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.