Philo,

<<Do believe in a code of acceptable behaviour you teach your children and do you correct them when they have violated such? Does society need a Police Force?>>

This has failed point of yours, that teaching children right from wrong requires superstition, has been discredited many times here on OLO...

“The point that non-religionists are making, Philo, over and over again, is that it is possible to teach children the ideals of character, behaviour and attitudes without mentioning God at all.” - Pericles
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1396#25638)

And yet you still make the same claim over and over.

Philo,
I got you just nicely. Reconciling the youth i saw in the church? Don't quite get you but never mind as i was one of those youth and many of the issues were never addressed by the adults in our church because they simply didn't see what was happening or didn't want to know. This is generally the problem for many of the youth they are either ignored or not believed. Maybe how they see things and feel about things does suffer from inexperience, but that does not make their point invalid.
Coming to the understanding that god is a delusion is not a rejection of god it is the rejection of the delusion as god does not exist. Don't get upset about that statement it is how it is for me and i only hope it helps you understand my position, not agree or like just understand.
I am what many would probably call a strict parent. I set boundaries and standards pretty high for work, responsibility and manners. We are very open and loving with no problems talking or showing affection. This is the result of my life's experiences and yes some of what i learned from my parents. These values have existed in civilisation much longer than has christianity so please don't claim the high moral ground.

AJ Philips,
Character, ethics and morality are non material and exhibits the true spirit of a man. The primary image one has of a higher mind to which man aspires and upon which the pure spirit of man was designed is the character of the highest mind we believe in. Do you have a vision of a character to which you; and you would hope your children aspire? Identify such an image. That is what belief in God is about>

That's nothing more than fancy footwork, Philo.

>> The primary image one has of a higher mind to which man aspires and upon which the pure spirit of man was designed is the character of the highest mind we believe in.<<

You are ascribing "character" to your God, and suggesting that this is what man should aspire to.

Yet when it comes to an analysis of the "character" of that God, you - a human being - carefully select only the good bits, and leave out all the evidence of wrath, vengeance and aggression that are also characteristic. The bits that don't actually look good, when you write them down.

"He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence; And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham" Psalms 78 48:51

Fair enough. Any competent marketing organization would do the same.

What you have done is to create in your own mind the Platonic ideal of what a perfect God should look like, and claim - somewhat dubiously, it has to be said - that yours conforms to the type.

There is absolutely no impediment to any human being creating the same set of ideals for themself, and aspiring to live up to them.

All that has happened is that he's bypassed the middle man

Pericles,
You said, "There is absolutely no impediment to any human being creating the same set of ideals for themself, and aspiring to live up to them." Exactly. What I have said is we live like the God we aspire to. This is the god each believes in. That is why I believe the life and character of Christ best describes how I view God.

You miss the point, Philo. Deliberately, I suspect.

>>What I have said is we live like the God we aspire to. This is the god each believes in.<<

There is literally no requirement for me to imagine into existence "the god each believes in". That's just you, playing with words.

You, on the other hand, need a definition of God for your system to work.

>>That is why I believe the life and character of Christ best describes how I view God.<<

Exactly.

And you have chosen to colour your version of God in a particular way, as "the life and character of Christ".

In doing so, you have chosen to whitewash out the claim that your religion makes, that he is supposed to represent - or is in fact somehow the same - God that wreaks vengeance on those who oppose him.

But that's all perfectly fine and understandable. You're just creating for yourself the image of the God that you prefer to model your life on.

I too can build a picture for myself of the moral values I wish to uphold, but without the need to imagine a God in between.

Completely superfluous.