and create about one thousand God fellows, some male and some female, and insinuated them into every town in Australia. What are Judges and Magistrates but little local gods. They are a remnant of the English occupation of Ireland, and the colonial occupation of the British Empire, and the continued colonization of Australia by big business interests. They are totally Old Testament. They are part of a widespread and systematic oppression of the bulk of the civilian population, and as members of point two five of one percent of the population, are an absolute menace to all and sundry.

These members of the legal profession practice enslavement, because they exercise without authority lawfully granted all the attributes of ownership over their fellow Australians. Freedom comes from jury trials, and the exercise by twelve people in conclave, of the God given collective mind. The Commonwealth made what Judges and Magistrates do a crime in 1995. The penalty:25 years jail

Unless this "letter" is from God, complete with photos and audio evidence, then it is the same old, same old. Man trying to justify a belief that was valid when man knew little about the world and it's environments.

"In Myers’ world God does not create and nor does he answer prayer.". In this case then Mr Myer's shows good judgement as there are never answers to prayers. How can there be when there is no God?

How silly are those people who spend their lives praying but when questioned say "God moves in mysterious ways" and also that God chooses what he will do. So why pray at all? The mighty he has a mind of his own apparently.

Young makes this statement:

"An anti-Christian crusade has been growing for years". And then tries to decry it. Why? There is no "crusade" at all. Just people seeing through the insanity of believing the 2000 year old fallacies of frightened jewish men from that era. They never intended today's people to swallow their fantasies, they didn't really expect their own people to do so. But Young does. Ands thinks there's a movement, plotting and planning to bring down Christianity.

Christians do that all by themselves Mr Young. They cannot and will not live by their own rules thus demonstrating the fake ideology.

Paranoia MR Young, paranoia. Atheists don't meet nor do they have secret handshakes and all the trappings of a Pope who claims condoms foster AIDS.

George, I think my understanding of Sagan's use of the word 'Cosmos' differs somewhat from yours.
Sagan very literally defined the word as "All that is, all that was and all that ever will be".
As material beings with limited perceptions, to us the Universe and all the galaxies and stars and matter should be all that is. Scientists now postulate there could be other universes we cannot perceive, in fact an infinity of universes. The split timeline theory postulates that new universes,-new timelines- are created every time anyone makes a decision.
Cosmos is a word meaning literally everything; including God, if such a being exists.
He/she/it may not be a part of our Universe, but -by definition- it is a part of the Cosmos.
This does not answer any questions of creation. Who created God/the Cosmos?
It is merely a definition.

David f
religious Darwinism as used referred to the common perversion of the term 'survival of fittest' Id has explained this is wrong but it made my point of big brother (1984 type) paternalism.

I argue that the 'missionaries' save the bodies but at the cost of the peoples perception of their souls and culture (sense of who they are in their universe).

Your cultural arrogance makes you assume that your way is better. We question that presumption.
I reject your notion that longer lifespan etc. is indivisible with non indigenous culture.
Most fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Atheism etc. still use modern medicine and science to what suits their views in fact there is red cross and red crescent . Yet when it come to much older more stable 'spirit' cultures they are given Hobs' choice.
I note GY is silent on this.

horus>>..there must be more than one god,>>..is there more than one gravity?..more than one sun lighting up/earth..more/one universe,?...your body is made up of trillions of living-cells..[your body contains millions of micro beasts[yet you are still you]..the life force still has one'root'GOD

,,>>..holy/texts,..exterminating..rather than live with them.>>[YOU NEVER BELIEVED OR WROTE WRONG?]

what we have in the holy-texts is just people trying to give their version of interaction with the force..[they are teachers who give us shoulders to stand on,..its our choice to see them as more than they were..[or see them as being just like us,spirits having an incarnate life experience

<<“.no book..more true[or faulse than any other]”..reconcile such differences?>>when ape you can only do that ape can do,when child that a child can do,using words we can only decribe so much then its up to our works to verify or deney[in the city you need not look out for poisen-oak,or fear a lion eating you,..time changes,once you know how to read,..you learn to write..[simple progression]

<<Mohammed was the “seal of the prophets”..>>mahanoud also said to each nation is sent their own messenger..[he cant make claim for any other people,..he too was human not god..[may gods peace be upon them all]
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/only_warner.html

or if that dont satisfy
http://www.google.com.au/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=quaran%2Cno+further+prophets%2Fmessengers&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

i make no claim that every holy text is holy..[it is holy to those who chose to call it holy]..i read..to know more of my god,besides mahamoud didnt write anything down[it was spoken..till in time it was written]

just like new-test was[after the fact]your not reading his words but the essence of what he revealed,then we get into editing and translation[like when the bible was translated,revised etc,things must be understood in the context of the time they were written

feeding 4000/5000,.[see the lack handwash jars on the mount,wouldnt let any judeans eat..[the teaching for the decpiples clearly was;''see how fixed in their belief they are[but his deciples clearly didnt know the ritual[when they ate the shew bread..edited..same with the time when jesus came..[the judeans believed in a reserection day..[jesus reveals we die and ALL...[even a thief]..are born again

George

I am not sure how my comment invited the criticism of emotional baggage. I simply said that your re-worded statement meant the same as the original (just put the other way around). Perhaps your rush to re-word it might invite some self-reflection. This is where these sorts of conversations online come a bit unstuck. We are all guilty of taking the offensive or defensive position whether a slight is real or perceived.

I am sincere in my desire for psychological and philosphical discussion on religion. An online forum is probably not the best mode given the written word can be taken the wrong way dependingn on the articulateness of the writer and the predelictions of the reader. I guess we can just do the best we can given those restraints.

Reading back all the comments here, it seems to me that we all want the same things - goodwill towards each other, kindness, love, peace, forgiveness and acceptance for our differences as well as our similarities.

The difficulty comes in the difference between our beliefs or non-belief in a 'higher' entity or supreme being (a God/deity) in achieving these goals.

One Under God,

I think you may have misread the Koran.It does indeed say that God, over time, has sent prophets to all peoples.

BUT crucially it adds, their messages have been distorted/corrupted by their recipient peoples (including the Jews).It then goes on to say Mohammed is intended to supersede all those other prophets and that there will no other prophets after him.

So if you give credence to the Koran, you cannot hold all religions of equal worth

horus<<BUT crucially it adds,their messages have been distorted/corrupted...no-other prophets after him.>>YOUR POINT IS CORRUPTED...[as all holy texts have been corupted]

recall jesus was offered this realm..[if only he would bow down to satan[who is banned into this realm for eternity]

ok so we get jesus wont be comming back to satans realm?
he was offered it AND REFUSED IT

so the texts are corrupted that predict'some'saviour to come and save us...lol...[recall in the koran that mosus studied with satan,but couldnt question him..[yet did?]..

so from the quaran we KNOW of how satan works,he is a deciever,..but not as evil as people make him out to be[thats not to say that the most vile is not done in his name..[up to and including mass genocides[or corupting the holy texts]

recall in the bible,that the least amoung you will be greater than the baptiser?..[and that is saying something]..anyhow i wondered who was the least[judus, nope...in time i realised that sephant/lawyer;who dist ask eve did god forbid..well god didnt..[adam did]read the timming yourself[timming is everything]..well to finish jesus..did know who's realm this is

ok back to eve[adam as husband of eve could forgive a wife a foolishness[same as father.it was his rib],but adam/eve were bother and sister[ie the rib created a clone[adam as brother could forgive a sister a foolishness[so eve has been much wronged[but only satan knows..and now you]

<<..you give credence to the Koran,you cannot hold all religions of equal worth>>...lol..forgive my brother but thats a preumption..[god has no favourites amoung all us his children[and i follow no religion AT ALL]...i been rejected by them all..lol

i follow god,and chose to try to love his creation[because he loves it].. but really there are so many foolish generations..[but you guys are so eminantly lovable,when you really have passion..[god so loves our passion..[but we are huh?-man.[we all have feet of clay...hey..lol

AHH-men..lol

all so much like an ant carrying a rubber/tree-plant,but i see so much of the father shining out of each and everyone of you

lets all feel the peace..[our own god piece]..within[us all]

remember..you shall call him emmanuel]..god within us all

pelican,
I certainly did not mean to include you among those who need "emotional baggage" to defend their position on matters religion. Otherwise I would not have reacted with such a long post. I am not going to list the OLO contributors on both sides of the theist-atheist divide who do, as you are certainly aware. However, I can see now the passage (hastily included to replace a longer one to fit within 350 words) can be thus interpreted, for which I sincerely apologise.

All I was after, in response to your challenge, was the clarification of what in principle distinguishes all theists (to include e.g. Hindu and some Buddhists) from all atheists, so that we can understand each other‘s philosophical presuppositions (on psychological level the difference is between faith and “unfaith“).

I maintained that in 21st century what physicists and cosmologists study is more widely understood than what metaphysicians and theologians study. That is why I preferred Sagan‘s formulation to the more common that you used. I certainly did not want to discuss the way we understand this world (bosons-fermions, gravity and space-time, strings, multiverse, etc) the same as I did not want to specify all the ways a theist can see the extension of the material world that he/she believes exists (supreme being or beings, personal-impersonal, transcendent-immanent, God as Father or Mother, etc).

Grim,
I really think this sentence by Sagan is a statement (of what he believes) not a definition, accepting the usual understanding of Cosmos as the Universe he as a physicist studied. As an avowed atheist he would not have included God in whatever sense (although for anscient Greeks the word really meant “everything”).

I once offered here my definition of the physical world as all that is observable: directly by senses or instruments based on them, as well as indirectly based on physical theories based on mathematics. This, of course, would include the multiverse or Everett’s many-world that you seem to hint at. I would say this is identical with what Sagan calls Cosmos: he believes nobody created Cosmos, Christians believe nobody created God.

Dear eAnt,

You assume a lot from my post. You call names (‘cultural arrogance’). You reject things I didn’t claim (Your cultural arrogance makes you assume that your way is better.) You argue against a notion I don’t have. (I reject your notion that longer lifespan etc. is indivisible with non indigenous culture.)

I pointed out an instance where missionaries actually helped the physical survival of Aborigines and explained that it was due to their literal belief in the Bible.

FYI I am an atheist who does not believe in any sacred text. I merely cited an instance where missionaries did some good and their motivation.

I am also aware that indigenous people living under tribal conditions can have a life span equal to people living in an industrial society with an equitable distribution of wealth.

My anthropologist son lived with the Xikrin, a Brazilian tribal people under tribal conditions for some time. His wife is a doctor who surveyed the health of the Xikrin and found they have a reasonable life span.

However, most Australian Aborigines do not live under tribal conditions. Diseases that they had no immunity against or murder wiped many out in a short time after the first fleet. Under current conditions they have a life expectancy 17 years less than that of non-Aboriginal Australians.

Their culture has been destroyed to a great extent. In the late 18th century, there were between 350 and 750 distinct Aboriginal social groupings, and a similar number of languages or dialects. At the start of the 21st century, fewer than 150 indigenous languages remain and all except roughly 20 are highly endangered. They do not have the option of continuing a ‘spirit’ culture.

I belong to Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR), a group under Aboriginal leadership which is trying to recover stolen wages, assert land rights and remedy the inequities that Aboriginal people are subject to. I will continue to work in ANTaR with Christians to further those goals. I do not restrict my cooperation to those who think as I do.

George
No problems at all. I've done it myself after editing a too wordy post to make it fit and try to keep the meaning intact.

What motivates atheists and agnostics to comment on the divine repertoires of the theists?

1. More often comments made act to quash ignorance and superstition: Replacing arcane notions concerning our relationship with life and the universe with what is objectively known.

In this way, the Earth is not flat and was not created 6,000 years. There are no crystal spheres allowing celestial bodies to trek their paths. Evolution is for real. The COBE photograph of the predicted early universe is genuine. Wishful thinking, by Christians to, the contrary, is just that; wishful thinking.

2. The fundamental structure of Christianity is shared with other religions. Christianity is essentially undifferentiated. Anthropology and history reveal the development and course of the religions in general. Understanding is achieved by standing back from our ancestors confabulations and seeing how things truly are.

3. Many Christians have the concept of God, Jesus, the institutionalised Church too overtly intertwined. God is a broad concept which needs to be addressed before deciding upon a specific God. There are at least three Gods in the OT. First century writings are not unanimous about the divinity of Jesus in a time when even Emperors could be divine. Christianity had three or incarnations before Nicaea. All these accounts are known to history.

Christians need to know the above findings. Discovery of the same shall not be found by indwelling in religious ceremonies, because the Christian Churches have to big a stake in perpetuating the lies.

As Carl Sagan claimed, theists live in “daemon haunted worlds”. Sagan’s revelation exists in knowing, rather than in superstition. Knowing and knowledge are qualities the Christian Church has always suppressed. Alternatively, atheists and agnostics see wisdom in leveraging knowledge to understand our place more fully and more truthfully.

While Richard Dawkins of this World crusade against religion, as does James Randi against other frauds; many others wish theists to see, the face of the mountain from the outside (Confucius).

Oly.

Graham, I suspect that the reason Myers hasn't addressed the question of atrocities in the name of religion is because they are indefensible. A response to Daniel Dennett's argument (Breaking the Spell, pages 300 - 301) that moderate believers share the blame for their radical co-religionists' atrocities is also conspicuously absent.

Still, the call to treat skeptics and atheists with respect is a refreshing change, and on a stomach stuffed with Easter goodies, the book was an agreeably undemanding read.

To me, an answer to the question of whether religion is malevolent or benevolent would have been a worthy conclusion to Myers' book, but knowing he hadn't provided the answer, he ducked it: "If religion is, on balance, adaptive rather than toxic - if it bends us toward happiness, health and helpfulness - that is worth knowing. But it still leaves truth up for grabs. And truth is what matters." (page 128). The conflict between revealed religious truth and researched scientific truth can never be reconciled, except perhaps in the kind of armed truce suggested by the late Stephen Jay Gould: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29

Anyone wishing to explore these issues further, while avoiding the pungency of the 'new atheists' and the prevarication of the apologists, could do worse than reading "Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast" by Lewis Wolpert.

OUG,

I doubt Pilate, as the Prefect of Judea, would allow 5,000 people congregate to listen to a Jew. Likewise, the management of the Jewish cleansing/purity rites would have been awkward, were Jews and Gentiles eating together.

One cannot claim with certainty, there was no such event. Yet, even a crowd of a few score Jews and godfearers (Judaised Gentiles)would be pushing the reasonably limit, given the Roman occupation,zealot insurrections, the time and the place.

Even Joh, when Queensland Premier, would have stopped Jesus.

O.

The saddest thing from this and other threads on the Bible is that Christians just don't know their book. They babble on pretending, trying to sustain an unsustainable argument, because it's a falsehood!

It saddens me to think that Christians would actually believe that an all powerful, loving, caring, compassionate God would actually perform & encourage the horrid crimes in the Bible.

It further saddens me, to think that Christians, don't know the NT well enough to see how Jesus empowered the laws of Moses, and therefore, if he is the Son of God, simply got things wrong.

Christians are so busy defending their faith that they don't even understand the book on which it is based!

To then argue that people are attacking Christianity is infantile.

The problem with defending the Bible as God's word is that you are actually closing your mind, circling the wagons and looking silly. God can defend himself - afterall he allegedly killed all the firstborn of Egypt!

If you want to grow in spirituality step outside the book! It is too seriously flawed!

Much of what Jesus teaches is a great basis for society. If he did things as reported, he was at the very least a great man. In a time when Romans ruled with an iron fist, he allegedly taught those who would listen, to move from some teachings of the OT, and instilled a new thinking which modified the world.

This result should not be downplayed!

However, from the lessons he allegedly taught sprang organisations that continue to teach an unintelligant God, they don't follow his precise teachings, they oppress women & others and they, in his name have allowed all manner of ugly deeds to be done within them.

Opinionated, I think the saddest thing is the failure of people like you to try to understand what it is that Christians believe, or the role of the bible in that. By decontextualising parts of the scriptures you are doing just what the fundamentalists do.

I decided there was no point in arguing with you because it was a conversation of the deaf on your side.

Oliver<<I doubt Pilate,as the Prefect of Judea,would allow..>>you misjudge the guy..[and romans..[recall who washed his hands because he found no fault?

romans let the-people have their religious/beliefs..[because they[as now]control their leader's..[the murderors of christ were his'own',not the romans

<<the management of the Jewish cleansing/purity rites would have been awkward,>>egsactly why they wernt held..[but see jesus rebutted many of the extra laws..[while validating the basic..[so called]..10..,as mosus delivered

OPINIONATED<<It saddens me to think that Christians would actually believe that an all powerful,loving,caring,compassionate God would actually perform & encourage the horrid crimes in the Bible.>>me too,

clearly[satan who runs this realm has made them deaf]..thus jesus said even a beast in the stables knows his masters voice..[god is love,and xtians should at least KNOW rev 21 reveals god sits on the throne[our heart]...that by love of neighbour..we love god[that ye did to the least we did to god]

<<to think that Christians,don't know the NT well enough to see how Jesus empowered the laws of Moses,>>[10]..agree[but not the acts]

<<and therefore,..if he is the Son of God,simply got things wrong.>>i disagree..[jesus is the son of god..[but then we are all suns of the light..[we are not the light,but reveal the light in us..emanuel;..by simply loving all,thus loving the living creator of all

>>Christians are so busy defending their faith that they don't even understand the book>>yes and no,yelling at a person to rid them of demons is not xtian service..[if only because 7 fold return to a clean house..lol..]

but also any who yell love the yelling[just using a judgement to lable another a sinner is plainly absurd[would we be judged by the same measure?..so sadly the very unxtian deeds of xtians speak against them

[no true xtian would go to war for oil[for egsample,or murder FOR ANY REASON[one god made all life[to kill any life is not serving god..[nor honouring our own gift-of-life

xtians could reveal the love and grace embodied in the teachings of our christ, but that takes fearlessly loving other,forgiving others as we would love to be forgiven ourselves..[to get grace we must first give grace]..atonement..with god..[at-one-meant]with neighbour.

There's been quite a few issues raised here which are worthy of discussion. Unfortunatly opinionated2's typepad diarrhoea has also filled up some of it, but I digress.

One issue I really want an answer for. It puzzles me how atheists continually mention the inquisitions and the like. Firstly, I often wonder if those atheists know anything at all about 20th century history, and all the millions of deaths caused by atheist dictators. Selective history doesn't help anyone, and I think atheist leaders definitely come out looking worse off if you do a historical analysis of deaths caused by them verses deaths caused by religious leaders. However, the part about all of this which really intrigues me is this: Why is it that so many people hold a worldview (Christian theism) responsible for crimes committed by some of it's self proclaimed adherents, when those adherents don't stick to it's basic tenets?

Trav
Atheists who commit evil crimes are not doing it because they are atheists or in the name of atheism. A study of evil dictators might also show many of them prefer brocolli to cabbage but it is irrelevant. Atheism just means a non-belief in God, it is not a cause that dicators go around fighting and killing for in it's name.

The Inquisition and Crusades were done in the name of Christ and to maintain and build Church power.

There will always be people who behave badly whether they are Christian, Atheist or otherwise.

As a citizen I would first trust the law to protect me rather than the Church who, for example, might remove a paedophile priest to another parish. The law is not perfect either but at least paedophilia is considered an actual crime with consequences.

Or may persecute me because I don't follow what is essentially a Church Law written by men. Or profess that God would allow a forgiven evil doer into heaven as opposed to a morally good person who just happens to be an atheist.

It is a person's own set of values and morality that govern their behaviour. Some may gather that strength from religion others may not.

Trav,

Hitler was a Christian. Queen Victoria was a Christian.

O.

Trav,

Hitler was a Christian. Queen Victoria was a Christian. Tzar Nicholas II was a Christian.

O.

'Pelican' and 'Fractelle' - apologies that time and this thread have gotten away from me and I haven't had the chance to reply. Maybe 'see' you on another thread some time?

Graham, David Bentley Hart (who I mentioned when I first posted) has actually written a book critiquing the New Atheists with quite some gusto (if it's in his usual style). You may enjoy it. I haven't read it yet.

Peace to all

Ian

"Why is it that so many people hold a worldview (Christian theism) responsible for crimes committed by some of it's self proclaimed adherents, when those adherents don't stick to it's basic tenets?"
Aye, there's the rub.
It's so easy to say "oh but he isn't a *good* Christian". I have harped about "basic tenets" before; my favourite being trying to squeeze a rich man through the gates of Heaven. The world is full of rich christians; in fact, compared to Muslim and Hindu countries, the world is overflowing with rich christians.
Heaven must be an empty place.
War? Kings, potentates, Popes, Presidents and Prime Ministers have shown little hesitation in sending young men and women out to die for political expediency, and use Christianity as an excuse. You and I both know they weren't *good* christians, don't we?
Comparing theist atrocities with atheist atrocities doesn't hold water. By definiton, Atheists have no set creed; no believe system about right and wrong, good and evil. Atheists only have their own consciences.
Just like Christians, some atheists' consciences are better developed than others.
Deciding who is a 'good' Christian, and who is a 'bad' Christian is a personal value judgement, and sadly, the only one qualified to make that judgement died 2000 years ago.
If he ever lived at all.

pelican,
I appreciate the inoffensive manner in which you present your opposition to religion, especially Christianity. However, I would like to comment on three things.

>>Atheism just means a non-belief in God, it is not a cause that dicators go around ... killing ... in it's name <<
Exactly, you cannot act in the name of not believing something, the same as you cannot stab somebody making use of the fact that you do not have a knife. The Nazis killed in the name of racial superiority etc, the Communists in the name of ideological superiority and class hatred. Neither of these causes are compatible with Christian values, but neither are they necessary consequences of an atheist world view. Communism without atheism is a notion as absurd as Medieval Inquisitions without Church and belief in God. The former acted in their belief that they are advancing humanity by cleansing it of "reactionaries", the latter thought they were saving the heretic’s immortal soul from eternal fire (by exposing him to temporal fire). Today both positions are hard for us to comprehend but while condemning them we should take into account their historical context. For me the Nazi and Communist atrocities are less excusable than those of Medieval Christianity precisely because they happened closer to our times.

>>the Church who ... might remove a paedophile priest to another parish.<<
You are obviously referring to the naive Catholic bishops who thought the paedophile was cured through having gone to confession. Well, here in Germany there were recently a couple of cases when convicted paedophiles were released - after having served part of their time - into the community on the basis of the recommendations of professional, Government employed, psychologists (not bishops untrained in psychology) only to rape and kill another child. It is not that hard to google out the details.

>> God would allow a forgiven evil doer into heaven<<
This is a standard Christian belief.
>>as opposed to a morally good person who just happens to be an atheist <<
This is a belief that some atheists hold about Christian beliefs.

Trav, how unChristian, but I turn the other cheek Matthew 5:38-42...you sinned! "Do unto others" Matthew 7:12 I seem to be more Christian than you...lol!

Graham, Is your real problem not that I decontextualise (I don't) or am deaf to your explanations but you don't know your Bible? Your explanations lack detail, I usually reference mine!

For a split second you allowed the door of reasoned argument to open with your acceptance that God NEVER killed the first-born of Egypt but then slammed it shut again.

You couldn't answer why Jesus allegedly celebrated the Passover if it is myth!

How many churches teach the Passover story when it is simply a falsehood? So much for your fundamentalist argument!

Did your preacher mention the passover this Easter?

If that is wrong how many other things are wrong?

It is not just fundamentalists that misuse the Bible...the Bible has been mistaught for centuries!

Is your dilemma that you've never asked yourself the tough questions that I posed, and have never related it to the Bible passages that I quoted?

How many churches have prayer and healing meetings? Do you and Trav attend?

And how many amputees have had their legs restored through these prayer meetings?

I'll answer it...None! Prayer is supposed to be so powerful, and yet it fails this simple test!

That's not decontextualising that's fact!

Are you annoyed because someone dared to ask questions all Christians should ask themselves in relation to their Bible? Didn't God allegedly give us an enquiring mind?

Were you selective here? <<He said that all that was necessary was to love God and love your neighbour as yourself.>> That's failrly simplistic it's not all he said Graham!

I apologise if I hurt your feelings but it's the 21st century and surely we can debate FAITH/MYTH/BELIEF SYSTEMS openly, can't we?

George wrote: “>> God would allow a forgiven evil doer into heaven<<
This is a standard Christian belief.
>>as opposed to a morally good person who just happens to be an atheist <<

This is a belief that some atheists hold about Christian beliefs.”

Dear George, It is fact. A Christian cousin of mine told me that my grandmother, his great-grandmother, is suffering the torments of hell because she never accepted Jesus. My grandmother was the most wonderful, kindest and caring person I have ever known.

George wrote: The same about understanding what e.g. a Christian, informed by contemporary science, believes.

Dear George,

One problem is that many Christians on this list are not informed by contemporary science and spend a great deal of energy attacking evolutionary biology. If a Christian or Jew regards the Bible as literally true he or she must reject contemporary science. Apparently you do not have that problem. Those who do sometimes interfere in science teaching and other activities which are necessary for life in the contemporary world.

Many people take the God of the bible seriously, and the spaghetti monster was set up to ridicule them. I think the evidence for the existence of the God of the bible and the evidence for the existence of the spaghetti monster is the same.

However, religious belief does not rest on objective evidence. Religious belief rests on the feeling of the believer that his of her view of the world requires some sort of supernatural presence. In the case of the Buddhist this supernatural presence is not necessarily a deity.

We talk past each other because many of us who do not believe demand objective evidence of the existence of a supernatural presence.

I have come to feel this is not a reasonable demand on our part, and I therefore no longer have an argument with believers such as you who do not see the Bible as literally true and are informed by modern science.

You merely see the world differently from the way I see it. I see no point in arguing.

George wrote: “>> God would allow a forgiven evil doer into heaven<<
This is a standard Christian belief.
>>as opposed to a morally good person who just happens to be an atheist <<

This is a belief that some atheists hold about Christian beliefs.”

Dear George, It is fact. A Christian cousin of mine told me that my grandmother, his great-grandmother, is suffering the torments of hell because she never accepted Jesus. My grandmother was the most wonderful, kindest and most caring person I have ever known.

George wrote: The same about understanding what e.g. a Christian, informed by contemporary science, believes.

Dear George,

One problem is that many Christians on this list are not informed by contemporary science and spend a great deal of energy attacking evolutionary biology. If a Christian or Jew regards the Bible as literally true he or she must reject contemporary science. Apparently you do not have that problem. Those who do sometimes interfere in science teaching and other activities which are necessary for life in the contemporary world.

Many people take the God of the bible seriously, and the spaghetti monster was set up to ridicule them. I think the evidence for the existence of the God of the bible and the evidence for the existence of the spaghetti monster is the same.

However, religious belief does not rest on objective evidence. Religious belief rests on the feeling of the believer that his of her view of the world requires some sort of supernatural presence. In the case of the Buddhist this supernatural presence is not necessarily a deity.

We talk past each other because many of us who do not believe demand objective evidence of the existence of a supernatural presence.

I have come to feel this is not a reasonable demand on our part, and I therefore no longer have an argument with believers such as you who do not see the Bible as literally true and are informed by modern science.

You merely see the world differently from the way I see it. I see no point in arguing.

Dear david f,

You are probably right, I should have written “This is a belief that some atheists hold about what all Christians believe” since obviously there are naive, silly, aggressive, living in the past, prone to Schadenfreude etc. Christians, as there are naive, silly, aggressive, living in the past, prone to Schadenfreude etc., atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc.

I agree that I probably see the world differently from the way you see it, (e.g. by a different understanding of “evidence”, which I see as dependent on the “coordinate system of the observer” if I am allowed this excursion into Einstein‘s physics).

I also do not want to argue with you, or anybody, about whose world view is better or more reasonable, and I agree there would be no point to it, because I do not think this OLO can turn an atheist into a theist, or vice versa: The best it can do is to help - those who wish so - to have a deeper and intellectually more rewarding understanding of ONE’S OWN world view while making it easier to tolerate alternative, even contrary, world views.

George
I agree with your premise and also with David f's reasoned response. I have no particular bone to pick with Christianity.over any other relgion. Christianity gets greater exposure on this forum simply because of the path that the debate takes, my feelings are the same for all religions.

My comment was more in response to particular statements made by other posters and I do understand that not all Christians hold those more stringent views.

This is one of the problems with Religion. Perhaps I like things too neat and tidy but the disparate views within Christianity, despite the Bible being the common text from which the belief is shaped, is just fuels the idea that it is a man-made construct. Wasn't it King James who decided the rewrite the Bible because it didn't suit him?

In fact my Christian friends and I have much in common, it is only on OLO that the differences between believers and non-believers appear larger than life.

George, I am in no way claiming atheists are better than believers just that we are all the same. We all have to make choices on how we behave no matter what drives us. Religion does not make someone a better person neither does being an atheist.

Even if someone could prove we are the better for Religion I would have trouble believing in something that (for me) does not exist, just to play the game that it is necessary for a just and moral society. Naturally it would be impossible to prove one way or the other.

I heartily believe that we are better with truth and honesty than with supersititious belief. That is not to deny that there are things that we will never understand, that may be beyond human comprehension now, but that the never-ending conjecturing is time better spent doing.

If there is a God and one day he appeared I might change my mind. I would also ask him what it is he wishes from us, given that the humans that speak for him never appear to be in agreement.

Grim and George,

You both have supported the notion that the multiverse is somehow observable or verifiable.

I suggested earlier that if the word ‘science’ means anything, it has to do with that which is observable.

Are you going to continue to claim that the multiverse is part of science? Is it not rather a complete flight of fancy taken by those whose feet are starting to drift away from Terra Firma?

Gee what a long thread. The main point about so called new "Atheist" is we are not about creating a philosophical world view, like old atheism. Old atheism only try’s to differ from religion or at least change to a different basis even though it might share some feature. Old atheism can more realistically be described as agonistic or soft atheists. No the biggest difference between old and new atheist is that new atheist thinks that most of the questions the philosophers (both religious and non religious ask or worse answer) are silly questions. The emotion you can hear in new atheist voices is contempt, contempt at the energy spent by people on question that cannot be answered because there is no answer.
Religions have been invented for three reasons,
To explain why things are they way they are in the natural world. The creation myths like the dreamtime.
To try to codify the laws and group live by and to try and get those people to follow them when no one is watching ( what better then all seeing god/s).
To maintain control of a group of people for power and profit. Think organised religion.
Science has replace the first one, The rule of law and democracy the second. The third one will be with us for some time yet.
We are a herd animal we have evolved behaviours to guide us within the herd, they still serve us well today

George,

The Bible tells me that the only unforgiveable is against the Holy Spirit. “… he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness” Mark 3:29 “… whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” Matthew 12:31 But there are rejoinders. “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him” Matthew 12:32 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. Mark 3:28.

My take is that the Bible is saying, should one “know and accept” that Jesus is the Saviour, yet ignore his Sacrifice, he/she is sinning against the Holy Spirit. 'For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins' Hebrews 10:26. Thus, only those with knowledge of God’s house can divide it against itself. Denying God after one accepts as God is real, is the unforgivable sin. Satanists fit the bill. False Prophets, who accept the Holy Spirit as real, while offering alternative salvation plans fit the bill. I suspect the Late Carl Sagan did not fit the bill, because his studies didn’t take him to believing in god in the first place.

OUG,

In all likelihood Pilate didn’t wash his hands as the Bible states. The allusion is made by a Jewish writer, perhaps with Deuteronomy 21:6-9 in mind, “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eye see it done. So you shall purge yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have done what is right in the eyes of the Lord."

Dan S,
By its very definition, that part of the multiverse that is outside our universe could not be directly observed. Whether its existence is supported or rejected indirectly through recognised physical theories, the jury is still out. I don’t have the mathematical knowledge to follow these discussions, and I sincerely doubt you do. I just know it is irrelevant to my faith whether God created just our universe or a whole multiverse of universes.

All I wanted to say was that the concept of multiverse is within the realm of what science can study (like gravity or aether, one an accepted phenomenon, the other rejected). We cannot convincingly argue about these things if we have only a superficial understanding of what contemporary physics is about, the same as one cannot convincingly argue about religious models of reality if one has only a superficial understanding of what a 21st century educated e.g. Christian believes.

pelican
>>I am in no way claiming atheists are better than believers<<
I know, therefore I appreciate your contributions here. Unfortunately, there are some who think that those who do not subscribe to their moral code are less moral, while others think that those who do not share their world view - e.g. because they have a different understanding of the terms “God“, “existence”, “evidence” - are less reasonable, rational, even logical. The debate becomes pointless indeed, if these attributes get kidnapped by one side, if people think that only their own world-view - be it theist or atheist - is moral or rational.

>> better with truth and honesty than with supersititious belief <<
Not a very fortunate formulation. Imagine the reaction I would get if I wrote “I do not argue with stupid atheists“, the exact meaning of which is that I do not argue with those atheists who are stupid (and I have known quite a few of them!). People would probably interpret it that I think all atheists are stupid. So I hope you did not mean that ALL religious beliefs are superstitions and stand in opposition to truth and honesty. (ctd)

(ctd)
>> If there is a God and one day he appeared I might change my mind<<
This sounds like the Doubting Thomas in the narrative that became part of what defines Christianity. However, pronounced in 21st century - if you don’t mind me putting it this way - it sounds like “I do not believe photons exist until I can see them and touch them with my own hand”. Of course, whatever you would be touching, it won’t be what physicists call photons. You have to know some physics to understand the reasons why scientists believe photons exits while e.g. phlogiston does not. The same about what/whom we call God.

oliver,
This time I must agree with your interpretation of (a part of) the Scripture. As for Carl Sagan, Christians believe - or should believe: remember my reference to Christians prone to Schadenfreude - that it is not for us to decide whether God accepted him as one of the creations “to His image“ or discarded him (into non-existence: this is how I interpret “eternal hell”) as an unavoidable byproduct or catalyst in His process of Creation. Sagan, Dawkins and the likes have informed and inspired my own world-view that is built around my faith, so I may hope that they belong to the first category, but as I am saying this is not for me to be concerned with.

Another thing that we believe is that God gave us free will (seen from our “frame of reference” whatever else an outsider neurobiologist might see) and hence does not force “eternal life” on anybody: those who wish their self to cease to exist when they die - usually atheists - will probably be granted their wish.

Dan, I don't believe I actually endorsed the 'many worlds' or 'infinite timelines' theories.
The point of my post was that I believed the words 'Cosmos' and 'Universe' had slightly different definitions. I thought Sagan's famouse phrase:"the Cosmos is all that is, that ever was or ever will be" endorsed my interpretation that the word 'Cosmos' was more encompassing; A cosmos could contain a universe, but a universe could not contain a cosmos.
As the proud owner of the full set of Cosmos discs, I investigated (quickly) and found George was probably right; Sagan does seem to use the words interchangeably, without any clear distinction.
Of course I am aware that Sagan was an atheist, George, and would not have included God in his Universe/Cosmos. My point of a philosophical all encompassing Cosmos, ie existing before the big bang of this universe, and encompassing all possible universes, would -by definition- include God (or be God), -if such a creature exists.

George,
My point, and it’s a pretty simple one, is that science can only deal with that which can be observed.

You admit that other universes cannot be directly observed but still want to argue that the concept of the multiverse falls within the realm of science.

Perhaps these other universes can be indirectly observed. What an interesting thought! If I only had the mathematical prowess, I might be able to keep up with this line of thinking.

What is easier to understand, the existence of a multiverse, or the propensity of some who claim to be educated and scientifically literate to blur the line between real science and philosophical conjecture?

What was the real motivation for those pushing for the existence of a multiverse beyond the realisation that the real universe we see and observe is quite marvellous though singularly exceptional?

But following on from your last post, you are welcome to try and define your minimum education levels required in the 21st Century to qualify to discuss such musings.

>>because they have a different understanding of the terms “God“, “existence”, “evidence” - are less reasonable, rational, even logical.

george, some understandings of the terms "god, "existence", and "evidence" in fact are less reasonable, less rational and less logical.

i'm not claiming all the rationality for we non-religious folk. but i don't see established churches or common christian belief as strong on reasonableness.

is it really true that 54% of australians "believe in the resurrection"? what do they mean by this belief? i would suggest that most christians believe this in a literal rose-from-the-dead manner, rather than a spiritual or metaphorical manner. you don't agree? or you regard such a literal belief as reasonable?

George
As an atheist I see religious belief as superstitious but unlike your interpretation I don't equate superstition with stupidity nor with good vs evil. And I accept that believers don't see their worldview as superstitious. Some atheists are superstitious, they may throw salt over their shoulder or in Ireland they touch the Blarney stone. Superstition is bound up in many cultures.

Dictionary.com defines superstition as:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=superstition

George I cannot accept your analogy with photons. When given a statement produced as fact (such as the existence of God) I make reasoned arguments in my mind that tell me that the probability is low. There is no research or peer review by scientists or previous evidence produced, only historical documentation going back to the time of Jesus Christ that purports to be the written word of God.

As a former science student (who moved into politics), I have to entertain that if a God/Angel appeared in front of me then I would have to re-evaluate my world view. I don't expect this will occur but who knows.

I certainly can believe in something I cannot see. Bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms are not visible to the naked eye only under a microscope. Prior to microscopes the existence of micro-organism was but a hypothesis but not yet proven. I am also willing to concede there may be ghosts although I have never seen one but logically I could imagine that once a person has passed away, there may be some energy or matter that could linger for a time. Maybe in the future this matter will be proved or disproved one way or the other. There are still many things we do not know.

Contrary to what many Christians believe, Science has not disproven the existence of God, only that it has not been substantiated or proven. There is at this time no evidence of an external force that is known as God. Obviously, if God does not exist the theory will never be substantiated.

Ctd...

Cont...

In The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Albert Schweitzer promotes interesting discussion on ethics.

Ethics is not the domain of the religious which is something that atheists often find an unwielding tenet amongst believers.

"I cannot but have reverence for all that is called life. I cannot avoid compassion for everything that is called life. That is the beginning and foundation of morality. Once a man has experienced it and continues to do so - and he who has once experienced it will continue to do so - he is ethical. He carries his morality within him and can never lose it, for it continues to develop within him. He who has never experiences this has only a set of superficial principles. These theories have no root in him, they do not belong to him, and they fall off him...For centuries the human race had been educated with only a set of superficial principles. We were brutal, ignorant and heartless without being aware of it. We had no scale of values for we had no reverence of life."
Albert Schweitzer

This quote is part of the Schweitzer chapter dealing with reverence of life and the concepts of morality and ethics.

Science adapts to new discoveries and seeks the truth in evidence. Some who hold religious power are not always as willing to re-evaluate evidence as it arrives.

Some time ago I read The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh which detailed the activities of various interest groups including the Church and attempts to conceal some of the questions raised by examining the scrolls found in a cave in Qumran in 1947.

The Church's attempts to keep secret the details of the investigation into the scrolls does not bode well for transparency and truth. That is the sort of thing I meant by my comments relating to honesty and truth. I do not mean it to define Christian or other beliefs as untruthful or lies, as clearly they are not to those who live by those doctrines.

This discussion has taken some interesting twists and turns.

George says:

>>one cannot convincingly argue about religious models of reality if one has only a superficial understanding of what a 21st century educated e.g. Christian believes<<

The suggestion here is that it is just as impossible for a non-theologian to believe in God, as it is for a non-scientist to believe in photons.

Surely, a reasonable alternative to being educated oneself, is observation.

I observe the way Christians see the world, and reject it as being incredible. I observe what scientists describe is happening around me, and accept that they are not falsifying their experiments.

Dan S de Merengue adds:

>>My point, and it’s a pretty simple one, is that science can only deal with that which can be observed.<<

Theories are continually being developed from extrapolations of "that which can be observed". Not all of them will stand deeper scrutiny, but all of them add in to our understanding of what goes on around us.

So, if theories of multiple universes sound unbelievable to you, that's perfectly ok. They are after all only theories.

But the reason so many people trust science, is that at its most basic level, it is perfectly understandable. The fact that some people go on to be superlative mathematicians or physicists does not lose sight of the fact that they all started where we did: 2+2=4, and pressure and volume are inversely proportionate for an ideal gas.

The starting point, and the end point, of religion is belief in the supernatural. The fact that some people progress from that to a detailed understanding of ancient Aramaic scripts does not alter the basic fact, that first, you suspend disbelief.

At five years old, I probably don't question too much what is involved in turning water into wine, nor why taking two oranges away from three leaves me with one orange.

But I can repeat the latter experiment as many times as I like, and still reach the same conclusion.

Which I guess must be why I need a degree in theology, to believe in God?

Pericles, scientific naturalism (ie: The natural world is all that there is) uses science to gain all knowledge and claims that the only knowledge worth knowing comes from science. But that's self refuting, because science can't tell us that you should only use science to gain knowledge.

What I've read lately about recent studies in consciousness, the mind-brain connection and near death experiences have put scientific naturalism to bed in my mind as a viable way of understanding the world.

Basically, scientific naturalism says that we should only believe things that are repeatable and observable. But if miracles do occur, for example, why on earth would they be repeatable? At the end of the day, science itself involves a lot of faith based assumptions. Honest scientists admit this, and it's only dogmatic closed minded fundamentalist naturalist scientists like Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins who deny it.

Are you sure that's logical, Trav?

>>Pericles, scientific naturalism... uses science to gain all knowledge and claims that the only knowledge worth knowing comes from science. But that's self refuting, because science can't tell us that you should only use science to gain knowledge.<<

Surely, that isn't what "science" is telling us at all?

It merely claims that "the only knowledge worth knowing comes from science".

This claim does not in any way invalidate other means to acquire knowledge. And it certainly does not discourage the acquisition of knowledge from any other source.

I can claim that the only music worth listening to is 1950's bebop. I can invite people to evaluate that claim and make their own decision. If my evidence and justification is strong enough, you will understand my position and agree with it. If it lacks credibility, you will reject it.

But it certainly isn't by any means "self-refuting".

The real meaning of their claim - and I suspect that you actually do understand this but choose not to - is that all non-scientific knowledge relies entirely upon a subjective assessment of evidence. Therefore, it is highly likely that non-scientific evidence will in every instance be less reliable than the scientific.

>>What I've read lately about recent studies in consciousness, the mind-brain connection and near death experiences have put scientific naturalism to bed in my mind as a viable way of understanding the world.<<

That is a good illustration of what they mean. You choose to believe that there are other dimensions that conventional science cannot track. The reason they cannot track it is because it relies upon your belief in non-trackable experiences.

The fact that you choose to believe them does not in any way invalidate the scientific approach. All science is saying to you is "I choose not to believe you".

The difference is not that science's claim is self-refuting, but that your claim is, and can only be, entirely self-justifying.

Dear George,

“those who wish their self to cease to exist when they die - usually atheists - will probably be granted their wish.” - George

Do you see the same fate for Satanists (whom presumably believe in God) and say Murray Gell-Mann (an atheist), who from a theist’s perspective has reasoned himself into the wrong corner? The latter is really is not sinning against the Holy Spirit, as is the former. The former is truly exercising free will. Yet, for the latter, learning is a moderating variable preventing the same conclusion reached by the theist.

When I have tried unsuccessfully to entice Sells into discussing first century history using legitimate citations, there is reluctance. Here, his free will seems to act to deny history, cultural anthropology. What is counter intuitive (only) is promoted wrongly (from the frame of the sceptic) to the counter-factual: e.g., other non-canonical gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which atheists and agnostics claim physically exist. Again, in the case of the Christian Trinity, other religions have trinities, herein, for a person coming from Mars, there does appear to be adequate differentiation to claim the Christian godhead is special.

It is like claiming "my atom of Hydrogen is the only atom having electrons, neutrons and protons", wherein there is no recognition of the Periodic Table. Else put, other religions have trinities, saviours and virgin births, a configuration very near mine; yet, mine is the only true configuration.

Moreover, "I believe only in Hydrogen and will not accept that Hydrogen and the other “false” elements are fundamental". In this frame, Hydrogen is not a consequence of quarks and in this respect is undifferentiated and,I cannot be shown even fundamental particles have been built (like religions in Wells’ god factories).

Whereas, atomic scientists can build mathematical models of fundamental particles, cultural anthropologists can build beavioural models of religion.

Oliver

Pericles, my argument isn't against science per se, just the philosophy of scientific naturalism. This is a philosophy perpetuated by those with, generally, scant regard for the limitations of science. Whether or not you personally share that lack of regard for the limitations of science, I'll leave you to figure that out.

ok im reluctant to use any quote
but will use Pericles<<..That is a good illustration of what they mean...You choose to believe that there are other dimensions that conventional science cannot track...The reason they cannot track it is because it relies upon your belief in non-trackable experiences.

The fact that you choose to believe them does not in any way invalidate the scientific approach..all science is saying to you is "I choose not to believe you".

The difference is not that science's claim is self-refuting,but that your claim is,and can only be,entirely self-justifying.>>

that sort of says how i feel re the after life..or rather those who comunicate [or claim to communicate] with the beings living on in the hereafter... i post it as more a statement[or a warning to those cold heartless lost souls who claim the right to lord it over the meek]

the story on the link is self explane-tory[and might hold some clue to what happend to that overlord..from the inquisition..that conducted his form of perversion of religious zeal..;..potentiate of spi-ritual poisen..during the dark ages

http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wsl9.html

i have no need to prove its veracity or proof[only that it be taken for what it is] a possable word for the wise, wispered from beyond, as witnessed by one who learned the values of repentance of the vile they chose to live

Error Above: ". Again, in the case of the Christian Trinity, other religions have trinities, herein, for a person coming from Mars, there does appear to be adequate differentiation to claim the Christian godhead is special.

Should read:

Error Above: ". Again, in the case of the Christian Trinity, other religions have trinities, herein, for a person coming from Mars, there does NOT appear to be adequate differentiation to claim the Christian godhead is special.

I am grateful for all the feedbacks my recent remarks have received. They enrich my own world-view with a view from outside. I shall try to address some of them, probably needing more than one 24 hour period.

As said, I am firstly interested in fairness in dealing with others’ world-views, and only secondly in offering explanations, if asked for, concerning my own position.

Grim,
I agree, except that one must be careful when speaking about an “all encompassing Cosmos, ie existing BEFORE the big bang“ since time, as we understand it, is intrinsically connected with our universe. As Hawking put it, to ask what was before the big bang is like asking what is to the north of the North Pole.

Dan S,
I understand your point, the meaning of which depends on what you call “observe": there are things in our universe which we are aware of because we can observe them using modern instruments, that people e.g. in the Middle Ages were not aware of.

There are also concepts and physical theories built around these concepts using mathematics, that purport to inform us about our universe. These theories we cannot “observe”, i.e. verify, directly, only check to what extent observable/measurable consequences of these theories are actually observed/measured using our physical instruments.

I do not understand what you mean by “real science” or “real universe“ although I agree that our universe is marvelous. However, calling it exceptional presumes the existence of other universes, which is still a very vague hypothesis.

>>you are welcome to try and define your minimum education levels required in the 21st Century to qualify to discuss such musings<<
Well, it is not my fault that to appreciate the role contemporary physical theories play in our understanding of the intrinsic nature of our physical world, one needs to appreciate the role of mathematics therein. And to understand these theories to the point of being able to CRITICISE them, one needs to KNOW a lot of non-trivial mathematics, at least - I guess - at the level of contemporary PhD in mathematical physics

bushbasher,
>> i'm not claiming all the rationality for we non-religious folk <<
That indeed belongs to what I called fairness in dealing with other world-views. Of course, there are many unreasonable people and institutions, including some Christians and their churches.

>> is it really true that 54% of australians "believe in the resurrection"?<<
I do not know, I suppose the response would have depended on how one interprets the ambiguous question (I presume you mean Jesus not our “afterlife”).

You are right, there is a whole spectrum of interpretations: from the “metaphorical manner“ (that would not do justice to Jesus, since it can be applied to many thinkers from history) to the verbatim, where “bodily” means return to his physical body (which e.g. contradicts the biblical account of him walking through a closed door). There are volumes of theological studies on how the term “bodily resurrection“ could/should be understood. I am not going to quote, probably would not understand them anyhow, since I lack theological qualifications.

I guess the majority of Christians take this basic tenet of their faith on its face value, and do not speculate about it, like the majority of people accept that 2+3=3+2 and do not speculate about commutative or non-commutative rings. I know, this is not very convincing, since the theory of rings is a well known and understood part of mathematics, whereas in theology you do not have this formal unity of understandings: The relation of the NT narratives to historical findings is even more complicated, and less understood, than the relation of OT (Genesis) to contemporary science.

pelican,

Please reread my remark; it was not about who is stupid or superstitious but about an unfortunate formulation that could be misunderstood.

Superstition is seen by everybody as a negative attribute, so if you “see (any) religious belief as superstitious” there would be no point in trying to understand each other, though you are probably right, that there are more superstitious Christians than atheists. (continued in 24 hours).

“...all encompassing Cosmos, ie existing BEFORE the big bang“ since time, as we understand it, is intrinsically connected with our universe. As Hawking put it, to ask what was before the big bang is like asking what is to the north of the North Pole."

My point exactly, George. Within the frame of reference of the Earth, 'North of the North pole' is nonsensical. If an imaginary line is drawn from the south pole through the north pole, and continuing forever, then there is an almost infinite amount of matter north of the north pole.
Within the frame of reference of our universe, nothing existed before the big bang. Some scientists (including Sagan) have speculated that, as our universe is -by definition- a black hole (no light can escape from it) perhaps all black holes contain Universes. The Big Bang occurs when a star collapses to form a black hole.
Sagan -in Cosmos- went on to speculate that, since the inflationary theory requires the universe to have begun from a point in space the size of an electron, perhaps every electron is a universe in itself.
In other words, an infinite regression.
I look at my hand and think, this hand is made of atoms.
Every atom is a Universe.
In every universe there is a world.
On that world there is a man, looking at his hand and thinking;
this hand is made of atoms...

THE"BIG BANG"IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.html?q=bang.html

EXTRACT<<..one theory fits into a theology,and the other does not.

The assumption that there must be a beginning to the universe is merely a human invention...We believe that we see things have beginnings and ends before us,but in truth we are seeing matter change form.

..that the actual matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom pf physics.....our sun is nowhere near the center of the milky way,the idea that Earth is the center of all remains at the heart of the assumptions of the Big-Bang/theory.

The"Bangers" describe the furthest objects we can detect(currently 13 billion light years)and from that calculate the age of the universe (currently set at 14 billion years).

But that only works if we ASSUME that the Earth is the center for all the cosmos that we can see...It is true that we are seeing objects out to the edge of our technological limits and we are seeing them in all directions.

And if we abandon the assumption that we see most of the the universe from a fortunate position near the center,..then we cannot really know how large the universe really is,and the mathematics by which we claim to know the age based on the size break down completely.

UPDATE: PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity...The "primordial egg"had to be a super-massive black hole...Therefore no amount of"bang",no matter how big,is going to thrust the universe out into,..well,..the universe.

Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the"explanation"that the laws of physics,gravity.etc.simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe...lol

Ah,but there is a problem...The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.

Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined.One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060

more at the varios links

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=THE+%22BIG+BANG%22+IS+JUST+RELIGION+DISGUISED+AS+SCIENCE&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

Grim

Thank you for your sublime post - poetic and inspiring, unfortunately to be followed by the ridiculous and hysterical from UOG.

We are all energy, we are all connected, we are indeed the stuff of stars.

Pelican,
I’d like to highlight one of your comments. That is, where you claim that by reasoned assessment the probability of God existing is low.

It’s a comment I’ve heard quite a bit by various people in these forums, but it is unsound.

I’m quite a fan of studies in probability. Probability is a useful tool to have in the kit. It is particularly useful if deciding whether to bet on a horse or football team, or if wondering whether to take your umbrella out with you on a cloudy day.

However, for the question of the existence of God, you should leave that tool in the bag.

God either exists or he doesn’t. Consider if someone told you there was an elephant in your bedroom. There may be some evidence for or against, but the only thing that matters is whether there is or not. I’m not really interested in the probabilities; I want to know definitively one way or the other.

A personal God to whom we are accountable either exists or does not.

"A personal God to whom we are accountable either exists or does not."
And that's the hanger; that word 'personal'.
It's probably impossible to prove one way or another, whether such a thing as 'God' exists or not; first we have to agree on what the word 'god' means.
As to a personal God, however...
In a world where more than half the population goes hungry on a fairly regular basis, regardless of their religion,
Where 30,000 children die every day, for the crime of simply being too poor to live,
The case for a personal God seems shaky indeed.
In fact, I'd much prefer such a God did not exist.
I see very little to like about Him.

george, thanks for your reply.

re the 54%, i agree the question is ambiguous. i searched for the precise question as asked, but couldn't find it. but frankly, i think you recognize the point and are ducking it.

i acknowledge that there may be non-literal interpretations of such matters, and i don't buy trav's insistence that what was said in 325AD must define current christian belief. but i still claim many, probably most, christians believe in very literal interpretations. for example, what can possibly be the point, or substance, of claiming a non-literal miracle?

i am aware of your maths background, and sometimes your analogies make much sense to me. here they do not.

i agree that there is more to 2+3=3+2 than meets the eye, and most merely accept it. but they don't have to, and most initially didn't. cuiseniere rods, for example, give young children a perfectly solid and reliable model of addition of natural numbers. or, you can build the natural numbers formally from axiomatic set theory.

i can see no sense, for either children or mathematicians, that acceptance of 3+2=2+3 resembles faith in the resurrection.

you in fact acknowledge that it is not convincing. you do so with reference to non-commutative rings, but this seems off the point. you don't need abstract unification and generalization of algebra to understand 3+2=2+3.

a more interesting example would be "imaginary numbers", which in some sense were an article of faith for about 250 years. even so, i don't think it's a great example. and it's not an article of faith now (except for poorly taught students)

"A personal God to whom we are accountable either exists or does not."

No. I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic, but I find religions contemptible because their concept of god is so pitiful, so human and contrived that it is clearly no more than an idealised, all-powerful father figure.

The greatest force in the universe, architect of all that is and can be - if it even has what we can call a consciousness - isn't concerned with adolescents masturbating or the sexual preferences of individuals, and certainly isn't glaring balefully over our shoulders, looking for reasons to condemn us to eternal suffering. What sort of masochist takes comfort in that?

The god you're talking about, Dan, is just part of a reliable mental strategy for addressing one's anxiety by breaking down the complex and confronting world into simple-but-false concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_infinitum
The Victorian era mathematician Augustus De Morgan wrote:

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

Grim wrote:

In other words, an infinite regression.
I look at my hand and think, this hand is made of atoms.
Every atom is a Universe.
In every universe there is a world.
On that world there is a man, looking at his hand and thinking;
this hand is made of atoms...

De Morgan was a mathematician, and Grim’s thought was an aftermath.

One of the arguments used for the existence of God is that an entity so wonderful as our world must have a creator.

However, we can continue to use the argument and maintain that an entity so wonderful that he could create a world must have a creator. That creator must have a creator etc. so it follows that we have an infinite regression of creators.

However, it’s only a countable infinity since it can be put in a one to one correspondence with the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.) rather than a higher order infinity like the number of points on a line which is non-denumerable and cannot be put in a one to one correspondence with the natural numbers. Therefore the number of creator gods is a low order infinity.

The concept of a non-denumerable infinity speaks to the glory of the human mind.

OUG,

One should not think of the Big Bang as a “bang” or even an expansion. It is the dis-unification of the strong and weak forces and probably gravity too. Space-time is not well differentiated until Planck time. The COBE photography shows the 300,000 year old universe cooled down adequately, to better illustrate today’s physics.

Particle accelerators can replicate the very early universe and test theories.

An observer in the Andromeda galaxy would also measure, via light spectra, themselves at the centre of the universe. The universe inflates faster than the speed of light: The universe “is” space-time, it doesn’t inflate* into anything. (* Maybe George has a better verb). Even “centre” is an unfortunate word. Our relation to the BB is in “space” and “time” intertwined. Here, celestial mechanics become complex: e.g., the Earthis orbit around the Sun is a spiral.

Did you see my reply on the recent thread your started. Here, I made a comment relying on Edwin Schrodinger’s paper, “What is Life?”?
Herein, I posit organic life “does” contain elements from the
Periodic Table.

The Big Bang and Metabolism have thermodynamics and the manifestations of entropy in common.

O.

david f you make some good points in relation to the existence of a creator.

Dan I will have to bow to your knowledge of probability, I thought that probability could be used in other contexts than pure maths eg. the probability of certain numbers coming up in Lotto.

For example the probability of an elephant in my bedroom would be low because it would not get through my door in the first place but there could be a low chance that someone removed the roof to place the elephant therein. Although I could not produce actual figures to demonstrate the low possibility.

Perhaps I should have used the term likelihood or possibility.

George, I will rethink my use of the word superstition if it is offensive. I do not take it as offensive or negative but if the audience does, point taken.

Pelican,
I fear you have missed my point totally, so I’ll try and explain myself again.

All I am saying is that it is not particularly useful to talk about the existence of God in terms of probabilities.

The same could be said for other past events. For example, I heard a rumour that a distant relative died yesterday and left me ten million dollars from his estate. Today I am either a millionaire or I am not.

God either created the world or he didn’t. God is either sentient to our discussion or he is not.

When talking about the existence of God, if you like, you can continue to discuss it in terms of probabilities, likelihoods, or possibility (the particular word is not important). What I’m saying is that that doesn’t get us anywhere. It doesn’t move the discussion forward.

Grim,
You raise the problem of evil (why should a God who is supposed to care allowing kids to suffer?). It’s a thorny one that philosophers and theologians have discussed at length for thousands of years, and is also discussed within the Bible.

I don’t think we are going to solve it here. But could I offer a thought or a question?

From where do you arrive at your sense of moral outrage? If there is a God in heaven then we are right to be morally outraged that he is apparently sitting around doing nothing about the kids suffering. But if there is no God in heaven, and we all arrived here by evolution and natural processes, then all that apparently passes on earth will happen in natural course. Why should we then be surprised? Where is the problem of evil? Why should you be outraged at all?

Sancho,
You talk about addressing one’s anxiety. You also speak of a masochist god, sexual preferences and adolescents masturbating. These are your words, not mine. These are your anxieties, not mine.

its hard to tak you serious oliver,quote<<The universe inflates faster than the speed of light:>>that seems definitive, but then you follow that difinitive up with a lunicy buzzword[as well as an inversion of your previpous statement..<<The universe“is”space-time,it doesn’t inflate* into anything.>>

so lets see we have a faster than light inflation,..but some how because the universe is space time[lol]it dosnt inflate into anything

mate you should be teaching children evolution[because you dont have any idea what your trying to say here]...but lets egsamine space time, as i recall it is that some how two clocks[and one goes off into space, the other stays her] that the clock that blasted off gained time[so there is your space time]lol

but lets pretend sapace time is a measure of distance as measured by the speed of light, or the time light would take to travel over the distances of space[again an abbsurdity, because a measure cant definitivly 'be' the universe[it may be some wacky lunatic hypothetical measure of the universe[but enough of this absurdit

<<Did you see my reply on the recent thread your[you?]started.>>not i

<<I made a comment relying on Edwin Schrodinger’s paper,“What is Life?”?Herein,I posit organic life“does”contain elements from the
Periodic Table.>>...no sssh-it?,..i would be suprised if life didnt contain eliments from the periodic table..[but if you recall,one of you [agromist]..postulated''ALL LIFE IS CHEMICAL'...lol[or some other such nonsense]..which i did rebut.. forgive me for not rebutting your other absurdity's[and our one agreement]...in my 350 word reply..[there,then,..so i will agree to it now]..i believe i rebutted your other points there

<<The Big Bang and Metabolism have thermodynamics and the manifestations of entropy in common.>>oh dear i ran out of letters to correct this obvious error[i can feel a black hole forming in my gut...lol]as my dinner entrophies, causing the space time expansion..[i will just losen my belt]...ahh thats better

Dan, you asked of Grim:

<< From where do you arrive at your sense of moral outrage? If there is a God in heaven then we are right to be morally outraged that he is apparently sitting around doing nothing about the kids suffering. But if there is no God in heaven, and we all arrived here by evolution and natural processes, then all that apparently passes on earth will happen in natural course. Why should we then be surprised? Where is the problem of evil? Why should you be outraged at all? >>

You infer the brain is incapable of evolution by "natural causes" – into a thinking, sentient life form, devoid of emotion. How would you know it is not?

Therefore, what has evil and outrage got to do with it?

Dan
I have not missed your point. Perhaps you are missing mine. Firstly I stated that I would bow to your better knowledge of probabilities and my explanation was to explain the way my brain was thinking in the earlier post, albeit as it turns out, badly.

You are right either God exists or he does not. We are in agreement.

(ctd)
pelican,
>> I cannot accept your analogy with photons. <<
Well, all I wanted to say was that by the very nature of what one calls photons, you cannot touch them. And by the very nature of what we call God (or the Divine), you cannot observe Him (It) in the sense of sensual or scientific observation.

Of course, you can consider superfluous the assumption about His (Its) existence, and indeed the Occam‘s razor argument is the hardest for a believer to deal with: one has to factor in subjective experience.

Your following paragraphs say that one cannot arrive at the acceptance of a a Divine existence (God) from within science. Of course, I agree.

You jump from metaphysics to ethics, but your quote of Schweitzer is indeed relevant, showing a common ground where theists and atheist can meet. Something similar to Schweitzer’s universal concept of ethics expressed in his “Reverence for Life” is Hans Kueng’s “World Ethos”, favourably referred to even by the present Pope.

When talking about religion one often operates with evidence, although it is a subjective criterion and depends on many psychological and cultural factors. It is not the same thing as “scientific evidence” which is not - should not be - subjective (though even here there are some ambiguities - see e.g. Thomas Kuhn or social constructivists of science).

Now you jump again. I agree the Catholic Church used to be secretive about many things but I think by now they have learned their lesson, e.g. they are gradually opening the Vatican archives to anybody with scholarly credentials. I do not know how they could “keep secret the details of the investigation” into the Dead Sea Scrolls since they are not the only ones with access to them.

Oliver,
I know, my interpretation of hell has its faults: it would assign to Hitler the same “punishment” as to, say, Dawkins. However, I do not know how else to understand the meaning of “eternal damnation”. I could speculate on some passages from the Scripture, however that is rather your domain.

Pericles,
>> the reason so many people trust science, is that at its most basic level, it is perfectly understandable<<
So are the tenets of e.g. Christianity trusted by Christians, and most of them are also satisfied with a “basic (uncritical) level” of understanding (of the narratives and concepts involved).

>>I can repeat the latter experiment ... many times ..., and still reach the same conclusion.<<
However, you cannot experiment with events from past history by repeating them, be they epoch-shattering, “miraculous” or just ordinary.

>>The suggestion here is that it is just as impossible for a non-theologian to believe in God, as it is for a non-scientist to believe in photons. ...<<
Not to “believe in“, but to “have a critical understanding of“ the concept, though in the former case I would add to theology also some insight into philosophies of religion and science<<

>> Which I guess must be why I need a degree in theology, to believe in God?<<
You need a degree in maths to understand what differential geometry is all about, but you do not need it to understand euclidean geometry as taught at school. The same about the concept of God: you need to know something about philosophy of religion and of science to appreciate e.g. the reasoning of theology-qualified scientists like Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne etc.

Belief in God, or more precisely religious faith, is a state of mind for which you do not need philosophical, scientific or theological qualifications. Only if you start attacking it on the rational level, you need to be thus informed to understand the defense that you force Christian intellectuals to carry out on the same level. You cannot attack a naive understanding of God, and then complain when your objections are also seen as naive.

>> it is highly likely that non-scientific evidence will in every instance be less reliable than the scientific<<
That is true, provided (a) it is unequivocally clear what they are evidences of, and (b) they are, or purport to be, the same kind of knowing, able to contradict each other.

george, you're putting the academic cart before the horse.

before suggesting someone needs a critical understanding in something, it would be good to give them a reason to believe in any of it. i can do that for differential geometry: i can explain a hell of a lot of the meaning and the purpose to a layperson. i'm sure you can too. but i don't see you or your scholarly heroes doing the same for "god".

the question is whether "theology qualified" means anything. the answer may come from listening to the "theology-qualified", but the onus is upon them to demonstrate that they are worth listening to. and "you need a degree" doesn't cut it, neither for differential geometry nor for god.

bushbasher>>before suggesting/give them a reason.>>any reason would be my opinion,...what the use giving driving/tips to one not wanting to drive?

<<..scholarly/heroes doing the same for"god"..>>..[god needs us to do nothing...[he does it all for us,..jesus revealed..who will lead you will serve you..[because you cannot know the/server of life..but by serving the'life']..as he serves ALL life,..by giving and sustaining that'life'..to its higher-realisation..[acording to our level of''WANTING''to know]..thirst..to..know.

<<..whether.."theology qualified"means''anything>>..depends who is capable of framing the question,..then wether able to follow the reply.

<<..demon-strate...worth listening to.>>>the skill is to know the listener is ready to listen..[ready to ask;the questions]..god replies directly,..his-still/quiet voice..[god has no need to yell..[a listener is capable of hearing his wisper]..the trouble comes when we dont recognise that of god[good]..and..that of ego..[not good,..not/god]

<<"you need a degree"doesn't cut it..>>correct,..see that your correctness comes via...knowing what you allready know..lol..like an ear for music..many good and true really dont know music..lol

..till you can throw out all vile[and retain only the good..[thus good from god,..FROM ANY SOURCE,..YEARN to know the ALL GOOD,..all living,all loving..all mercyfull god

even a beast[in a stable],knows the voice of his master,but that the knowing comes only by hearing the good his master..god..[alone]doth give...

>>god is one...unique,..knowable by reading the good of the teachings[who managed to know god..then by hearing..him one to one..[the personal good]

see that many are called but few were chosen,they recieved true belief,that made them our many messengers..[till ego presumed them to realise the anti/god..[anti-good].. of self/ego,..where we go too far..and humanise the supreem/good into the faulse/wrathful/judgmental..god..that even our best god/messengers helped to realise into the holy texts.

all are human..[even the many messengers]..being human we make simple human[ego based]lapses that break us sepperate from the living love,..

god is ALLWAY's good loving etc..[never any exception]..any vile can-NOT come from god,...till we get that...we cannot ever seek to know him,..and the best messenger's..[being human]..can and will have lapses

[BUT NEVER will GOD DEVIATE ONE IOTA from his eternal living/good,grace/mercy].

its a good thing he dosnt demand,..because..our faith is so weak,
atonement..[at one meant]...[at one..with living/love]

NOTE..children love unbiasedly,like god,

George,

Thank for your perspectives.

Older Catholic doctrine aside, the Christian Church's apparent position of "one size fits all" punishment is curious to me. It would seem to me odd to treat Dawkins, Sagan and Hilter the same. Dawkins attacks religion, Sagan said the universe is wonderful and science can provide tangible answers, Hitler, the only theist, was a mass murder. The kind and the magnitude of their sins (from a theist's perspective)is differenent.

My take based on a limited knowledge of the scripture would be, Dawkins & Sagan have not sinned against the Holy Spirit, because they do not believe in God. They are not in his Christian house to split it. Hitler, on the other hand, believed in God. Had he not asked for forgiveness in the Bunker, he died with sin. This raises the theological question was say an unrepentent Hitler condemned, because of his state of sin or, because he was Christian, was he saved, owing to Christ's substitutionary ransom on behalf of believers?

Aside: Of the three mentioned I prefer Sagan. Obviously not Hitler. Dawkins is missionary, like sells for the other team.

Hope it is okay to test these ideas with you. I find yourself and Philo, more willing to discuss matters than say Sells.

Oliver

OUG,

The following might prove informative.

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~cosmology/Cosmo5.pdf

Note, we cannot see back into before about 300,000* years after the Big Bang, because the early universe is invisible. [URL author suggests 380,000 years]. The author tests both quantum mechanics and relativity. The author’s particle energy E, includes Mass having chemical potential. Entropy -as the logarithm of the different ways particles are distributed- is implicit in these equations.

Thermodynamics are relevant to the Big Bang. I beg to differ with you.

[To my naïve eye the author doesn’t include (particle) spin in order to address symmetry violation.

Also, acceleration to light speed of unreal vacuum fluctuations, leads to amplification of said unreal vacuum state to create a real waveform. Vacuum fluctuations relate to electromagnetic and gravitational waveforms in a way similar electrons do, when confronted with claustrophobic degeneracy.There is a heap of energy in a small (phase) space and one can't pin it down!]

I am fairly busy with cleaning data for my own equations at the moment, to fully address thermodynamics in metabolism:

For now, I am with Schrodinger: Metabolism involves thermodynamics. The position remains, I feel organic molecules are made up of elements.We are fuelled by energy from external systems. Earthly life is based on the element, Carbon. Carbon is in the Periodic Table.

bushbassher,
Your are right, my comparison of the understanding of what could be meant by Jesus‘ “bodily resurrection“ with an understanding of algebra was clumsy. However, you yourself can easily provide many examples of concepts, findings, hypotheses, theories and their conclusion from e.g. physics, that laymen accept on their face value without much thinking about them, and if challenged to explain will present a very naive, often erroneous, version as compared to how a professional physicist would understand them. That is all I wanted to say.

Also, I never claimed I was “worth listening to”. You need a critical understanding only of something you want to criticise or deride, not of something you just do not believe in, do not understand or just do not care about. I know, there are atheists who presume one could persuade them (by providing “evidence“) into becoming believers, and maybe subconsciously even yearn for it. However, this is not how it works. Yes, there are conversions but those people have been “persuaded“ by a special life experience, not by some rational argument “worth listening to”.

oliver,
Thanks for your speculations but it is not up to I or you to decide what happens with Hitler or Dawkins, whether God would consider e.g the former insane and the latter falsely informed or whether they will be given an opportunity to “convert“ during the process of dying. We do not know much about mental processes going on during dying, and whether what for an outside observer (electrodes attached to the brain?) would seem a few seconds, would not be experienced by the dying person as a very long period of “purgatory” or even “eternity”.

You see, here I go, although I promised not to get involved into speculations about these matters. Let me just add that e.g. the Catholic Church names some people (namely the Saints) that a Catholic has to believe have been saved, “are in heaven”, but we do not have to believe about any concrete person - not even Judas, Nero or Hitler - that he/she was condemned, “is in hell“.

Grim,
>> if an imaginary line is drawn from the south pole through the north pole, and continuing forever...<<
You are leaving the globe into the surrounding space, which in case of our universe would mean an additional dimension for time, which is not considered even in superstring theories (they postulate only additional spatial dimensions). I think we should stay with Hawkins, who should know better.

As for Sagan‘s imagination of “our universe being just a closed electron” (see some discussion on that e.g. here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=138692) I think Fractelle is right, this is poetry, not cosmology: from what we know, elementary particles behave differently, obey different physical laws, than stars or galaxies.

On the other hand the multiverse, other universes with possibly different physical laws, are postulated as an explanation of the fine tuned “initial conditions” of our universe. These are still speculations, not (yet?) supported by anything that you could call scientific evidence. These speculations are built around comprehensive mathematical models - at least that is how I understand them, the most extreme speculation might be that of Max Tegmark - hence are more than just fantasy, poetry.

>>A personal God to whom we are accountable either exists or does not<<
This is just a tautology stating either A is true or nonA is true.

>>It's probably impossible to prove one way or another<<
Not probably but certainly: you prove something only starting with something else accepted as obvious by everybody, and then derive logically the existence (or non-existence) of God, a concept that anyhow you first would have to define, again in a way understood by both sides. Descartes tried something like this starting with his “cogito ergo sum”, but could not arrive at a conclusion that would persuade everybody.

You list arguments that make it easier for you to accept that God does not exist, others have arguments that make it easier for them to accept His existence. In both cases this acceptance depends on one‘s mental image of what one calls God, psychological state of mind, social context, cultural background, etc.

Oliver,
Thanks for your interesting take.

Not all Christians go for the ‘one size fits all’ style punishment. If you look at Jesus’ teaching in Luke chapter 12: 47, 48

“The servant will be severely punished, for although he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.”

This implies degrees of punishment. Though I suppose that any punishment from God would be pretty depressing considering how willing he seems to want to forgive and bless. (Here I am referring to Jesus’ actions on the cross.)

As for your reference to Peter Sellick, there are many who wonder which team he bats for. (Sells probably wouldn’t mind me saying that as he knows he often gets under the skin of other Christians).

Q&A,
I don’t follow your question. You quote me with the phrase “natural causes”. I never said this. I said two other phrases, ‘natural processes’ and ‘natural course’. So I’m finding your question difficult to understand.

Maybe you’re suggesting that I’m saying that the brain alone is incapable of emotion. I don’t know. Maybe you could rephrase your question.

I’m not talking about emotions. I’m talking about our moral judgements and why and when we should be making them. We sense many injustices in this world. I’m asking Grim, from an atheist’s perspective; on what do you base your moral judgements?

George, I agree. In an earlier post, Dan S. said something about a blurry line between science and speculation. When Murray Gell-Man speculates on string theory, he bases his ideas on hard math.
My example was merely a flight of fancy.
What makes it appealing, is the allusion to a fractal universe; something laymen such as myself find intuitively appealing, as fractals can be observed all around us.
Pretty much all the arguments here -and probably everywhere- are largely about how we as individuals define the words we use to communicate with each other.
Before we can have a useful discussion about God, for instance, we must agree on what 'God' is. I have no problem with an evolved God at all.
But this, like infinite regressions, cannot explain initial creation.
If we define 'fractal' as being a fraction 'of something', does not a supreme being -or supreme state- become statistically inevitable?
Of course, this view also implies not only a God, but whole hierarchies of Gods, demi gods and spirits.
This would suggest (not altogether surprisingly) that Jewish monotheism is rather more primitive, not less, than the Greek panoply.
As to the 'north' business, I suggest nothing so esoteric. By my definition, Polaris is north of the north pole.

everyone here..['A-thiest'or'thiest'alike]..knows embarisment[at some stage of our lives]..feels like a kick in the guts..[its not physical,but feels just as bad or worse than a real kick]

..here is the kicker..[to you who claim gods authority,you are the servants of god]YET..you who know god not..DONT HAVE ANY CLUE,..how can you dare to speak...on that you dont know..[and never sought to know..its plainly absurd]

as you chose to speak..[you asume the role and purpose of a servant],thus get the''real-kick/in the gut..feeling,when you authoritivly decieved god not real,..in ignorance..believe me it is the hugest kick in the guts..[but not physiclly]

god is all loving..[knows'you'were'decieved'..,as those who decieved you,..were themselves decieved..[it gets a long line of decieved decieving..[but it needs to end somewhere],..so many forgiven decievers..PUNISHING THEMSELVES...lol

be a servant of love..[god is love]..[ONT be wrong about god..[IF..he is the'wrathfull/retard'..like many of you..not thiests claim i will take his wrath with the love i expected from him]

DONT CLAIM ABOUT HIM YOU DISCLAIM,..your ignorant claims only add to that kick_in the-gut..those claiming to be'his'servents set themselves up for,

better you and them believed not at all ..THAN that you decieve yourself...[or worse]decieved others,..god is love[anything else is deception]..so if you disbelieve because you think he loves suffereing[you are wrong]

god SUSTAIN's you to live[his hand moves you the puppet[he feels every bit of your pain,first hand,he lives your life,..just as you live because he lives..[you the puppet him the pup-peteer]

that you[we]did to the least WE DID TO HIM[get it?]

think of god being the ONLY reality..[him dreaming us/but the reality only him dreaming..[we the dream/he the dreamer]..see your pain is his pain..[for he feels all pain]..it isnt my pain..[its gods pain,he is allowing me to share it,..his/dream is our/reality,

but feel free to believe as you chose[just be carefull taking the little faith others have]..you thus fall into the full self/guilt thing..when the curtain comes-down and you see'all'..the pain your ignorant fear/words have made worse

if you dont know the real living loving god/good..dont lie about your delusional/fears..[about some''wrathfull/judge''..some retard made you afraid off..[HOW CAN YOU FEAR LOVE?]

Grim wrote: "By my definition, Polaris is north of the north pole."

Dear Grim,

How do you define east and west in space?

go north, and turn right.

OUG,

I am unsure whether my last posting on thermodymics was responsible for your most recent comments.

For my part, here at OLO, I expect a little thrust and perry, but it is never my intent to disturb folk. That said, I stand by the information as presented, adding the comments are made in the Earthly Spirit of this forum.

George,

I do enjoy our discussions. Thank you.

Dan,

Your quote from Luke is appreciated. It seems to me the Late Carl Sagan was engaged in his Science and saw wonderment there. He really saw religion opposed to science and rational thinking. Based on Sagans writings writings and the title of one of his books, "Daemon Haunted Wotld", Sagan seems to have seen atheism as an emancipation from ignorance. To my mind Sagan didn't write with the same "I know more than you" arrogance, as does Dawkins.

Though not a theist, I would distance myself for Dawkins' stytle. As I said above, Dawkins is the Sells of the other team.

Where my doubt lies is in known histories, especially 700 BCE to 700 CE. I recognize the Bible as a signigicant works and Jesus as an exceptional person.

Sells,

Do you see the Christian god handing out "one size fits all punishment"? (see above)

GrahamY,

In Christian theology, do you believe one must first believe in the Holy Spirit to sin against the Holy Spirit?

Regards to all,

O.

Pretty much the same way we do on Earth, David.
Our galaxy is a spiral disc, with rotation. It can therefore be said to have a North Pole, and a South Pole, and logically East would be in the direction of rotation, although...
Considering the sense of rotation, the Galaxy, at the Sun's position, is rotating toward the direction of Right Ascension 21:12.0, Declination +48:19. This shows that it rotates "backward" in the Galactic coordinate system, i.e. the Galactic North Pole is actually a physical South Pole with respect to galactic rotation (defined by the direction of the angular momentum vector).
http://seds.org/messier/more/mw
It was a good (smart alecky) question, but not quite what George was talking about, I think. The problem is whether we are talking about Euclidian geometry, or not.
If I take a surveyor's compass, and place my eye over the 'south' pole and look across the 'north' pole, I might see a tree in the foreground, a mountain in the background, and a star behind the mountain. Clearly, I would have every right to say all three objects are 'North' of me.
If I could freeze time in that instant (and thus avoid the confusion of rotation, parallax, etc. etc.,) and walk -forthrightly, with dogged determination- in the precise direction of the star -whilst ever keeping at least one foot on the ground- Logically I would come to the north pole; but to do so, I would have deviated by at least 90 degrees from my original plotted 'northerly' course.
In which direction did I turn, east or west? As I started on the 152nd meridian, I would suggest west, although I admit east would have got me there with equal facility. (the real answer would be 'down', I would think).
George's observation becomes trickier when I actually arrive at the North Pole.
If I stand exactly over the Pole, (with one eye shut) no matter which way I turn I must look south.
But wait!

oliver<<OUG,I am unsure whether my last posting on thermodymics was responsible for your most recent comments...>...not in the least oliver, i appriciate your intelligence and wit..[just not intrested in the material cosmic speculations,..

nor commenting on that divergent topic...i mention stuff i come across..if or when it seems to apply..[not because its intrests me but that i feel it might intrest others

<<For my part, here at OLO,I expect a little thrust and perry,but it is never my intent to disturb folk.>.ME TOO MY BROTHER,

<<That said,..I stand by the information as presented,>>see there we diverge..[i dont vouch for anything i quote,..i put it up as it was put to me..to make of as people chose..

i like to feel i stoped caring about who said anything..[rather than in what context/timming of it,as it was put..[seeking the reason behind the info so to speak..[why now ,why here .why at this time,..only occasionally who]

<<adding the comments are made in the Earthly Spirit of this forum.>>..ok in that spirit i would like to think..[or add] that 4 lateral directions is too;..two dimentional thinking for me,

i see up and down along with north/east south west..[seeing likely in space 6 possably directions,,further, that in space logiclly north would be the center of the particulat solar system..[ie the sun]...

yet fail to see what this change of topic has in way of relivance to the topic heading...[thus see it as a destraction,..designed to get us off discussing thiestic and athiestic divergence]..

[or or simply as the means to prevent any real possability of achieving any real convergance]..possably raised by those who thrive on continued divergence paradime,..that loves the divide and con-queer, and who would thus hate to see any real getting together of those supposedly in opposing camps

but i could be wrong..yet know in my heart im right
god is love[those who can[or would] lie..about god can lie about anything,..

as long as it keeps us divided..[or destracted]they will win..[peace is not everyones goal]..some really get off on the divisive name-calling..[in both camps]

Grim,
>> Polaris is north of the north pole<<
Let me repeat, you are leaving the two-dimensional surface of our Earth (that Hawking had in mind when explaining that you cannot leave our four-dimensional space-time) into the surrounding space containing Polaris. Also, Earth’s North Pole and Galactic North Pole have nothing in common, as david f hinted at.

>>when I actually arrive at the North Pole<<
ditto, since you are three-dimensional, you can look upwards, which a creature trapped in the two-dimensional world would not be able to.

With all due respect, you probably did not understand Hawking‘s metaphor trying to explain how it does not make sense to ask (the physical, not “metaphysical“, question) what was before the Big Bang. Until something better is accepted, perhaps an extension of Einstein‘s model, our space-time can be understood only as intrinsically connected to our Universe: No universe means no time (or space) you can talk about from within science, using scientific terminology, whatever else “metaphysical time“, that philosophers and theologian sometimes refer to, might be. (And if there exist other universes, they will have their own space-time incommensurable with ours; they might coexist with ours but the question of them existing before or after our universe would not make sense.)

I know, these things are not very intuitive. I suspect this is at least partly due to the fact that it is hard for our brain to contemplate entities whose existence is independent of the flow of time that our brain-activities are so dependent on. One exception is the (Platonic) world of mathematics where some of us believe “mathematical entities live” and mathematicians can discover and “observe“ them. (By the way, apparently for these reasons it is hard to accept even for some Christians that God might just exist, without assigning to Him temporal attributes, without asking what he did before He created our universe, etc.).

Anyhow, OUG is right, we have drifted too far from the topic of the article.

george<<we have drifted too far from the topic of the article.>>yes but lets egsamine where we are

i have been a big bang dude ever since i heard the concept[but it never really made sense[a single big bang spontainiously occureing[in time i realised that a unique'change of state'[like when water becomes ice]..might just provide a certain predictable'change of state',..that sets the big collapse back into the big expantion..[till in time matter sepperates so far it collapse inwards till it again changes state and bang..[again]..add infinitum..a'new'..in the beginning..[again]..with the only surity that god was before[and after..EACH big bang]

a bang so precice that time replays endlessly EGSACTLY the same..[thus god knows all..[he has witnessed it uncountable times..[into eternity,allway's has..allways will]..

the big bang..[in the beginning..let there be light,big bang,was a part of my religiously held beliefs

in time i heard the expanding/earth-theory and see that the big change of state..[not bang]..is a compression/decompression,cycle..where relitive movements..remain the same..[but the'matter'within the expantion expands as the pressure lessons

[the further from the big bang,the less presure..[the bigger the universe expands..[but as we are expanding along with every possable measure it all remains relitive..[if you like the ruler by which we measure it expands along with everything else]

as the matter expands,other changes of state occur,in prior times more density was..[thus the deep],..but in time as less back presure,the firmament emerged..[to us it would'seem'like moving in honey[then water and in time like air..[each phase includes a'change of state...along with a time/perception/change

[time seems to be speeding-up because we are nearing the final change,..from this'normality',..to the next disassotiate[air]stage,..as time moves really fast,..till eventually the process reverses,..till again the big bang..[let there be light is heard]

govt cant tell us..because our faith is less than our fear..[or because its too busy exploiting this temporal/advantage..[they are much dumber than they realise]..anyhow thats how it goes..

feel/free to return to normality..but realise this has been going on for ever..[repeating endlessly the same play..[thats how come god knows it all works out just fine..[in the end,..because really there is no end..[a dry laugh is heard..lol

With all due respect, George, you appear to have missed my point about frames of reference. As I recall (it has been many years since I read 'a brief history'...) Hawking's point was a -relatively- simple one. If time itself began with the big bang, the word 'before' is nonsensical.
This implies the (our) Universe is the only frame of reference. In the same way, the example 'north of the north pole' only works if we accept a 2 dimensional (Euclidean) frame of reference as being the only possible one.
As you point out yourself, it is possible to conceive another, larger (3 dimensional) frame of ref. By looking Up.
In the same way, it is possible to conceive a larger frame of ref. than our Universe, which could exist independently of our parochial big bang; as in the example of universes being created within black holes.
But wait!
Your idea of 'looking up' has given me a thought...
If I look down (whilst standing directly over the North Pole, with one eye shut), I notice my toes are in front of me. This means my toes must be 'south' of 'me'.
Therefore my heels must logically be 'north' of my toes.
Therefore it must be possible to look north, while standing at the north pole.
All one needs to do, is spread one's legs slightly, bend over and place one's head between one's knees.
Coincidentally, this is the posture I would be inclined to adopt, if David asks me where 'east' is, outside our galaxy.
Bushbasher's answer was more succinct.
Dan, in reply to your question, I have always relied on the ethic of reciprocity (golden rule).
I would suggest 'evil' could be defined as utter selfishness; the evil person is one who feels no sympathy, compassion or empathy for anyone but him/her self. Only their own personal gratification counts.
Strangely, I was actually thinking of psychopaths when I wrote that, not free trade finance capitalists...

Grim,
There is no point in going round and round. I am sorry I could not express myself more clearly about Einstein‘s model of space-time (as a four-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold) without any embedding into a higher dimensional something, that would make physical sense. Maybe one day physicists will suggest a model that would somehow rehabilitate Kant ‘s idea of an absolute time (and absolute space) which, you seem to be suggesting, runs independently of our space-time - though I very much doubt it . Until then let us just accept what contemporary mathematical physicists are suggesting, instead of speculating on popularised, hence necessarily oversimplified, explanations of what they work on.

As I mentioned before, there might be some other “time” in some metaphysical or theological meaning of the word, but that is a different question. So let me repeat: we have drifted too far - the controversy about how to understand Einstein and Hawking is irrelevant to a theist-atheist debate.

Grim,
I am still trying to tease out the comment you made. You said that many kids die every day due to poverty. Then you said that you would prefer if such a God, presumably one who allowed for such things on his watch, didn’t exist.

It seems you are accusing God of being immoral. So I asked what was the basis of your morality. And you said reciprocity, treating others the way you wish to be treated. So then the question becomes why should this principle be accepted?

I think it is a good principle. But others may not. They might not want to treat you the way they expect to be treated. So I ask you what is the basis of your morality. I can see your guiding principle, that is, reciprocity. And consequently selfishness is an evil. However, on what basis do we accept this as true and morally binding? Is it anything more than an emotional preference?

If there is no God, and everything is really just atoms banging around, why should it matter which way the atoms bang?

Dan, I like the principle of reciprocity because for me, it has always worked. It works in relationships (admittedly, I am neither a masochist or sadist, cases which could confuse the issue) it works within my family, and I am personally quite certain the world would be a better place with a more universal acceptance of it.
As I have indicated in other posts and an article, I like to think Jesus did exist, and existed as a real person. As such, he was a helluva bloke, with courage to burn.
He saw a simple formula for people to get along with each other, and deliberately sacrificed his life to get the message across.
I think he deliberately set himself up as a Messiah, knowing that was the only way his words would be accepted.
Personally, I try to treat everyone with courtesy, not for a better afterlife, but for a better life.

Actually, now that I've been dragged back to this thread, I have to say I'm mystified by George.
As far as I can make out, George believes in God. He doesn't seem to agree with Sagan's contention that the 'universe is all there is..."
but on the other hand he has argued forcefully that it is.
Where does your God live, George? Do you believe he/she/it was born in the big bang?
If not, we must be back at 'before the big bang', mustn't we?
If God existed before the big bang, why not other universes?

Grim,
>>Where does your God live, George?<<
Apart from the fact that I do not "have" a God, you cannot ask "where" (meaning where in space) about an Existence that by its very definition is independent of the space-time of our - or any other if such exist - universe.

>>If God existed before the big bang, why not other universes?<<
For the same reason you cannot ask "before" (a relation measured in time) about the Divine. Or - for that matter - about other universes with their own space-time unrelated to ours: they might or might not co-exist with our universe, no relation "before" or "after" making sense, unless you want to resurrect Kant's notions of an absolute time (and space) existing independent of the (material) observer.

[I believe that the Ultimate Reality, the Divine, “is“ God who is a person - called God, YHWH, Allah - in the same sense that I believe that elementary particles “are“ Hilbert spaces: in both cases this is the best way (available to contemporary Western culture) to understand these abstract entities, although neither a personal God nor Hilbert spaces are comprehensible/acceptable to everybody as corresponding to something in reality.]

As I said before, it is very hard for us to think of an Existence that is not only invisible to science, but also independent of space-time that is “wired into our brains”, i.e. intrinsically connected with how we perceive the outside world.