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).