Philo,

I am becoming extremely confused now: trying to follow your last post was difficult.

As I had seen it issue was taken with the fact that you think that only belief in a god will provide a moral purpose?

Surely, having stated your firm belief in a god and then presenting the above to someone who does not believe in a god was somewhat tactless? Can't you see how the only possible interpretation of this is that you consider the person whom you were addressing not to be a moral person while considering you yourself to be one? A proposition such as this can have no other result than to seem judgemental to others on the thread too.

But to suddenly obfuscate with yet another premise which, with no foundation at all, further casts doubt upon your opponent does nothing to clear the air.

The Oxford Dictionary gives 4 definitions of religion; numbers one and two dealing with belief in a god and numbers three and four being:
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
So why should you suddenly cast Buddhism into the mix? What has this, Shinto, Confucianism, Paganism, Taoism or any other belief got to do with belief in a god? Why should your opponent suddenly be accused not only of immorality but now of intolerance and judgementalism?

As to Russell, I don't understand why you would state the obvious: of course he had read the Bible! How else would he be able to refute parts of it or criticise it to his daughter if he had not? How could he take issue with it and Christianity had he not done so? How do most Atheists take issue with gods if they have never heard of them?

I've kinda lost the plot at this stage of your argument

Romany,
From ancient times especially since the times of the ancient Roman Empire which has influenced Western culture, gods / God had physical dimensions. That is why they could make statues and figurines representing the god. Still in the mind of Westerners they cannot view God without physical imagery and imagine he is a supernatural being up in the sky somewhere. God for them is viewed as otherworld and remote but has powerful influence upon the Earth. Such a view misrepresents the nature of the spiritual. God is however the spirit (the power and pure creative motive) intrinsically involved and manifest in all creation.

God is present in the spiritual not the physical. God is present in attitudes, motives, wisdom, creativity etc. God is the template of perfection in the spiritual in whose image we were made. Every intelligent person has a desire to be, to meet or befriend the perfect person, that is why we all make judgments on human behaviour and attitudes. We have inbuilt an image of the highest of human ideals, perfect spirit, loving attitudes, forgiving of our shortcomings, wise, holy with pure motives etc. This ideal can only be classified as our God.

Giving children aspirations of the perfect hero/ heroine identifies for them the nature of God. Unfortunately today's children are more focused on body image rather than their spirit, they are indoctrinated to become physical giants and sports heroes, rather than gain identity with the pure Spirit of God. Their gods are physical rather than spiritual. Their heroes are immoral bullies and thugs who overcome lesser beings, their theology is; "Might is right". "The winners of the physical events are the gods". When the winners are those that demonstrate courage, perseverence in the face of giant opposition, love and sincere concern for their enemies.

Philo,

I assume you are aware of the term, empty rhetoric. The kind of talk in you last post may be soothing to the indoctrinated but it contained nothing convincing to a rational mind.

I’m still waiting for the reference to Bertrand Russell’s admiration of the New Testament.

David

David,
I what I have reviewed by glance so far of Russell's books I have he claims himself more representative of Jesus views than most of the Clergy he knew. So he sees himself as a better representative of Christ values than any any of the Clergy he knew. That was not the quote I was looking for though so did not record the book and page.

I brought Russell's books when I was in my early 20's evaluating the direction of my life and beliefs. Obviously I did not follow his negative attitudes and so committed myself to belief in God because I witnessed the love and care of Christians that I saw demonstrated whereas Atheists had no equal.

I now recognise you are also spiritually - devoid. For me love and sacrifice are eternal spiritual values that remain for every generation.

Philo,

You have found something else about Bertrand Russell, which you gladly tell us about, but oncer again, no reference. This kind of stuff does wear thin.

Russell would have seen himself as a better example of humanist values than many of those in the clergy.

“Spiritually devoid” is a meaningless phrase to an Atheist.

You realise, I presume, when you say such things, you are elevating yourself to a position that Atheists cannot as though you have some special part given by an alleged god and denied to us.

Let me ask you this. And please remember, unconvincing rhetoric is not an answer to an Atheist. It is only an answer to the convinced.

Why would a god deny us the knowledge of this alleged spooky benefit?

David

Wow, you really can tap-dance, Philo.

No sooner do you exhaust one line of reasoning as it founders in the swamp of its own non-sequiturs, than you spring another on us, equally devoid of pith and substance.

Let me take you gently by the hand and show you what I mean.

You made a straightforward, unqualified claim that:

>>Even the atheist Bertram Russell encouraged this, he said teach a child the principles of the New Testament to children<<

This was mildly surprising to those of us who have Russell on our bookshelves, as opposed to being in storage somewhere.

But you came right back with another bald claim.

>>The statement is from his own writings. If I get time and can cite the passage I will give the title of his book and page.<<

So I showed you a quote from his daughter, hinting that she might disagree with you. Far from teaching his own "...child the principles of the New Testament", he apparently used it as a tool of disparagement.

You tried hard to deploy a red herring at this point:

In response to my "it is possible to teach children the ideals of character, behaviour and attitudes without mentioning God at all", you respond with:

>>I suppose on that definitive point you dismiss Buddaism as being classified a religion, because it does not mention God<<

Errrr... no, quite the opposite, I would hold Buddhists as perfect proof of my statement.

Perhaps you simply lost concentration for a moment.

So, where to now? I presume you have lost interest in justifying your original statement - can we expect a retraction any time soon?

Or are we simply to get more and more meaningless fluff, with the odd insult thrown in?

>>I now recognise you are also spiritually - devoid. For me love and sacrifice are eternal spiritual values that remain for every generation<<

At least you can claim to have maintained the same quality of thought all the way through.