David Nicolls,
Thank you for starting this thread. However, you cannot expect a believer, e.g. a Christian, to answer "the basic question concerning the premise sustaining (his/her) beliefs" if attempts at explaining the rationale behind his/her "beliefs" - which includes compatibility (not interchangeability) of science and religion - you (and others) call "mental gymnastics", "intellectual gymnastics", "sophistry", "condescension", etc. (I have been accused of all these things on this OLO, and I do not think I am the only one.)

Nevertheless, for a person like me, who finds more support for his faith in a world view - which, in principle, contains also a "disbelief", namely of Carl Sagan's maxim "the Cosmos is all that there is" - based on an interpretation of the findings of contemporary science, than in a verbatim understanding of the Bible (or another ancient text), it is most interesting to read what makes my atheist fellow humans tick.

So although I have learned my lesson, and do not want to get involved as an outsider any more, I appreciate your providing the vehicle for these “insights into atheist thinking".

George
Your offerings on OLO are always well reasoned, erudite and interesting.

However, like Christians, atheists are a mixed group of individuals with different attitudes, even towards religion. Some atheists would want to ban religion altogether while others sit comfortably with their worldview accepting it as one among the many in our very multi-cultural world.

I used to get annoyed at some of the comments from Christians that imply atheism fails as it has no moral compass or set of rules as though somehow our own moral conscience and belief in the collective good is not enough to guide us.

But the reality is I came to realise that Christians do not have any other option. To accept that concept is to deny their own - that of a higher power in achieving the same outcome.

As I think you have said previously George, respect is all important. If we can all respect the rights inherent in freedom of religion and that collective good we are all trying to obtain is a worthy goal no matter how we reach for it.

George,

This thread concerning the AFA slogan campaign is making people think as your good self demonstrates. What should be thought about is the coercion of children to believe what you believe because of the geographical location and also the influence of religious dogma on politics affecting not just believers, but everyone. There is no intent to warp the minds of children in this process (In the main) but humanity has to face up to the undeniable fact this occurs and that it can have lasting effects. As Richard Dawkins pointed out in ‘The God Delusion’ with the example of female virgin sacrifice, would the sacrificial virgin choose that fate with a different set of information at her disposal? That is extreme but it is also valid for lesser instances.

Pelican,

To use the word dogmatic and Atheism together does not make sense. Atheists do not have a dogma to follow. Atheists may be accused of being strident but even that results from any criticism of religious belief being regarded unfavourably. This has given religions an unfair advantage. No other system has this special privileged position and Atheists are now saying it is time for it to cease. The reason we state this is that religion, as it has always, provides a platform where oppression of people and planet happens. In the technological world, the added factor is that super-powerful weaponry is in the hands of religious believers, some who think the proverbial end-times can be initiated by their use. In addition to this kind of thinking is the ‘special- creature’ status, afforded humans at the cost to the environment.

The argument that fundamentalism is at fault no longer hold true. Without the pool of mainstream religion, fundamentalism would not exist.

The vast majority of Atheists do not wish to remove forcibly religion but they do want the religious indoctrination cycle to stop or at the very least, an admission that it works.

As already stated, people can believe what they wish, but it should be a free choice made by adults with a wide view of reality.

David

Thank you David, I understand with regard to your commitments and the near impossibility of finding the right slogan.

Pericles is correct when he stated that nothing will change the minds of the truly indoctrinated as we can see from the posts by the extremist religious element on OLO.

However, they are a minority.

Like many Australians I was introduced to the Christian religion via school (compulsory religious education) and a sense by my parents that it was simply the 'done thing'. My natural inclination towards science and precocious questioning, soon led me to assess the many contradictions and inconsistencies in what my religious instructors were saying. While I arrived at my position of atheism quite independently, I wonder if the transition may have been quicker had I been aware of alternatives to belief in the supernatural.

Therefore, greater public awareness of atheist thinking will be of benefit to those who are beginning to wonder at the validity of a dogma which doesn't evolve with our discoveries and greater social awareness of the status of women, homosexuals, other religions, philosophies - the entire kaleidescope of the human race.

I can understand how a belief in something greater than all of us can bring a sense of comfort. It is when this belief results in oppression, distortion of facts and discrimination of others that I draw the line. Any organisation that persists in this behaviour must be held to scrutiny and accountability.

I will await with interest any developments in the Atheist Foundation campaign.

Thank you.

Richard Dawkins is quoted more by the fundamentalists than the Scriptures are by Christians. Next we we be celebrating 'Richard Dawkins day'. Quite pathetic really when you look at Jesus teachings compared with such a godless twit. O well it is a free country.

David Nicholls wrote: "The argument that fundamentalism is at fault no longer hold true. Without the pool of mainstream religion, fundamentalism would not exist."

Precisely!

I grow tired of hearing Agnostics and Atheists excuse the moderates and make-out like they are just as much the victims of the fundies as everyone else is - they're not. Not quite anyway.

Comedian Marcus Brigstocke said it well in one of his rants...

"...Now, I know that most relgious folk are moderate and reasonable and wear tidy jumpers and eat cheese, like real people. And on hearing this they'll mainly feel pity for me, rather than issue a death sentence. But they have to accept that they are the power base for the nutters. Without their passive support the loonies in charge of these faiths would just be loonies, safely locked away and medicated; somewhere nice with a view of some trees where they can claim they have a direct channel to god between sessions making tapestry coasters, watching Teletubbies and talking about thier days in the Hitler Youth."

At first, I was cautious about this AFA campaign, fearing that it may substantiate the foolish claim of most Theists that Atheism is a religion. But after giving it some thought, I think it's more important that religion publically get's the message that their beliefs are no longer immune to critisism or questioning, and that there is nothing virtuous about their beliefs at all.