Thanks George and Squeers. I too greatly enjoyed the small pigs story and the moon's a balloon. Such a relief --I'm back on the ground somewhere... I hope !
Squeers

I think you are right to resist groups who take up good ideas. the earthly paradise and all that. Perhaps though , you and this forum could be a bit more open to the cutting edge of those who first put the ideas on the agenda though. Most people who let their faith be tested are well aware of how lonely and serious a struggle our mentors all have against such groups or once they have become deified ( how inadequate our language is)how hard it is to see what they really said /meant.
Perhaps you and George have moved up a level or 2 on this with your high fallutin deconstruction chatter .We simpler country folks might appreciate if you let us in again sometime.
Point of order too - this discussion is not about people, but ideas and symbols; there are too many examples of unthinking amongst all the weirdos who believe in motherhood, or whatever . The discussion is about the sustainability of the nogodidea and how many legs its developed/getting
For example , I hope someone on AFA forums gets to ask the leadership whether they are worried about whose sitting in the back pews, clapping . Who wants growth for growths sake?
Again its not about whose in the congregation, but whether your creed and dogma is broad enough for them to vote you out. ( one of your earlier concerns Squeers was whether they need a creed -they need one!)
Again if nogodism has no creed, its open ( on the basis that its a religion of sorts) to fanaticism .( hicks interpretation is "jumping at shadows")
Similiarly, without a creed there is no excommunication and every faith has to have a policy on that ?.

TONIGHT ON QANDA How much fanatical reactionary stuff, how much jumping at shadows, will we see in the congregation tonight on qanda? Why no word about Islam - either here or there, (perhaps) . Will it be the elephant in the room ? Will it be invited , or just arrive unannounced?
Suplise like like peter sellers ?

On the flowers
Around the pigs houses there are flowers of many different colours- nothing better on a long weekend than to smell and taste the fruits of sustainability.
Yesterday, I was reminded that that ultimate hunter down of religious false gods made a point about epistemological relativism at the end of a passage that would have been read at thousands of weddings across the country in the last few days. Symbolic consensus , if not well understood.
We are hear to try and understand it eh?
A Starting point . “Good things, but we see dimly”, that’s what its says . Is that what we need to be able to say to each other now ? . The last bit of Paul’s statement , though is not obvious or self revelatory ; it is impossible to imagine rationally ;
Maybe it grows only from the soil of humility, or what?
It is likely/ clear that we don’t fully know who or what God really is like – but is also possible that if God exists and he created , that we maybe fully known .That’s the scary bit . More amazing than I can handle with my little shovel. Have a good day and …..what do you say

Hanrahan

It is hard to follow what you write, (you sound as if you are in a tunnel) your style jumps all over the place and it is not all that clear what point you are really trying to make.

"Again if nogodism has no creed, its open (on the basis that its a religion of sorts)"... there is an irritating propensity for 'believers' to keep insisting that those who see no value in gods must hold those views as if they were as much 'a religion' as the one that the believer follows.

Not so, or at least, not here anyway.

Any more than, to borrow a well worn line from Harris and many others, a 'non belief' in fairies by yourself (now here I am guessing) constitutes any sort of 'non-fairy religion'.

As for Q&A, you are right, there do indeed seem to be the usual apologists for religion being a 'needed' force for 'good' in the world. (But why don't you raise whatever it is you want to about 'Islam'?).

A bit like the comments from Angela Shanahan in the Oz this weekend, who once again lays claim to Christians 'ending' slavery, whilst conveniently forgetting that it was also Christians (and others from other religions) who created the slave markets in the first place.

Wait for Shanahan's next fantasy claim, that the Vatican solved AIDS by insisting on no condoms, an equally silly proposition to that that says slavery ended due to Christianity... after all, what about all those US Baptists who rip off children in their adoption scams, which is very close to a form of modern slavery?

To say nothing of the Christians who invest in shonky businesses that run factories in third-world countries and gain financially from their plight...or who oversee banking wheezes, or who squeeze insurance companies out of covering flood victims and other disasters, while still proclaiming their integrity, and so on.

Hanrahan,
I don't know what you're on about either, except that you seem determined to paint yourself as a diplomat when you're obviously partisan. Atheism is simply a rejection of the world view that's been foisted on us for millennia, which has fostered unquantifiable ignorance, prejudice and misery, however many enlightened souls there are whose lives have been enriched by it. I would hazard the guess that the ratio is very poor. For me, a crash course in philosophy would do the devout a world of good--it teaches humilty, sanity and balance far more effectively than any dogma.
I also don't think the subject matter has been above anyone's head. I often read difficult posts several times (your last few posts are cases in point), and do secondary research, if necessary, in order to interpret the meaning and sense intended by the poster. I'm often out of my league on OLO, but I don't begrudge anyone their area of expertise, and I'm not afraid to have my two cents worth.
There is no numerical rise of atheism; there are those, and I'm one of them, who want to see the bar raised on ontological discourses. Whatever world view any of us care to adopt, it is fraught with difficulties. This is the first thing to acknowledge--we can't make sense of life in any neat little package, and we should be particularly wary of those that flatter or suit us best.
There is a worrying rise of fundamentalism, which has no subtlety whatsoever, and that's what we should be concerned about!

Tunnel
I think you might have helpful point there gentlemen ; too many words crammed in , and too many paragraphs left out. esp above
I 'll try and be more clear and on topic , but if you have some questions about the missing pargaraphs in the hasty postings above, I'll be glad to address them . Symbols,words,ideas and consequences.

As far as diplomat goes , I hope so, because the dialogue we are having seems to me far more useful than the highly reactionary move to try and deal with a poorly named threat that Dawkins seems to be tapping into. What did we think of the way the panel talked to the words used ?
And yes, I do have a simple faith and if you think feeding me to the lions works , well ,,have a go ......its a free country.

What did others think of last nights QANDA ( suggestions for some framing of ideas above)? How much was it a discussion about the value and meaning of the words used ( better ontology) , and how much was it like some 2nd century theatre ? Have we really moved on in dealing with issues of fear and faith as Dawkins has suggested?- the evidence !

Time for others to speak