David, way too cute to repeat your mantra that Athiests have no beliefs, as if by it's repetition you'll convince yourself of it's truth. Your organisation has a 'philosophy' and a Constitution that outline a set of beliefs.eg a belief in the rational and scientific.

Your devotion and dedication to a belief that defines itself by it's opposition to others beliefs is all to common. This is innate too? I'd suggest that sadly enough humankind is victim to this sort of reflexive oppositional behaviour. May you and Boazy have a long and meaningful relationship.

Your gratuitous slaps at others, whilst suggesting '... think about how you are interacting with others.' are unnecessary. Using words like "symptoms", "psychosis" and "syndrome" are insulting to others. Heard a Psychiatrist on the radio a while back stating that science really did not have a clue about the mind and causes of 'conditions'. Perhaps you should be true to your own philosophy and stick to the facts?

Religion also poses the question how do we relate to and understand our fellow man? Respect for anothers beliefs is a good place to start. Maybe Religions formed in an attempt to modify examples of mankinds nastier behaviours?

Finally can I suggest a Rule For Mankind? In the end Obsessives and "Ardents" will always get clobbered by their own moral boomerang.

I think a narrow-thinking man would think man was the highest creature. A dog would certainly rate dogs as tops - they all think they lead the household pack, don't you know. Well, small, snappy, fluffy dogs. Labradors would probably choose man. Lions would think lions, were they to dwell on it, with fairly good reason. I think cats would choose cats. Springboks would agree with the lions. So would giraffes. Hippos would rate themselves over lions.

I won't go on, but it's fun thinking about it.

The thing is, isn't the great thing about consciousness is that step-backness of it? Our unique perspective? Once you behold the world, once you regard the universe, rating animals in order of coolness just doesn't seem worth the bother.

Christians, of course, rate man as the highest of the animals, and I believe from their perspective they kind of have to - doesn't it say it in the Bible or something? God made man in his own image - that surely is a strong clue about god's favourite species.

But why rate them at all, if you're not a Christian?

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
said,"By the way, I do tire of the suggestion that Atheists have beliefs."

Is this because of their limited view of reality? Obviously this retards their research, as they make no assumptions, because they havent seen the evidence. All major discoveries in science are made on assumed beliefs acted upon.

So atheists hold no opinions unless they can see it demonstrated in reality. This places them outside making assumptions like the evolution of life was an accident of natural chemistry - they have not seen such demonstrated. They do not assume a first cause for existence of matter, they just believe it always existed. Sorry I used the word 'believe'. They do not believe in the future because it is merely an assumed fact. They have no belief, therefore I suggest we cannot believe a word they want us to believe. They obviously believe the stuff they write otherwise they are deluded and not to be believed. They do not believe stuff they read in books - no - if they do they are deluded into a belief. Books are the opinions and presumptions of others.

Every person needs hope to give his life meaning. Hope is based in belief. Could I dare to suggest atheists have no hope because this is a belief in the future. Atheists are really hopeless people if life goes bad for them.

I won't be joining them any day, because I want to hang around positive people who believe in and aspire for better things. They are locked into their body chemistry and absorbed by and destroyed by it - how dull - they have no spirituality. To them life is meaningless and accidental merely to appease the sensual appetites of their body. To me life has purpose and design and that means self sacrifice and moral boundaries.

Dearest Foxy,

You are confused with the word ‘belief’. I can believe the sun will be on the Eastern horizon tomorrow morning, as it has done so for billions of years. That is, there is prior evidence.

But if I were to say I believe the Sun will be on the Western horizon tomorrow morning, I have no evidence to back me up with such an assertion, only a feeling I will be correct. Or, if you like, a guess.

Those proposing there is a god have supplied no evidence for its existence, therefore such a proposition is a belief. As pointed out, feelings are not evidence. Making the existence of god an axiomatic statement is against the rules of logic.

Atheists are not asserting anything and therefore do not have beliefs. We await the evidence from those who believe in the existence of gods. End of story.

Until there is evidence for the existence of gods, we do not accept they are real. Foxy, you do not accept fairies exist on the same grounds. But when it comes to a god, you change the rules to fit your preconceptions.

I assume your complaints in your church are against the second class status afforded women in religion; are for the introduction of Legal Voluntary Euthanasia; are for the social and legal equality for same sex oriented people; are against the indoctrination of children by religion and chaplains in states schools, are opposed to the introduction of “intelligent design”; are for comprehensive sex education of all children; are in agreement with stem cell research; are in accord that prostitution should not be a criminal matter; are outraged that religion is amassing huge sums of money by way of tax breaks and contributions by governments from the public purse...etc etc.

Foxy, if you are a force against these injustices and irrationalities, you have my vote. If not, you are a part of the problem I have been enunciating.

David

Philo,
I didn’t say that there were NO persecutions, only that there were not as many as some would claim. Many examples of early Roman persecution and expulsion were directed at Jews and Christians collectively.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Ancient, medieval and early modern hagiographers were inclined to exaggerate the number of martyrs". Estimates of Christians killed for religious reasons before the year 313 vary greatly, depending on the scholar quoted, from a high of almost 100,000 to a low of 10,000.

It’s been claimed that Nero blamed the burning of Rome on Christians and that there was a subsequent huge backlash.

Tacticus is the ONLY historical writer of the time who says that Nero blamed the Christians and no other references (Christian or Pagan) appeared until 400CE.

The Church Historian Eusebius could only find 146 martyrs in it’s history up until the 4th century and makes no mention of the fire in Rome.

Between Domitian and Decius in the late 3rd century there was a long peace where the Church was not persecuted.

The next significant period of political persecution was under Diocletian, before Constantine came to power. (Still no mention of Nero’s fire and its Christian victims.)

Therefore it seems that the events surrounding the fire in Rome were “embellished” by later historians and this is only one example.
(Continued)