Dear David F

When John Paul criticized any 'christian'aspect of historical violence...you may read that as a confession and admission of the actions of his OWN tradition...but not that of Christ Himself.

He is simply saying "That was how far we departed from the Lords teaching and example"

As Isaiah says "All we like sheep have gone astray"

When any member of a specific tradition which is directly linked to violent behavior, they should confess that they erred..and erred tragically from the Lord and His teaching.. thus explaining their sinful behavior.

"That" I can accept.

I cannot accept 'applied' Christianity as you put it because 'Christianity' is about following Christ..not about NOT following Him.

When I referred to ancient Israel I only mean't 'a theocracy' not a Christian one..

The theocratic aspects of the Catholic church are the very reason why there was an inquisition, and why Catholics at times can be more than a little beligerant against any protestant missionary work in what they consider 'their territory'.

You are close to understanding just how far the Catholic Church has departed from Christ in making these observations.
"Selling" forgiveness is STILL current Catholic doctrine- "Indulgences" which at one time was a huge fund raiser for the Church when they controlled what was fed to peoples minds more than they do today. This is what Luther railed against, and Calvin also, and Protest-antism emerged from this.

Human Interest

Thank you for your kind comments regarding my last post.

Philo

1. There are as many differing philosophies as there are differing religions - all of them have something to offer, none of them is the absolute truth.

2. Atheists admit they don't have all the answers - that's the point, which you continue to miss. As we expand our knowledge we may find some answers, however we also discover more questions. That is the joy of discovery and learning about this amazing universe.

3. We do have a moral foundation - it is called a conscience. You have one of those also.

4. Calling us names and denigrating us will not win you any converts. It is also very unChristian.

5. It is your actions that reveal you true worth, not your proselytising.

I'm sure your wife appreciates your admiration of her good works on this forum, however, all that proves is that your wife is a kindly person - not the existence of a deity. You have had many demonstrations of altruistic works by secular organisations before, such as Medicins sans frontieres, Care Australia. However this is not a pissing contest. It is a request that you display the love and acceptance of your neighbours as your Jesus exhorted you to do.

As for the bus slogan - the more I hear from the likes of Philo, Runner, Poly/Boaz et al, the more I am convinced that it is vital.

Having calmed down a little from the Presidential put-down, I find myself quite grateful for having been given the opportunity to reflect upon the concept of "organized atheism".

It doesn't work.

In fact, it cannot work.

To promote atheism as a form of unified belief is self-destructive. Demonstrably, it lays one open to that most insidious and mendacious accusation, that we are simply substituting one belief system for another.

God does not exist, that is clear. But a movement that promotes this as its central tenet leaves itself wide open to a display of its own contradictions.

Because atheism is a personal, conscious choice, as opposed to a mindless journey that someone else has mapped out for you, it carries with it significant challenges.

Religion is, after all, the art of not asking questions.

But promoting atheism as anti-religion in the doctrinal sense won't convince anyone to change their behaviour, since their mind has already been made up for them.

I'm sure we've all seen documentaries at some point, of religious cults whose members don't respond even to the most gentle and rational counter-arguments. In fact, they are manipulated into accepting that opposition to their beliefs is a natural consequence of their being "right" and the rest of the world "wrong", and that they should use such antipathy to strengthen their faith.

Any defence against the impact of religious beliefs on the way we are permitted to live, and the choices we are allowed to make, should be vigorous and unified. Any organization that holds this as its central objective would be one worth supporting.

But one that simply takes puerile potshots at the sincerely-held beliefs of others does no-one any favours, and actually plays into the hands of the religious control freaks.

Dear Polycarp,

When Jesus said that only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven (if he said it as who knows what words were put in his mouth) he showed himself to be a bigot. It didn't matter how good a person was or what a righteous life one led one had to accept his mumbo jumbo. That is bigotry, and it has inspired Christian bigotry and atrocities.

On this string you are worried about women's clothing. If you are a teenage girl with a great body why not flaunt it with the aid of clothing that attracts attention? She is going to lose that great body soon enough. She is programmed to attract males, and males are programmed to be attracted. Males are programmed to attract females, and females are programmed to be attracted. Some people are programmed to be attracted by their own sex. Your sick religion worries about all that. I am not saying that Christianity in itself is sick because Christians have done worthwhile things inspired by their Christianity. I think your puritanical brand is sick.

You keep on about how bad the Catholics are. You slam Muslims. You excuse Calvin's cruelty. No love for those who don't accept your nonsense. You deny the record of Christian cruelty and persecution.

Outside of Christian cruelty and persecution I enjoy the contributions that Christianity has made - the beauty of the cathedrals, the music of Bach, the Russian Orthodox liturgy and the other appeals to the senses, charitable works in many areas. Christianity has brought joy, comfort and succor. Your brand worries about showing a little breast.

I think it is sick to worry about a bit of cleavage. Sometimes one of those adorables gives this old man a seat on the train, and I appreciate the cleavage along with0 the kind heart under it.

The foregoing was posted to the wrong string.

Pericles,

This is a forum and not a scientific investigation. Language and concepts are regularly ‘loose’ in usage, enough that a pedantic response to any given phrase is quite possible.

I haven’t the time to respond to everything everyone says, taking that into account. Threads become waylaid and the original intent lost in a maze of rhetoric. Our religious friends are extremely proficient at creating this kind of scenario as a defence against not answering the basic question concerning the premise sustaining their beliefs. I am not opposed to such mental gymnastics, just cautious about entering that realm.

I maintain that everyone has the right to believe anything they like as long as it is not a product of infant coercion and does not interfere with the rights of others.

The simple fact is that the AFA it putting together an advertising campaign as per the London one. Some people would like the wording altered but others realise there will never be a consensus opinion. Others are ideologically opposed to Atheism daring to express any ideas.

You seem to misunderstand Atheism. There is no such thing as “organised Atheism”. Atheists are individual who accept there is no evidence for god etc. That is their only commonality although the reason used in reaching such a conclusion can be the same reason used to reach other conclusions. Most see a problem with religion and some wish to do something concrete about it. Some find that joining with an Atheist organisation can give them a greater say against religious imposition than as individuals.

In democracies, the rise of irrationality in religion is concomitant with the rise of Atheism. It will decline when the opposite is true. If you like, Atheists goals are the antithesis of the goals of the religious. Our aim is eventually to exist not.

Fractelle, paragraph two of this post influences that which I am prepared to be involved with, but additionally, running a national organisation does not allow for very much spare time. And, with your good self and other notables on this Forum, my input is unnecessary.

David