'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.