David,

-- Example of my "testing" the concept of the Nicaean godhead with an Anglican Associate Deacon. I am happy to have dialogue. I expect that he wont be able to prove direct thus threatening the Nicean concept, thus, my tentatively rejecting it. I have placed c.c. David on the appropriate post:

c.c. David [invited from another thread.] Posted by Oliver, Monday, 28 January 2008 2:09:32 PM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6825&page=9

-- Richard Hawkins calls himself a De Facto atheist. 6/7 [Look at the definitions}. Me too. That is I carry on [contra] infallibility even with atheists, even years before Dawkin's book.

--Time Out--

Oliver,

If you wish to fiddle around with the term Atheist while Rome burns, fine by me. I describe myself as an Atheist i.e. against the notion of gods as the world needs this right now. The religionists have to know there is opposition to their god guesses. Not so much, just for their god guesses, but the implications of those guesses.

The term de facto has a common understanding as not being the real thing and you should factor that in when using such an expression even though it doesn’t mean that at all. As you know, it is the opposite of not being the real thing.

It is questionable if you are winning the minds of doubters and in fact, you may be off-putting Atheism into the too hard basket. It is not as complex as you make it out to be and I really do wonder about your motives as I have already stated.

David

David,

"It is questionable if you are winning the minds of doubters and in fact, you may be off-putting Atheism into the too hard basket."

I certainly won a Seventh Day Adventist pastor away from Creationism. He admits it.

Many of the posts on OLO suggest the debate is about God, when the discourse is about Christian scripture. Look at your title, for instance. There are many variations of what a creator could be and if that alleged creator had any conscious knowledge or interest in what happened. To philosphers of religion OLO is often starts ten steps down the road.

I did upset some US Atheists in the US pointing out all the State references to God, "In God We Trust", "One Nation under God", about five years before it PC to do so. At the time their nationalism stood in the way of my critiques. And as I have stated on this threas before were Masons among the early US elite. The US atheists didn't like that one bit. How many English athiests would take well to a public protest in from of Buckingham Palace against Elizabeth Winsor being the Defender of the State or C.of E. being a State religion? What about an Australia soldier willing to go to War but not swearing allegance to the Queen on the basis she is presumably a Theist? Would you swear allegance to a Theist?

Oliver,

The battle of minds is bigger than your alleged winning over a Seven Day Adventist. It is about placing before the public a coherent alternative to faith driven dependence, which has no basis in evidence.

It irks me somewhat to have to tell you, that your input on this forum, although directionally correct, is problematical in delivery.

I would wholeheartedly suggest that you move away from pedantic rhetoric into the world in which people actually exist.

David

David,

“You [Kennedy] and I should not now pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied a knot of war, because the harder you and I pull, the tighter the knot will become. And a time may come when this knot is tied so tight that the person who tied it is no longer capable of untying it, and then the knot will have to be cut. What that would mean I need not explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly what dreaded forces our two countries possess.” - Khrushev regarding the Missiles of October [1962]

I realise that Nick is talking about M.A.D. not God (s), yet the same basic principle applies regarding adversarial issues.

I would have no objection to We Atheists running a full page argument in a major newspaper. I would encourage it! Maybe, Dawkins could run a condensation of his latest book, after he has topic experts correct few minor errors. Better still a ten week serial by topic experts paid for by Dawkins. He could put his cheque book where his believe stand. .

The approach you advocate has been tried for 150 years and hasn't worked.

--My time before leaving is running short--

Loose ends: Some key Logical Fallacy definitions [Source: Popkin et al]

Argumentum ad hominem...

[A statement] "against the man, rather than what the man says, in order show that what he says cannot be true."

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam...

"some statement must be true because there is no evidence to disprove it."

Arguing from Authority...

"One cannot prove the truth or falsity of a given statement merely because someone, even an authority says so. It is not the prestige of the authority which makes the statement true or false, but rather the citing of evidence either to confirm or refute the statement."

Please look at the last Sells link to see I will debate with a religionist. This time on the Trinity: Mark says that the only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spirit. If so, how can the ousia of the Trinity be indivisible?

David and Philo,

Take care.

--Could be last post for a while--