THE AUSTRALIAN BOOK OF ATHEISM
EDITED BY WARREN BONETT - SCRIBE PUBLICATIONS

The Australian Book of Atheism is the first collection to explore atheism from an Australian viewpoint. Bringing together essays from 33 of the nation’s pre-eminent atheist, rationalist, humanist, and sceptical thinkers, it canvasses a range of opinions on religion and secularism in Australia.

QUOTED FROM:
http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/theaustralianbookofatheism

I have just finished reading this excellent book. I think it is one of the best books of it's kind I have read. I have books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Barker and Da...niel Dennett plus books debunking Religion.

I am Australian. I am a bedragled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church now a proud and very active Atheist. I am very well read in the Bible, Ancient History, Ancient Egypt and the history of the Foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.

I was not sure what I was going to get when I ordered this book. I felt I should support this book and it's author and contributors. I am glad I did. The book is far better than I thought it was going to be. The contributors are excellent and experts in their fields.

The book tells as it is, and has been in Australia for religion and for non-believers. I am 70 years old and remember a lot of the history, sordid in many cases of Christianity in Australia. The Roman Catholic Church stands out as one that has interferred in Politics and the lives of people. It was responsible in part for the great split in the Labor Party and formation of the DLP at the hands of one of the worst bigots, Dr. Daniel Mannix, Archbishop of Melbourne at the time. I was a Xavier College (Jesuit) at the time.

I hope this book helps in the further destruction of Religion in Australia. I think the figures now show that only about 60% of Australians believe in "God". (Census figures)and only about 7% of Believers attend Church on a regular basis.

Excellent book, easy to read.

So, what are your plans for the Christians who don't want "the destruction of Religion in Australia" - gulags? lions? rice paddies?

Good luck with your search for meaning. The church door will always be open for when you realise what you have become.

The church is full of child molesters, you have to be twisted to go there. Realism not fakeism,

@TRUTHNOW78

Have you read the book?

kiddies still trying so hard to deny the obvious. Besides hatred it makes me wonder what motivates them.

Haven't read it but I'm sure it's full of the usual stuff, e.g. the universe had a first cause but if we close our minds long enough hopefully Darwin will come back to life and tell me how it happened.

And that if I say, "atheism isn't a religion, it's just the disbelief in a God" before stating numerous faith-based beliefs, I can still say I'm a rational, reasonable person.

TRUTHNOW78 should really read the book.

TRUTHNOW78: "So, what are your plans for the Christians who don't want "the destruction of Religion in Australia" - gulags? lions? rice paddies?"

The oppression of opposition is more a trait of religions than atheists (the exceptions are ideologies that are themselves irrational faiths, like Nazism and Communism). There is a chapter in The Australian Book of Atheism on just that topic - how a secular society is actually to the benefit of the religious, as it protects every religion from their historical enemies - other religions and sects of the same religion.

Atheists do not want the enforced "destruction of religion". They want religions to stop enforcing their primitive moralities and creation myths on everyone else. Yes, it will be nice when religion finally goes, but the going will be by encouraging rational thought, not by oppression.

TRUTHNOW78: "Good luck with your search for meaning. The church door will always be open for when you realise what you have become."

Again, more than one chapter in the book discusses the question of meaning, not to mention my own chapter, "Good Without God", on how and why one can be more moral without God than with.

So I recommend you read the book for yourself, rather than making up imaginary contents.

What a shame.

>>I hope this book helps in the further destruction of Religion in Australia.<<

Why, oh why, do people like you insist that it must be the mission of atheists to destroy religion?

Religion acts as a mental security blanket for scores of thousands of people in Australia, every day. Why is it so important to you, to hurt them?

It is also a warm and comfortable habit for millions of people who never actively think about it. Everyday people who, if you were to corner them at a party (which people like you tend to do) and question them on the foundations of their beliefs, would just say "never really thought about it, actually. I just do"

Sure, religion has caused a lot of problems over the millennia. And it will undoubtedly do so again in the future - the pointless battle between Christians and Muslims shows no signs of abating any time soon, for example. Even Christian vs Christian is still delivering dead bodies to Ireland's mortuaries every so often.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54R5HM20090528

But to imagine that anything will be solved by an outright war against all religious beliefs is to confuse the illness with the cure.

For a start, religion is based on faith, not fact. And atheists only have facts at their disposal with which to carry on the fight.

It would be more valuable to simply address, with legal remedies, the wrongs that religion perpetrates in society, rather than target religion itself.

@TRUTHNOW78,

So you have not read the book. Just as I thought. Well your bigotted prosletyzing to me is not appreciated. This is what we Atheists are fighting against; people like you who demand that everyone conform to a society in which they are expected to believe in some "Creator/God" described in the worst book of fiction ever written - the "Holy" Bible.

Don't try to refute that. There is no proof anywhere of the existence of a "god", and it is not the responsibility of an Atheist to prove there is no "god". There is no proof for a negative.

Watcher writes

'how a secular society is actually to the benefit of the religious, as it protects every religion from their historical enemies - other religions and sects of the same religion.'

Don't you love how the self righteous atheist transform themselves into the good guys and the mother theresa's into the bad guys. Self deception at its best.

Dear Eccles

if you were truly:

"very well read in the Bible, Ancient History, Ancient Egypt and the history of the Foundation of the Roman Catholic Church."

You would be a protestant, conservative, evangelical, reformed, fundamental Christian.

I joke not.

The only reasons for it turning out otherwise is probably a psychological barrier based on a 'bad church experience' while under the Catholic heirachy, or.. a moral issue which you simply don't want to give up.

I suggest the evidence is well and truly overwhelmingly 'there' for full and liberating acceptance of Christ as risen Lord and Saviour.

As to the Church? well that's another story. But please...don't hide behind a bad church from the claims of Christ on your life and eternal destiny.

Professor Gary Bouma of Monash University in his "Australian Soul," agrees that Australian are quietly spiritual, rather than explicitly religious, holding what historian Manning Clark, called, "a shy hope in the heart." Bouma says that Australian spirituality is understated and ultimately characterised by "a serious quiet reverence, a deliberate silence... He claims that parts of the problem is that we tend to judge ourselves by the ostentatious religiousity of American Protestantism. Throughout the 20th century, and especially after the 1960s David Millikan in his ABC documentary and book, "The Sunburnt
Soul," tells us that the predominant view among the chattering classes was that Australia was an explicitly secular society and that meaning questions would all eventually be solved by science. This is still reflected in the mainstream media. Most people that I know are not looking for simple answers. They don't need a religious authority to tell them what to do and they are especially suspicious of institutions, "with all the answers." They are more content to live with the questions and they certainly want to take charge of their own spiritual lives.

I would be very careful to say only Christians are child molesters it is people who are not just Christians. I do not think the destruction of religion is a good thing it feels that it is full of hatred when mentioned like that. Without religion what would atheists be called? It would be good if people could be more tolerant of other peoples beliefs be them atheist or of a religious affiliation.
We all have to live on the planet and having a go at someone just because of them being part of a religion is not good just the same as it is having a go at someone who is non religious or an atheist. Find some common ground, I am sure there is some.

This book has been written for people who are interested in Atheism specifically Australian Atheism. I cant see anyone reading this book and having a life altering change of mind in what they do or do not believe in. If you have read the book and disagree with what has been written then that is another matter.

So the Christians are coming out of their crazy states and making silly statements about a Christ who never existed.

For your information Jesus was based on the Egyptian God Horus who was born of the "Virgin" Isis.

The Bible is a very poor plariarism of Egyptian Astrotheology. Where do you think the Ten Commandments came from? The 42 Negative Confessions in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. There are inscriptions from the Book of the Dead in most Egyptian Tombs.

The "Holy" Bible was not written before 700BCE and was written by persons unknown and copied over and over again and poorly redacted and mistranslated. There are no extant original Manuscripts. What now constitutes the Bible was decided starting at the Council of Nicea 325CE when the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine I as the official Religion of the Roman Empire for political purposes.

To all lovers of God,

Atheism is not an enemy.

Just as God Himself does not sit there biting His nails, "what shall I do about those children of mine who deny my existence?", neither should you!

Religion is the path of coming closer to, and ultimately uniting with, God. Since God is not an idea or a belief, no ideas or beliefs can stand in the way of coming closer to the actuality of God, including the atheistic ideas. If one's favourite mantra is "God does not exist", then let them use that mantra, as a way of purifying out false notions of God, mental notions of gods that indeed do not exist anyway!

For many of us, atheism is an important and necessary stage on our path towards God. Let us then not ask others to relinquish it and try to skip over that stage. God's love is ever present and the use of logic is good, the sharpening of the sword of the mind is great. There comes a time when one naturally relinquishes that sword and surrenders it over to God, but let it ripe for each individual in their own good time. Let us not forget that those who believe in God, even those who preach in the name of God, also fail and use their minds in many fantastic ways to avoid Him, just as the ones who do not believe.

No words can describe God.
God is not even bound by existence or non-existence.
God's grace can fall on any one, whether they use the "correct" words or not.
Access to God is gained not by the mind, but by the purity of heart, and God alone knows what truly goes on in a man's heart.

Thanks Yuyutsu, you write some interesting things. You write
'Access to God is gained not by the mind, but by the purity of heart, '
How do you suggest a heart becomes pure without Christ? I really would like to know your answer.

Dear Runner,

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Some children of God may not know mathematics, some are even unable to do simple sums.
Some children of God have no idea of geography, or astronomy,
Some children of God know not their history,
Some may not even know that Jesus ever lived.

Does it matter?

Read the above - does it say anywhere: "blessed are the mathematicians", "blessed are those who read the bible" or "blessed are those who believe in the correct narrative"?

Yet some, like Albert Einstein, acquired their religiosity through mathematics, that was their particular gate to God.
Others achieved humility by looking at the stars.
Others found the living Christ in the eyes of a starving African child, whom they served.
I personally find music as the best means of purifying the heart, but then others are not so musical, so they have their alternatives.

No doubt, knowing that it is possible to return and be one with God, knowing that somebody back in history has actually made it while alive, is inspiring and encouraging, it helps us to persevere through the darkest moments, and it is indeed helpful to follow the wise teachings of someone who made it.

The key to God is not in holding onto some intellectual concept or narrative, be it correct or otherwise - the key to God is described straight above, as recounted by Matthew. For obtaining that key, intellectual concepts and narratives are of use to some, while other means are available to others. No sheep is left unattended.

Dear Eccles...

honestly, you need to read more.

You made a number of very 'firm' assertions as if they were fact.

This might comfort you and pander to your own biases, but as for them being 'truth' ? sorry to say, all you did was underline how little you know about the Bible and it's surrounding history, archeology and content.

I feel sorry for you, because you are denying yourself the greatest experience a human can have.

Galatians 5:1

I, for one, am glad that we're having
this discussion online in Australia,
rather than in real life western Siberia:

"Drunk dispute over God leaves two dead

A dispute over the existence of God between four Russians,
drunk on a litre of pure alcohol, resulted in two of them
being killed, news agencies reported."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/14/3092421.htm

I have a copy Eccles, and yes, it is an interesting book.

The title tells readers what the contents are, but within that subject, there are a wide variety of stories to read.

Dr. Max Wallace has an interesting chapter, as does Dr. Lesley Cannold.

Both are regular contributors to the general debate, on OLO and elsewhere.

Lesley has some interesting figures, "the abortion rate of American Catholics is higher than that of the general population, despite 96 percent of those over 18 using modern contraception, forbidden by the Pope".

Ah, yes, The Dear Old Pope, such a font of wisdom.

She also tells us that 94 percent of Australians support a womans right to choose, and, wait for it, 88 perecnt of 'religious' people do too.

So, where does the 'orrible Pell and General Wallace from the ACL conjure up their false figures from?

Too many authors to talk about here, but it behoves the gormless who contribute to OLO to read books like this too, so their basic arguments can be informed just a little from beyond the pages of the only book they feel safe reading, Playboy.

Oops, sorry, The Bible.

Eccles come on please I am on your side please state some facts not things you have heard around the traps or read on the net.

There are many versions of the holy bible. It did not originate for political purposes in Constantine times. A version of a bible existed well before this.

The development of the bible old and new testaments was over time. Constantine was the first Christian roman emperor.

The bible is a compilation of stories and decrees. There are various cannons. There was also the early church, the bible started out mostly as the old testament and over time it progressed. It depends on which bible you are also referring to. Some people refer to the king James bible.

Hoho, runner is scared, "How do you suggest a heart becomes pure without Christ? I really would like to know your answer".

And Al is just digging himself deeper into his foxhole of faith, trying to avoid the mortars of reason from Eccles.

Lexi puts faith into Bouma, who is certainly a pleasantly harmless man but as faith-filled as many other, so, well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

I have to say I have not experienced too much evidence of any 'quiet spirituality' here in Oz at all, ever, and the first chapter in the book deals rather well with the history of Oz settlement, and the despised church that tried to force its way into the life of a yet-to-be-born nation.

Pericles, "It is also a warm and comfortable habit for millions of people who never actively think about it", indeed, but that does not exactly translate into a reason for it.

Besides, the gormless who simply 'do it' with nary a thought are not the main problem. It's the Pell's Houston's, Jensens, and Wallace's that are, forcing their view of life onto others, not quietly going about their own unquestioning faith as most atheists do, or have done until the 9/11 fiasco erupted a new energy into the maddog xtians, to say nothing of the muslims, and set off years of having to 'tolerate' total bulls!@# as 'fact'.

And now, we have our political class falling over themselves, to ingratiate themselves with the likes of Wallace and Shelton from the ACL.

"It would be more valuable to simply address, with legal remedies, the wrongs that religion perpetrates in society, rather than target religion itself", not so, it would be more valuable if we did not grant some people special powers to impose themselves in the first place, then there would be less need for endless public 'apologies' for the evils of the churches, the Salvo's, the missionary system, and so on.

Religion certainly is not the only cancer in our society, but it is a cancer, and it needs to be excised when it becomes a danger.

The problem with all the religious claims being made here is that, well, what are they based on? There is no objective evidence for gods of any kind - let alone the particular and peculiar gods being alleged here.

Sure, people are entitled to their religious beliefs, but there are three reasons not to let them just get away with it without comment:
(1) It isn't actually good for you - for your life in this, the real world - to believe in, and act upon, something that is not real;
(2) the religious are not shy about making public pronouncements about what they believe - and once you start making public pronouncements, other people have the right (and even, depending on context, the moral imperative) to call them on it; and
(3) worse, the religious are not shy about agitating for laws to control other people's personal behaviour, based on nothing but their mythological texts, nor are they shy about encouraging filling children's heads with creation myths in place of science - and getting taxpayer money to do it with.

"How do you suggest a heart becomes pure without Christ?"

And there in a nutshell is the biggest
problem with self-righteous Christians.
To those of us who haven't beeen brainwashed
with the 'original sin' nonsense,
a "heart" is born "pure" and doesn't
need any religious guilt trips in order
to remain so.

They have every right to punish themselves,
but they do become quite objectionable
sometimes when they insist on preaching
to those of us who don't share their beliefs.

I wouldn't go so far as to want to "destroy
Religion" per se though. The various religious
faiths bring great comfort, purpose and meaning
to millions of people around the world.

It's only when they go all fundamentalist that
they're a problem to the rest of us.

How does a heart become pure without Christ?

Exercise.

Yuyutsu

Thank you for your answer. The doctrine we live is certainly more important than the doctrine we claim to believe.

Certainly Jesus did speak the wisest words ever penned. Among those quoted by you was

'Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.'

The meek or humble will understand their desperate need of a Saviour.

Tailsman seems very confused about what self righteousness is. Self righteousness is the thought that you are pure enough to be in God's presence on one's own merits. It is those who reject God's mercy and grace that are self righteous not those who accept His.

@ Blue Cross,

I don't care if you think that "Religion is a cancer, and it needs to be excised when it becomes a danger" - what I'd like to know is HOW you plan to destroy my religion? So, what are your plans for the Christians who know more about the atheist worldview than most atheists but still have faith in God? And who decides when religion has become a danger? Will atheism ever become a danger?

Maybe not a good reason, TBC. But a reason nonetheless.

>>Pericles, "It is also a warm and comfortable habit for millions of people who never actively think about it", indeed, but that does not exactly translate into a reason for it.<<

My point was, why pick a fight with essentially harmless people, by planning the "further destruction" of a part of their lives that they value, however slightly, and would therefore feel deprived of?

I suspect that "Neighbours" is also a warm and comfortable habit for millions of people who never actively question why they spend thirty minutes a day watching mindless pap.

But I suggest that is not a good reason to ban it.

>>...it would be more valuable if we did not grant some people special powers to impose themselves in the first place<<

That is exactly what I had in mind, when I suggested we use legal redress against the results of religion, rather than religion itself.

"I am Australian. I am a bedragled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church now a proud and very active Atheist. I am very well read in the Bible, Ancient History, Ancient Egypt and the history of the Foundation of the Roman Catholic Church."

Good for you.

However, recent evidence from science (especially from the field of cosmology) such as the Big-Bang seems to suggest the existence of a supreme being rather than naturalism.

The God-Delusion Debate (Dawkins-Lennox)

Both sides seems to have good arguments for their case. They agree on many points about the dangers of faith. John Lennox arguing for theism is pretty good.

The God-Delusion Debate (Dawkins-Lennox)
http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

FALSEHOODSNOW78,

Atheism isn’t a worldview, so how could Christians know more about it than atheists? And what is it that you claim Christians know about atheism that atheists themselves don’t?

Philip Tang,

<<However, recent evidence from science (especially from the field of cosmology) such as the Big-Bang seems to suggest the existence of a supreme being rather than naturalism.>>

And how exactly does the big bang suggest the existence of a supreme being?

'Truth'Now.. no 'plans' for destroying your religion.

Xtians have had many attempts to kill the Jews and they were not well received in the end, so we need to keep away from any more final solutions like that.

And in fairness to xtains, many other religions have tried similar moves, although not quite as extensive as the Catholic Hitler's more recent attempts.

I doubt such a move could achieve anything useful, in fact.

Sadly, there are far too many who behave as Pericles described, gormless adherents to the fairy approach to the world-beyond.

But what our society should not do, is to give religion a free kick with special tax status and an unwholesome devotion to listening to the self-appointed seers, like Wallace and Shelton, like Pell and Jensen, like Houston and the Vicar of God, like the Salvo's generalissimo.

And also like that 'hanging meat' man and his Pluto-like acolyte, who was always making excuses for the outrageous comments that man made.

Neither should we pay so much attention to people like Blair, Bush, Rudd, Howard, Beazley and the hordes of other religio-political class who tells us that they speak to their god before making decisions.

That would be an interesting Wikileak, eh? Between the gods and Rudd, or Blair or Bush, just as much as between the gods and Dinnerjacket or Bin Laden.

It's really not hard to judge when religion becomes a danger, is it?

The evidence is all around us, every day, everywhere in the world.

Pericles, yes, we agree then. Thanks for clarifying that point.

As for atheism becoming a danger, I very much doubt it.

Atheism is a name given to those who do not share your illusion, by those who do.

It is not a 'belief' system like yours is, so cannot be used as a tool to corrupt others, or call for soldiers to fight under the flag.

What danger do you see from your own atheism towards fairies? Are you intent on a world takeover of those who do still believe in them?

Oh dear, you do believe in fairies too!

Many people who say religion is a cancer just want to continue to live guilt free immoral lives. No amount of hatred spewed out will make wrong right and right wrong. God denying and hating won't change reality.

Quite right runner, so how about your lot give up all your hate towards others?

By the way, it's impossible to 'hate' gods, since they do not exist.

Might as well 'hate' Pinnochio, or Jack ( of 'and the beanstalk' mythical tale).

Anyway, who says anyone is 'hating' apart from, say xtians hating muslims, and vice versa? Oh, and xtians hating Jews, and Jews hating Arabs, and so it goes, on the magnificent religious Wheel of Hate.

Dear Blue Cross,

You should know better - just because some people disguise their worst behaviours and nationalistic prejudices as "religion" does not make them any religious in fact.

Indeed Yuyutsu, but whilst ever the bigots and nationalists pose under the cloak of religion, and are allowed to do so by those who say they do not feel the same way, it is not unreasonable to then draw a cordon around 'religion', in all its nastiness, and declare 'the religious' to be bigots, nationalists and dangerous frauds.

But I really do not hear much clamouring from this 'silent majority', if that is what you are hinting at, to denounce the bigots and nationalists and frauds.

In fact, I see 'ordinary people' falling over themselves to be close to religious leaders and their statements, particularly our politicians.

Dear Blue Cross,

I suspect you are not going to hear much from the silent majority - for by definition, they are silent...

There are millions in Australia who ardently apply themselves to come closer to God. Many among them are not conscious about this; many among them cannot put words to their inner urge to unite with God; and many among them are agnostics or atheists who do not even acknowledge that God exists (for God to exist is an inner contradiction, because that would have placed a limitation upon Him and reduce Him to the level of an object, but never mind this subtle detail for now). While the later may name their urge, and their actions that arise from this urge, in different terms (they could perhaps use "Truth", "Love" or "Nature"), they are still seeking the same. Many among those do not call themselves "religious" - yet they are!

You should therefore be very accurate with the terms you use, unless you actually mean to call what the silent majority does "a cancer".

A religious person seeks closeness to God, not to "religious leaders", but then, whom were you referring to as "religious leaders" in the first place? did you mean people who lead others on the path of religion? or people who lead others on the path of pretense (of religion)? or leaders who also happen to be religious?

"it is not unreasonable to then draw a cordon around 'religion', in all its nastiness"

Go ahead then and draw a cordon around 'religion' - but please don't forget the quotes!

Yuyutsu
Please supply the percentage of Ausralians who answer to belonging to a Religion in the Census. The splly the percentage of Australians who attend Church regulary

There is equally no honour in the self-righteous Atheist who seeks to 'destroy' religion. What is the difference between a self-righteous fundamentalist Christian/Muslim etal and a self-righteous Atheist. Yep, Atheists get tired of the self righteous morality of the various religious fundamentalists so why mimic it?

Yes there is evil concocted in the name of some religions and there are Churches that turned a blind eye to wrong doings. Many Atheists believe that human destiny has to eventually reach a higher ethical plane based on a natural will to do right, but many do still find comfort in a belief in a 'higher power' (not of the human). Nothing good is ever gained by force as even the Christian religion has learned over the millenia.

I have no problem with the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Witches, Hindus, Buddhists (insert belief system here) as long as their beliefs do not adversely impact on others.

That is the bottom line. Atheism is not a religion, there is no 'typical' atheist so why all the push for activism? What is the purpose of 'destroying' religion? Destroy instead the evil done in the name of religion instead. Please don't claim to represent all atheists in your mission.

Let people believe what they will - part of a civilised society is defending the rights of people to choose a spiritual path - what right do atheists have to dictate to others what they should believe. Isn't there enough of that claptrap from the fundamentalists?

The focus should be on lobbying governments to truly reflect their secular values ie. no free ride for religious organisations in terms of tax freedoms, pushing religious agendas in public schools, funding of visits of religious leaders, allowing continued discrimination of minority groups and women in some religious communities.

The best security for one's beliefs is secularism. Let religion be self sustaining, our personal lives and beliefs should not IMO be the concern of governments other than to provide legislation that protects the rights of theists and non-theists alike.

There is a hint of 'Father knows best' here Yuyutsu:

"There are millions in Australia who ardently apply themselves to come closer to God. Many among them are not conscious about this; many among them cannot put words to their inner urge to unite with God; and many among them are agnostics or atheists who do not even acknowledge that God exists (for God to exist is an inner contradiction, because that would have placed a limitation upon Him and reduce Him to the level of an object, but never mind this subtle detail for now)."

So, pardon me for asking, but if these millions are unaware of this, how come you have the inside running?

I confess to not being able to boast of my close association with millions of Australians, but the ones I have known over the last 40 years would be far removed from your claims.

Even the bishops and priests I've met seem to have serious doubts about the authenticity of it all.

A religious leader is someone who professes to be one, someone who self-nominates, or is appointed, who feels they are, and takes a lead.

Is there a difference between 'the path of religion' and the 'path of pretence' of religion?

How often have we heard the cry, 'Oh, he's not a real xtian'?

Is there such a beast anywhere?

Doesn't that just depend on where one sits?

Eccles, I think those multi-millions who do not attend church, might be the ones who are unaware of their unconscious seeking after gods. So you won't win that one with this chap.

A J Philips

Advances in science, especially in fields of biology and cosmology, have produced compelling evidence to support the view of intelligent design and hence the existence of God.

The leading atheist of the past 50 years Antony Flew became a theist in the face of new discoveries in science.

"Flew was a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.

However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, and later wrote the book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, with contributions from Roy Abraham Varghese."(wikipedia)

You may like to view a video clip in which he said why he changed his position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU&feature=related

There are now many scientists that are leaving atheism because of the "The Anthropic Principle" (fine tuning of the universe)in cosmology http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

Dear Bugsy

haven't seen you for a while. Welcome!

You ask "How can a heart become pure without Christ?" and you offer an answer, "Exercise"

But there is a hidden problem in that answer.

"What".....is "pure"?

This is a core Biblical issue and a philosophical one at the same time.

"PURITY"... a discussion.

Dictionary:

1. The quality or condition of being pure.
2. A quantitative assessment of homogeneity or uniformity.
3. Freedom from sin or guilt; innocence; chastity: "Teach your children . . . the belief in purity of body, mind and soul" (Emmeline Pankhurst).
4. The absence in speech or writing of slang or other elements deemed inappropriate to good style.
5. The degree to which a color is free from being mixed with other colors.

Clearly there are 2 major meanings. The qualitative for substances and the moral for people.

For the Moral, we must ask "what" is moral purity?

The Bible defines this as a closeness to God, a one-ness with Christ and the values expressed in the Scriptures.

"blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" Matt 5:8

This assumes an understanding of "Purity" which can only exist against a backdrop of the whole Old Testament revelation.

Apart from that, it could mean anything one wishes it to.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

Al Mughira an Officer in Caliph Umar's invading Army, said in response to the Persians enquiring as to 'why' the Muslims were invading them - "Our Lord, our Prophet has commanded us to fight you until you worship Allah alone"

But he adds a most disturbing qualification:

"Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

Not my idea of "purity".

Good on you, pelican:
"The best security for one's beliefs is secularism. Let religion be self sustaining, our personal lives and beliefs should not IMO be the concern of governments other than to provide legislation that protects the rights of theists and non-theists alike."

However you ask why a push for activism? I think the clue lies in your first paragraph: "What is the difference between a self-righteous fundamentalist Christian/Muslim etal and a self-righteous Atheist."

As one of the chapters in The Australian Book of Atheism noted, what images do you see when you read the words "religious fundamentalist" versus "atheist fundamentalist"? The former is likely to be a suicide bomber. The latter is more likely to be Richard Dawkins "with a bit of color in his cheeks." No real comparison.

If religion was merely a matter of private belief, there would be no need for "activist" atheism beyond the normal conversations between people who care about and seek the truth. Unfortunately too many religions are heavily into public agitation in order to inflict creationist nonsense and/or moral guilt on innocent children and to pressure politicians into giving them financial favours or passing laws against things that are none of their goddamn business. And of course we even have the ones out to kill us.

The idea that secularism is good and that governments should "protect the rights of theists and non-theists alike" is a secular idea, itself the product of secular "activism". Unfortunately the price of such liberties is perpetual vigilance - which includes fighting the claims of religion in public forums.

Watcher thank you for your measured response.

I also desire "that religion was merely a matter of private belief", which is why governments should be a focus of efforts in working to that end.

The suicide bomber and extremists of any variety are dealt with under Criminal Law. A fanatic who kills in the name of God does not do it on behalf of the many millions of other followers who lead normal lives. Much of the killing is veiled in religious motives but it could easily (and has been) carried out as an anti-West or other political stance. Terrorism carried out in the name of religion is not just about divisions of religious belief but greater perceived wrongs.

Religious differences might add the fuel to the fire - a good way to instil hatred and to provide validation for an evil act (ironically). Inequity, lack of education, gender disparity and international economic policies do more to fuel these disputes than a purely religious agenda.

However, an aim to 'destroy' religion is not a secularist vision, but an anti-secular one. I do believe the religious landscape is changing for the better, even the Catholic Church is getting their act together in many ways and there is increasing 'tolerance' of non-believers and even religious scholars are exploring new ways in faith (eg. metaphorical as opposed to literal).

As an Atheist I hold certain views about supernatural beliefs but I also know that spirituality is a whole different affair for some even for those whose feet are otherwise grounded in reality. To argue the destruction of religion just goes against those principles enshrined in secular society.

Surely this atheistic vigilance or activism should be aimed squarely at government funding, taxation exemptions and preventing influence in legislation in regard to the rights of minorities.

Any form of ideology can morph into fundamentalism - I just don't want atheism going the same way. :)

pelican,
I think you provided a very good description of the ground on which secular humanists and Christians (and other theists) can - and should - meet.

I don’t think calling for the destruction of religion is very helpful, and a ‘movement’ of any sort would be deeply problematic.

I prefer Sam Harris’s suggestion, which is to simply put enough reason out there to make it too embarrassing for theists to do anything more than keep their beliefs quietly to themselves.

Phillip Tang,

Talk about compounding fallacies!

I asked why the big bang is evidence of god and you used the ‘argument from authority’ fallacy to give me the opinion of someone who relies on the ‘argument from ignorance’ fallacy.

It’s beautiful.

Asserting that a creator was necessary raises more questions about the alleged creator than it answers about the universe. It’s mere temporizing. All it does is push the question back a step.

In regards to ‘fine tuning’, the universe is hardly fine tuned to support life when you consider that 99.9999999999999% of it is hostile to life. Sure, if the universe expanded at a billionth faster or slower than it has, then apparently life would never have formed, but to assume that a god was needed is to assume that it was impossible, and unlikely - however much - does not mean impossible.

Yuyutsu,

You speak as though you’ve discovered a neat little cheat that allows you to dismiss all claims of god but still cling to the concept by playing words games.

What restriction does existence put on god other than the inability to not exist, and how do you tell the difference between something that is ‘beyond’ existence and something that ‘does not’ exist?

<<...for God to exist is an inner contradiction, because that would have placed a limitation upon Him and reduce Him to the level of an object...>>

‘Existence’ doesn’t say anything about something other than the fact that it manifests in reality, and if you don’t believe god manifests in reality, then you’re an atheist.

For your claim to have any meaning, you would have to explain what usefulness the ability to not manifest in reality would serve. Otherwise, it just looks like you’re making this up as you go.

Pelican wrote: "However, an aim to 'destroy' religion is not a secularist vision, but an anti-secular one."

While it is a big world so I suppose there are some atheists who would like to destroy religion in some active manner, I don't think it comes near to being a serious threat (and there is certainly no indication of such an attitude in The Australian Book of Atheism, which started this discussion).

I think most atheists who say they want religion destroyed mean it simply as the end result of debate, argument, evidence and removal of specially legislated privileges - i.e. religion will eventually come to be seen as wrong and any benefits it might give can be given better by secular equivalents. Attempting to "destroy" religion by writing books about what's wrong with it (intellectually and morally) is perfectly reasonable and justified - and that's all anyone is doing, as far as I can see. It would certainly be grossly wrong to attempt to destroy religion by banning it. But banning something and pointing out its errors are totally different. And banning something is not the same as removing its special privileges.

As Voltaire didn't say but probably believed, "I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it." That is the secular attitude. And it cuts both ways. Religion must be protected from force: but nothing should be protected from criticism or even, where justified, ridicule.

AJ Philips

Say, one day you came home to find the door and windows of your bedroom opened, with items missing; you then called the police. The police on investigating, found no finger-prints nor foot-prints.

They came up with a story that very strong wind blew open the bedroom windows and door; the wind was the cause of the mess in your bedroom. Later ravens flew into your bedroom through the windows and carried away the items that were missing in the bedroom.

I assume that you would not believe the story told you by the police, or perhaps you might believe them.

Similarly, that there is life and complex creatures on earth would prompt one to ask: who was responsible for them?

Theist believes that the cause of it is intelligent design, the atheist says it came to life by chance. The atheist view is both irrational and unbelievable (similar to the "police story") because something do not come from nothing.

AJ Philips it takes plenty of (irrational) faith to be an atheist in your make-believe unscientific world. If this universe were from eternity and having no life it will always remain that way.

Prove to me that God does not exist.

AJ-Phillips,

It all depends whether we are speaking in emotional or in philosophical terms. Emotions, as we know well, do not conform to logic.

I love God, I adore God, I worship God, I strive to place my whole life at His feet, and to completely lose myself in Him.

"But wait a moment", you would say, "does God have feet?"

Obviously not, but nevertheless all feet in the world are His. He owns nothing, yet all are His, He exists not, yet all exists in Him and there is none else besides Him. God does not manifest Himself in the world, yet the world and all that is in it, is His manifestation.

The logic that we use pertains to objects, it works well and consistently when discussing objects, but God is not an object. Any attempt to relate to God as an object would end in abysmal silly contradictions ("can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift?").

Only objects can exist. Only objects can own. Only objects can act.

If God were an object, then surely it is just a matter of time before you could build a telescope (or microscope) strong enough to detect him. Then what would you do? bow down to his image? Ridiculous! Being an object would have reduced God to the status of a mere idol!

You ask: "how do you tell the difference between something that is ‘beyond’ existence and something that ‘does not’ exist?"

-God is not "something" (a common error!), and no-"thing" is beyond existence. Since there is none but God, including yourself, then figuratively speaking (for words are inappropriately objective), you can subjectively 'find' God deep within your own heart.

You ask: "what usefulness the ability to not manifest in reality would serve"

-This is extremely useful in preventing the world from worshipping him in form, just as yet another wood, stone, silver or golden idol.

You are welcome then to call me an "atheist" - an atheist who loves God, an atheist who worships God, an atheist who tries to base his life on God.

George
Agree, human beings certainly share more in common than not and differences in spiritual beliefs should not in itself be such a divisive force (in theory). It is usually fear that works against those common shared human principles.

Watcher
Perhaps you are right that it is not the 'destruction' of religion (literally) being sought but the destruction of the strong influence of religion over policy, leaving people free to live as they choose.

I have not read the book in the OP but I will get a copy of and explore it further.

Religion like every other facet of human existence has to evolve in it's own way - it already has - and is adapting and evolving.

Perhaps the increase in atheism and secularism as well as these spiritual re-evaluations are all part of the same process of change. That is acknowledgement of human differences and a better understanding of human individuality, ethics,morality and the natural world.

Eccles64,

The Blue Cross is right - There is no straight-forward relation between those who profess to belong to an organized group that call themselves a 'religion' and those who in fact are religious.

The Blue Cross,

A Real Christian is quite hard to find.
A true Christian is someone who is willing to lay down their life on the cross, or in other words, willingly suffer anything whatsoever as required by their calling to serve God and love others. Quite rare indeed.

Short of that enormously high standard, I count as religious anyone who has the yearning towards God, who leans in that direction and is willing to make even tiny sacrifices for the love of God and others. It's the actions that show, sometimes also the tears when one falls short.

Yuyutsu

In fact, I was simply pointing out to Eccles that your insufferably smug view will beat him if he expects a serious response from you.

And I think your post shows that rather well.

What does this dirge mean,"A true Christian is someone who is willing to lay down their life on the cross, or in other words, willingly suffer anything whatsoever as required by their calling to serve God and love others. Quite rare indeed"?

So, the 9/11 bombers laid down their lives for their brand of god, and who are any of us to say they got the wrong one, so you'd regard that act of 'seeking to be close to god' to be a Christian act?

Even though they were professing to be Muslims?

Really, you may be more literate than AGIR, runner and OUG but your template is the same as theirs.

This much we do agree on though, "A Real Christian is quite hard to find", let's thank gods for small mercies.

This discussion will get nowhere. There will be no winners, Especially when outrageous requests are made:
"Prove to me that God does not exist": Posted by Philip Tang

I suggest this be read about the Burden of Proof.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/phil_of_religion_text/chapter_5_arguments_experience/burden-of-proof.htm

The Burden of Proof lies with the person claiming that "God" exists not the person claiming "God" does not exist.

Everyone knows that Unicorns, mentioned in the Bible are fictitious
Everyone knows that Santa Claus does not exist. Nobody is under any obligation to prove they do not exist.

Phillip Tand, there is no proof "god" exists. There is not even any proof Jesus existed.

"God" is used as an explanation for the ingnorant who know little and say "God Dunnit". From it's beginning the Roman Catholic Church kept its faithfull ignorant by banning the reading of any books that were against the teaching of "Holy Mother Church". Even reading the Bible was banned in case some person was intelligent enough to see how the Bible was all fables and lies.

The Holy Inquisition did it's job well and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as it is now known was known as the Sacred Office of the Holy Inquisition: "The Holy Office". It still has the same powers except for physical torture

Eccles, I fear Yuyutsu will blow a gasket if he reads your link, and Brother Tang too.

I wondered why people thought I was daft when I said I believed in Unicorns 'because they were in the Bible'.

Amazing what can be learned, even so late in life.

Might that extend to the other thread, about exorcism, maybe?

Could it be that exorcism is fake too?

Wow! That will upset a few over there, for sure.

What next I wonder?

This 'burden of proof' bizzo is a dangerous idea Eccles.

It could bring gods tumbling down if anyone took it seriously.

AJ PHILLIPS SAYS:

I prefer Sam Harris’s suggestion, which is to simply put enough reason out there to make it too embarrassing for theists to do anything more than keep their beliefs quietly to themselves.

AAAAH 'reason' :)

The BLIND MAN healed by Jesus says:

"Whether he is a sinner I do not know, but one thing I know...once I was blind...and now I can SEE"

Sorry AJ.. your 'reason' just came down like a 'Stuka' on the rough end of some very ugly AKAK :)

The Blue Cross,

"I fear Yuyutsu will blow a gasket if he reads your link"

Boring old stuff! Who in their right mind would attempt to prove the existence of God?

Firstly, God is not an object (see my reply to AJ Phillips), and therefore not subject to the rules of logic, but more importantly, any god whose existence can be proven is not God!

So why bother? With much effort, one may perhaps prove the existence of some demi-god, or semi-god, or demi-semi-god, but why go about looking for idols?

Even in the fantastic event that some guy (no gender bias) were to be found to have created this universe, then while that guy would be materially far stronger and intelligent than us and live much longer than us, spiritually speaking, such a guy would be equal to us and is not to be worshipped.

On the 9/11 case that you mentioned, to be a true Christian it is not enough to be willing to lay down one's life in the service of an IDEA of God, nor in the service of some idol (even a provable one, even if he created this universe). One must be willing to lay down whatever is required in the service of God, none other. The likely motives of the 9/11 bombers were hate, fear and lust for 72 virgins in heaven, but given that none of us knows what truly went on in the heart-of-hearts of those 9/11 bombers, perhaps they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they were in fact driven by love of God and their fellow beings, perhaps they were after all, as much as their minds would revolt by this term, true Christians...

Philip Tang,

Your analogy doesn’t work because atheists haven’t assumed a silly story like that of the police in your analogy, they simply acknowledge that they don’t know how the universe began (if it began at all); which is far more honest than just making something up.

<<Similarly, that there is life and complex creatures on earth would prompt one to ask: who was responsible for them?>>

Simplicity is one of the main goals of design, so why would a supposedly all-powerful being need to create life so complex? Is he a sloppy designer?

And why does it have to be a “who”? That’s a pretty big assumption and an irrational way of going about finding answers considering you’ve already narrowed to scope of investigation without good reason.

<<Theist believes that the cause of it is intelligent design, the atheist says it came to life by chance.>>

Which atheist is this? Most atheists I know of say they don’t know.

<<The atheist view is both irrational and unbelievable ... because something do not come from nothing.>>

Who says something came from nothing? You’re asserting that god (something that has never been demonstrated) was just always there. So why can’t I assert that matter (something that is demonstrable) was just always there?

All I’ve done is skip a step, and in turn, avoided violating Occam’s razor.

So I fail to see where you get off saying...

<<...it takes plenty of (irrational) faith to be an atheist in your make-believe unscientific world.>>

Nope, as I’ve just demonstrated, atheism takes zero faith because there is nothing within atheism to have faith about. And how is god scientific anyway?

<<If this universe were from eternity and having no life it will always remain that way.>>

In another dimension where the laws of physics, chemistry and biology didn’t exist, yes, that’s true.

<<Prove to me that God does not exist.>>

The onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence. Most atheists simply reject a claim for which they don’t believe there is sufficient evidence.

Prove to me that fairies don’t exist.

Two can play at that game, Yuyutsu...

<<I love God...>>

Ah, but to love god is to place a limitation on god by suggesting that one is able to love him.

<<I adore God...>>

Ah, but to adore god is to place a limitation on god by suggesting that one is able to adore him.

<<I worship God...>>

Ah, but to worship god is to place a limitation on god by suggesting that one is able to worship him.

In fact, you can’t even use the term “god” or refer to him as a “Him”. That would be limiting him with a label.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You dodge and weave what others say by rejecting everything everyone says, while still affording yourself the luxury of being able to apply your own labels to your god as well as your own assertions as to what he is and what he is not.

It’s deceitful.

<<If God were an object, then surely it is just a matter of time before you could build a telescope (or microscope) strong enough to detect him. Then what would you do? bow down to his image? Ridiculous! Being an object would have reduced God to the status of a mere idol!>>

Well then here’s a simple solution - that an omnipotent being would surely think of - that gets around the fallacy of your false dilemma:

Be invisible.

So my question as to what usefulness the ability to not manifest in reality would serve remains valid and unanswered.

Speaking of unanswered questions...

<<God is not "something" (a common error!), and no-"thing" is beyond existence.>>

I never said that god was a “thing”. You are simply using this bit of pedanticism as a means of dodging my question.

I used the words “something” and “thing” for lack of a better word. Insert whatever word you want in there or simply imagine a concept in place of those words as though it were like the unverbalisable symbol that Prince has changed his name to.

My point remains.

Continued...

...Continued

Anyway, to be fair to myself and others, and in the interests of useful discussion, you need to abide by the same rules of your own word game that you expect others to abide by, and so from this point onwards, how about you communicate your ideas about your version of god without referring to him with any labels of any sort - nothing. Not even with gestures, if that were at all possible on a forum.

After all, according to your logic, that would be putting a limitation on god.

Over to you...

AJP... sorry, I've just discovered that I am God, so I think that puts an end to everyone's discussion on this matter.

I heard a voice, as I came out of the garage, shouting 'I suppose you think you're God do you?'

At first I thought it was my warring fundie neighbours, bashing each other up again, but no, it was a passing cloud bellowing down at me.

The Archangel Gabriel approached, gave me his card, and said he'd been looking for me for eons.

I start back at my old job next week, once I've cleaned up a little.

I'll be quite pleased to give up my career, as a watchmaker, because my eyesight's getting a bit dodgy these days.

Funny really, it was that last string of posts from Yuyutsu, OUG and runner that must have done it, oh yes, and AGIR.

I began to think clearly for the first time in my life, Earth life that is of course, and it must have set off a GPS type device that Gabriel carries.

Funny world, eh?

One minute a blind watchmaker, next thing, won the Lotto!

Well, it's been good posting with you all.

Must dash, I've got plagues to spread, illness to spread about a bit, and greedy people to elevate beyond their capacity, as a test of their beliefs.

Then I'm booked in to the USA evangelical crews, to make sure there's a few good sex scandals coming up in 2011.

I'm hoping to get the Israel-Palestinian bonfire going too, time my chosen people took over the whole area.

Must really dash now.

By the way, the Pope's a dud and does not represent me at all.

I can do that myself very well.

That's fascinating, TBC.

I'm not sure you're insecure enough to be a god though. I just can't see you demanding to be worshipped like some petulant little child.

But please, do concern yourself with what we do with our genitals, won't you. What more could an all-powerful supreme being possibly be concerned with?

Oh, and one more thing... Since you're offering infinite punishment for finite crimes, make sure you obscure yourself with natural explanations for everything you do to. There's only so much room in heaven and I get claustrophobic.

Amen.

AJ Phillips,

Your unanswered question: "how do you tell the difference between something that is ‘beyond’ existence and something that ‘does not’ exist?"

-Things either exist or they don't. There are no things 'beyond' existence. I hope this is clearer.

So, whenever one's subjective experience goes beyond existence, one no longer experiences any-things. That is not to say that one no longer experiences!

Having one foot on the ground and one beyond, living in and experiencing both the objective, scientific world and the subjective, religious reality, being bilingual, being for example able to relate to both yourself and Runner, I try to translate as best I can, but of course, translations are never too accurate.

I did warn you though, when I was about to speak the language of emotions, pre-translated. In that language, when I said "I love God", I described my subjective experience, not implying that God was in fact an object, as a similar statement would imply in the language of logic.

Back to the language of logic:
While it is perfectly valid to claim what God is not: "God is not X" (substitute whatever you like in place of X, including even ~X: only things/objects are subject to logic, such as having to be either X or ~X), it is nonsense to claim that "God is X" (including "God is invisible").

Now, I agree that the same could be said about the tooth-fairy: She is for example neither beautiful, nor ugly, but one couldn't claim that "The tooth-fairy is beautiful" or "The tooth-fairy is ugly".

So why then the difference between God and the tooth-fairy?

-In the language of science, there is indeed no distinction between the two.
-But in the subjective language, there is. I adore God, but hold no similar feelings towards the tooth-fairy.

And I do not expect you to believe in either, for as I wrote to Runner, what counts is what's in your heart, not in your mind.

The Blue Cross, I'm glad you discovered your true nature, but only those limited by space must dash. God has no such need.

But I'm still in change-over mode Yuyutsu, so I do have to dash now and again.

Thanks for reminding me about genitals AJP, although I did wonder if your spell-checker was the same quality as the one OUG uses and you actually meant to write Gentiles.

Either way, I'll take care of both.

As I dematerialise, you'll no longer be able to read my posts, but they will still be there. They won't be invisible, but they won't exactly be visible either.

Funny old world, eh? But that's how I made it all, to confuse everyone and keep Graeme gainfully employed at OLO, in my service of course, like all of you are too.

Donations can be made to my new PayPal account to pay for the gilded feet on my new statue. Not that you'll be able to see it, of course, like me in a few hours time when I am gone-but-still-here.

Let's pose a question to all you "believers".
The "Holy" Bible is regaded by believers as the Word of God or the Inspired Word of God. If so do you believe everything in the Bible is true and accurate?
Take Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

So what does "God" look like? Does he have a Penis, a Belly Button?

Noah's Ark
Genesis 6:14
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. 15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. 17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Impossible. A boat that size built that way would not survive aven moderate waves.

You must believe the WHOLE Bible or you are not a believer.

Eccles, I wrote the book, designed the ship, scouted for the captain and sent the flood.

You are quite right though, it's all-or-nothing, so no doubters please.

As for my personal details, well, I don't normally talk about this, except to the AA Gabriel, we hang-out together a lot, but if you're looking for details it would be fair to say I have a schlong rather than a mere human penis.

Why not? I was dishing the equipment out and took an appropriate sized one for myself.

But no, no belly button.

Why would I need that?

I was here before anything was here, before I created man, and woman, before I brought the end. I am the alpha and omega, never forget.

Dear Eccles

you are confusing 'image' in the broader sense, with 'identical likeness' in the narrow sense.

I heard a very funny debate between a Mormon (in the meeting) and Walter Martin, author of "Kingdom of the Cults" which is very critical of Mormonism. The Mormon stood up and said "GOd has arms, legs, and a nose..so he is exactly like us" (He quoted various verses which mentioned such appendages)

Then, Walter Martin in wonderfully refreshing style, replied.."I suppose, based on Psalm xx that God is also a CHICKEN" because he gathers his children under his wings."?

Taking some parts of the Bible 100% literally will get you into all manner of trouble "If your eye sins,...GOUGE it out"

So...there is a little hermeneutics to do in understanding the intended meaning of Scripture.

Al, this is your god speaking to you.

You are wrong about interpreting the Book.

I wrote it, I know what I wrote.

Only a literal interpretation will be tolerated.

It's time to get back to some public stonings too.

I'm pleased with the Iranians, they know how to read the rules.

AJ Philips

The significance of the big-bang theory has to do with the theory that the universe had a beginning.

There are two competing theories (a) the universe just is, the so called ‘steady-state’ (b) the universe had a beginning, the big-bang theory . However, the debate between the big bang and the steady state was over in 1965, with big bang the clear winner because the steady state theory did not stand up to what was observed by science.

http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm

The steady-state theory would have favoured the atheists in that life just is (i.e. it is eternal, it has no beginning nor an end), there is no need for any intelligent design. And in fact many atheists appealed to this theory to support their faith.

Two eminent cosmologists (Fred Hoyle, Allan Sandage) who started out as atheists abandoned their faith when faced with the evidence.

"Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Fred Hoyle)

“… the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes…” (Allan Sandage)
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.htm

AJ Philips

There are 4 types of atheists:

(i) Honest atheists.
(ii) Atheists who deny the existence of God at the outset.
(iii) Atheists who are material reductionist practicing scientism (the belief that science will eventually explain everything)
(iv) Practical atheist, agnostics.

It is a pity that you have shut your mind to recent scientific evidence that points to a supreme being.

Antony Flew was an honest atheist who when faced with the scientific evidence abandoned his atheist faith.

Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God

Philip Tang,

I really wonder what you are trying to achieve:

"The significance of the big-bang theory has to do with the theory that the universe had a beginning."

Fine, that must be very significant to science, but what significance has this issue, whether the universe had a beginning or otherwise, to the subject of this thread, about God and about religion?

"It is a pity that you have shut your mind to recent scientific evidence that points to a supreme being."

The existence or otherwise of a supreme being, interesting as it may be, has no impact on the issue of God and religion - see my reply to The Blue Cross (15.12.2010, 16:14:13).

Fortunately God's existence cannot be proven, ever. But let's play with that idea for a moment: Suppose God was proven to exist, that gloomy day would be the final demise of religion. No faith would then be possible from that day on; all that remains would have become material; even the Holy Spirit could not survive; and man's relationship with God would be reduced to the level of practicality. In other words, that just fits the description of hell! A God proven is a God lost!

"Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God"

- Everyone will find God in the end. Circular reasoning can actually be beneficial, because it increases the chances of a short-circuit to occur, leaving the atheist with the direct experience of God - not just a thought about the existence of God, but the actual presence and unity with the Lord.

Belief and Faith have nothing to do with each other.

I can see any further discussions with Yuyutsu are are waste of time.
He seems to be a person totally brainwashed into Christianity. He has closed his mind to any reasonable ideas. He refuses to read "The Australian Book of Atheism". I wonder if he has read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Dan Barker.

In case he has forgotten I was a Roman Catholic who realised that it is all based on lies and bad fiction. I accept Science. I do not accept a "God" or the "Supernatural". I do not accept blind faith. Science is based on proper investigation. Faith is not.

THERE IS NO "GOD". "GOD" WAS MADE IN THE MIND OF MAN.
RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING.
RELIGION IS A SERIOUS MENTAL HEATH HAZARD.

Yuyutsu,

If you believe that what’s in the heart counts for more than what’s in the mind, then we are on such completely different pages and levels here that I’m not sure there’s any point in continuing.

<<Things either exist or they don't. There are no things 'beyond' existence. I hope this is clearer.>>

Thanks. It was clear the first time. But since we’re obviously not going to get anywhere there, I’ll just bring to your attention the fact that your response/claim is a logical fallacy - special pleading - and assertions that have been cleverly devised to avoid scrutiny in what can only be described as a show of contempt for the truth.

You’re speaking a lot about subjectivity and have even raised an analogy with the tooth fairy that I would have raised too. But you are making positive and definitive claims about a god. I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with what you’re saying if you were to include qualifiers such as “I believe...”, or “In my opinion...”, but you don’t. You are stating your beliefs in a very ‘matter-of-factly’ kind of way; “God is not...”, etc. How do you, or could you, know what he is not?

<<While it is perfectly valid to claim what God is not: "God is not X" (substitute whatever you like in place of X, including even ~X: only things/objects are subject to logic, such as having to be either X or ~X), it is nonsense to claim that "God is X" (including "God is invisible").>>

This simply amounts to more special pleading, I’m afraid.

If god is beyond existence, and you can't say what god is, then how do you know he's god? How do you know that you love and adore god if you don't know what you're loving and adoring?

Besides which, god wouldn’t have to tell people that he was invisible, so I think my point about the usefulness of not manifesting in reality still stands.

Continued...

...Continued

<<-In the language of science, there is indeed no distinction between the [god and the tooth fairy].
-But in the subjective language, there is. I adore God, but hold no similar feelings towards the tooth-fairy.>>

According to your logic here, the tooth fairy would have just as much legitimacy as your god if you simply loved and adored it. That doesn’t say much for your god.

I understand that you don’t expect me to believe in your version of god, but surely you still expect to be taken seriously. So considering your tooth fairy analogy, and the fact that you want to stick to subjectivity, I’ll summarise my main point by asking you this:

If I was to start making exactly the same claims that you are, but replace “god” with any other fantastical entity, should I expect to be taken just as seriously as you would expect to be taken, and if not, why not?

Phillip Tang,

Do you understand what “fallacy” means?

<<The significance of the big-bang theory has to do with the theory that the universe had a beginning.>>

Wrong.

The big bang theory asserts no such thing. Stop reading Creationist websites. No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.

<<...the steady state theory did not stand up to what was observed by science.>>

Neither does ID, but you still believe in that.

We can’t pick and choose our facts.

<<The steady-state theory would have favoured the atheists in that life just is...>>

How do you know there isn’t a multiverse or that our universe isn’t a never-ending series of expansions and contractions?

<<And in fact many atheists appealed to this theory to support their faith.>>

Atheism isn’t a faith. Like I already said, atheism is the rejection of a claim. There are no tenets to atheism, so you can’t even presume to know what atheists believe other than the lack of any gods.

What part of this don’t you understand?

<<Two eminent cosmologists (Fred Hoyle, Allan Sandage) who started out as atheists abandoned their faith when faced with the evidence.>>

More appeals to authority figures who rely on the argument from ignorance.

Speaking of honesty, how is plonking a god into an unknown more honest than investigating further? Every time it was done in the past, a naturalistic explanation was found. What makes you think now is any different?

I already explained why admitting that you don’t know was a more honest approach than making something up. How about you provide some reasoning as to why that’s not the case? Simply ignoring my point and then continuing on as though nothing was said won’t get you anywhere.

Everything in my previous post still stands. Bye bye Philip. Come back when you understand science a little better and can provide arguments without fallacies.

Yuyutsu,

For our discussion to be meaningful, we need to agree to the laws of logic. Either God exists or he doesn't exist. Any contrsdiction is not admissible.

"Firstly, God is not an object (see my reply to AJ Phillips), and therefore not subject to the rules of logic..."

By saying that, your idea of "god" is something that you experience, something that makes you feel good.

There is a belief in ancient China of the moon goddess. Obviously this belief fails the test of falsification (ie only if you can imagine something that would make the statement false can the statement be called meaningful).

Theology and Falsification by A. Flew
http://www8.svsu.edu/~koperski/flew.htm

I would conclude that your religion is in another realm, unreachable, exists only in your mind

AJ Philips

I have to conclude that you woulld soon join the ranks of Yuyutsu in your own make-believe world.

"More appeals to authority figures who rely on the argument from ignorance"

So AJ Philips is saying that he knows best, he is the authority and anyone else who differs from him is arguing from ignorance.

"The big bang theory asserts no such thing. Stop reading Creationist websites. No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that."

A factual error is that I did not refer to any Creationists website. The Creationists argues for a young universe. The big-bang theory puts the universe to be between 12 to 15 billion years of age.

Since you're in a state of denial, one can't talk sense with you. A reasonable scientist would agree to the validity of the Big-Bang base on scientific evidence, but they may have different opinions what caused the Big-Bang.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/Big_Bang.htm

Philip Tang,

Speaking of dishonesty, did you notice the YouTube clip you linked to didn’t allow comments? Creationist YouTubers do this to prevent others correcting the flaws in their videos. You never see this comment disabling with the more atheistic YouTubers funnily enough.

<<I have to conclude that you woulld soon join the ranks of Yuyutsu in your own make-believe world.>>

That’s a bit rich, especially considering you have bit yet managed to point out an error in my reasoning.

<<So AJ Philips is saying that he knows best...>>

Nope, never said or even implied that. Now you’ve resorted to putting words in my mouth.

<<...he is the authority and anyone else who differs from him is arguing from ignorance.>>

So now I think I’m the authority? My oh my, Philip, you don’t even know what the ‘argument from authority’ is or why it’s fallacious, do you?

Here you go... http://tinyurl.com/yjohbjg

Either way, those who plonk a god into the unknowns have abandoned the scientific method and are therefore no longer worthy of being considered an authority on the matter.

Not that this is what I think these people have done necessarily. I suspect it’s yet another case of Christians over-stating the opinions of others in order to give their own belief system some undue prestige. Flew is certainly a victim of this.

<<A factual error is that I did not refer to any Creationists website. The Creationists argues for a young universe. The big-bang theory puts the universe to be between 12 to 15 billion years of age.>>

Nice side-step.

Ever heard of “Old Earth Creationism”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

Now how about acknowledging the legitimate factual error on your own behalf?

<<Since you're in a state of denial, one can't talk sense with you.>>

A state of denial about what, may I ask?

<<A reasonable scientist would agree to the validity of the Big-Bang base on scientific evidence, but they may have different opinions what caused the Big-Bang.>>

Bingo!

So much for the big bang being evidence for god though.

You’re not doing too well here, are you, Philip

AJ Philips

Sorry AJP you are completely ignorant about the Big-Bang theory.

To the statement,

"The significance of the big-bang theory has to do with the theory that the universe had a beginning."

Wrong. (AJP answered)

The big bang theory asserts no such thing...No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.(AJP continued)

"No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that." (AJ Philips ignorantly asserts)

From wikipedia

"The Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe began by growing out from a very dense and hot condition about 13.7 billion years ago. As a whole, space is growing and the temperature is falling as time passes. Cosmology is the name given to how the universe began and how it has developed. Scientists that study cosmology agree the Big Bang theory matches what they have seen so far."

Conclusion: AJ Philips has no idea what the Big-Bang is about.

I’m well aware of that, Philip.

But your assertion was that the big bang proves the existence of a god out of a sheer necessity for one. If there was any room in your argument to acknowledge that there could have been some-thing, or some state before that singularity, then that would have blown such a big hole in your argument that there’d be no point in mentioning it.

Obviously an expanding universe, as far as we know, had to BEGIN its expansion from some point (singularity); what I was addressing was your implication that the big bang theory asserted that there was nothing before that, or that nothing could have been happening before that, or that it said anything about the universe before the hot dense singularity.

So my points still stand.

What I don't understand is how my OP, a review of the book "The Book of Australian Atheism" has not attracted any to-the-point replies.
Have any of you people actually READ the book? If so how about a comment about it instead of a heated arguemnt over whether there is a "god" or not.

This thread has degenerated into the uslay load of crap that comes from brainwashed Christians. I feel quite insulted.

Well, I have a copy here Eccles, and I'm reading it.

It's worth reading.

I think OUG, runner Yuyutsu AGIR and others of the motley variety should buy it, or even borrow it from a library.

Others should read it too, of course.

Then we can have a book-club discussion.

AJ Phillips,

Of course the mind counts: you definitely need it to the extent that you want to achieve any objective results in this world and I use it too, but IF that is all you want (which I find hard to believe, especialy when taking into account the subconscious as well), then I think you are living in hell, but good luck with it anyway.

However, the mind is useless when speaking "about" God. That is the realm of the heart: Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s!

Strictly speaking, since God is not even an object, how can one speak about Him? One could at most TRY sloppily using words that would hopefully point in the direction of experiencing God.

So why try?

-Because it may ring a bell with others who had a similar experience;
-Because I try to convey to others what makes me tick, why I do things the way I do, why I make certain choices (especially moral choices) and not others;
-Because going about life trying to hide from those I'm in contact with that which is most central in my life, or what are my core experiences, or what I try to achieve, or what I attempt to base my life on, would be a painful, alienating and useless exercise;
-Because I like to help and encourage those who want more than this material world can offer, as well as to warn them about possible pitfalls, false ways, which lead back into the world instead of towards God (that includes Phillip Tang, but IF INDEED you have no interests other than within this objective world, then it does not include yourself).

Re, "special pleading": Logic is a wonderful tool, but still has its limitations: it operates on objects. I deliberately included the Tooth-Fairy to show that God is not a special case unto Himself.

Re "invisible": the fact that one could solve a given problem in a different way does not invalidate the solution actually taken.

Continued...

...Continued

"How do you, or could you, know what he is not?"
-Simple logical deduction. Claiming positively that God were X, would have resulted in obvious contradictions. Therefore I can be confident that the negative is true.

"If god is beyond existence, and you can't say what god is, then how do you know he's god? How do you know that you love and adore god if you don't know what you're loving and adoring?"

-I never claimed that "God is beyond existence" -that would indeed constitute a positive statement about Him. I just mentioned "beyond existence" in the context of one's subjective experience. Indeed, one must go beyond existence in order to experience God. Practically speaking, since I'm sure you would ask, this requires abandoning the mind and objectivity, at least for a moment.

I habitually call that which I seek "God", because others before me who were seeking the same and had similar experiences used this word, but I would also be quite comfortable in a group of tooth-fairy worshippers. I expect to have common experiences to share with them and could almost as easily use "Tooth-Fairy" in place of "God". Names are valuable, they can be inspiring, but are not indispensible or as important as what they actually stand for.

"If I was to start making exactly the same claims that you are, but replace “god” with any other fantastical entity, should I expect to be taken just as seriously as you would expect to be taken, and if not, why not?"

-I have no intention of making the logical error of appealing to the masses, but chances are that if you would use the same terms to describe your experiences as others who had similar experiences did before you, then you are likely to be taken more seriously.

Phillip Tang,

It seems you consider God to be an idea.

Just as sleeping with a real woman is not identical to sleeping with the idea of a woman, let me assure you that there are no ideas that I love, adore, worship and wish to unite with.

Eccles64 has a good point: every time I revisit this site I am surprised at how much "action" is going on - but not really on the topic of The Australian Book of Atheism.

Ironically, given that, the book has little direct argument on whether there is or is not a god. That has after all been handled very well elsewhere. It is more a collection of essays on atheism-related topics, some specifically Australia-related, others more universal in application (but by Australian authors). Of course the essays include many arguments that address what is wrong with religion (or with how religion operates in Australia), but the book is not intended as an integrated or thorough atheist "manifesto". So if you're looking for proof that there isn't a god, you'll get some good clues and supporting ideas, but you really should go elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the various authors do address many of the arguments that have been going on here. Case in point, the final section on the neurobiology of belief pretty much shows why arguments such as Yuyutsu's "the mind is useless when speaking 'about' God. That is the realm of the heart" are nonsensical. "The heart" is a completely unreliable guide to reality.

And I cannot resist warning Yuyutsu that he or she is sadly deceived. Even the Bible warns against the deceptions of Satan. And if your heart is what you're going on - how do you know you aren't just deceived? You have to apply the test of reason and reality. And once you do that, well - maybe you'll be one of the authors in the sequel :-)

Dear Watcher,

At least we are in agreement that God cannot be found in the world, which you term "reality".

Indeed, one cannot attain God through the mind and indeed, the heart is completely unreliable when addressing issues of the world, that which you think of as "reality".

That is why I said: Render unto Caesar... let the mind dwell on the things of the world and let the heart dwell of the spirit.

The fact that you are only interested in the things of the world and find no use for your heart, is your personal choice, which I respect. I hope you will also just as well respect those who are more interested in the spirit and less in that world of yours.

So then, we are in agreement and I will be delighted to write a chapter in the sequel: "Religious atheism: Living with God rather than with the idea of God".

Thank you Watcher for your support. I have been dusgusted by how my thread has been hijscked and turned into a forum for pointless prostelyzing by know-alls who know nothing such as Yuyutsu. I would like to know where this person is.Is it Australia? Queensland? where there seems to be more brainwahsed Christian fools than elsewhere in Australia.
Now just as I was writing this I got an e-mail notification of yet another reply by Yuyutsu who spews out his/her usual diatribe of rubbish and then says: I will be delighted to write a chapter in the sequel: "Religious atheism: Living with God rather than with the idea of God".
If you do that Mate, I will get that printed chapter and have the greatest pleasure in tearing it up and stuffing it down your throat. For you information ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION. The Macquarie Dictionary states it is the doctrine that there is no God. The Atheist Foundation of Australia defines Atheism as "Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”

Atheists have no beliefs, do not worship anything, do not have an organization, no leader, no clergy, no text.

Dear Eccles64,

"Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.”

That makes me a perfect atheist. I was saying that all along.

"ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION"

I know that already, why do you need to shout?

Atheism is not a religion, but what possibly prevents anyone from being simultaneously an atheist AND a religious person?

Eccles 64 demonstrating the outworking of his non faith

'If you do that Mate, I will get that printed chapter and have the greatest pleasure in tearing it up and stuffing it down your throat.'

Charming

Watcher

I was quite struck by Dr. Tamas Pataki and his 'Religion and Violence' chapter.

It strikes a chord with those here who impose their certainty of 'goodness' on us and their expressions of extreme 'lurv', so long as you are on-side with their team.

Also, some interesting information in Chrys Stevenson's chapter, the first one, that rather undermines those overblown claims that Australia is a 'Christian nation'. Seems Chrys is writing a book on this topic, so the chapter is a good taster fo what will be coming.

I've already commented on Leslie Cannold's article on abortion, very interesting, and shows the anti-abortionists from their 'Christian' perspective to be a bunch of bah-humbugs, if not out and out liars.

I read the five chapters on 'education' first, and found a lot of familiar themes from OLO pages, gathered together in this section.

A must-read for those OLO posters on the 'who trusts teachers' thread.

Considering religions are so pro-male, it has always shocked me that so many women fall for the scam, so eagerly too.

So the chapter by Lyn Allison, 'Ever wondered why God is a bloke?', is one that every female believer should read.

There is not a single chapter trying to justify views along the tedious lines of Yuyutsu, the half-smart approach trying to show off some ever-so-clever arguments.

Neither is there any prosyletising, such as quite-a-few here engage in.

Yuyutsu wrote: 'Indeed, one cannot attain God through the mind and indeed, the heart is completely unreliable when addressing issues of the world, that which you think of as "reality".'

By reality I do not mean what you're calling the world, I mean, um, reality. That which exists. Playing with words doesn't change that, nor change the fact that your heart cannot tell you that God exists. All it can tell you is what you wish is true - and the road to Hell is paved with that intention.

So beware. If you persist in that attitude you will burn in hell for eternity, for refusing to live how the True Creator intended - the life of a thinking being who believes nothing on faith. If you persist in flagrant contradictions ("what possibly prevents anyone from being simultaneously an atheist AND a religious person"), more nails in the coffin - or should that be more coals in the fire. So my heart tells me - and apparently, it must be right.

I am of course making a point: arbitrary claims, such as yours, are meaningless. An arbitrary claim is one made without any evidence. They are meaningless because for every arbitrary claim there are an infinite number of equal and opposite arbitrary claims. Which makes action on any of them impossible.

So you won't be in The Australian Book of Atheism Part II. Only articles based on fact and reason have meaning - meaning which can be proved or disproved based on the rules of evidence and the rules of thinking. Thus people who read the book might not agree with everything in it: but the authors have given their reasons in fact and logic, and that is what people can be convinced by, or refute.

Dear Watcher,

Again you are right: why should anyone go about seeking information using their hearts? silly, isn't it? Information should indeed be gained by the mind.

But have I ever claimed that God is a piece of information?

So your reality is limited to that which exists? OK, this is just what I refer to as the "world". Your definition of "reality" is my definition of "the world" - that which exists. It is perfectly understandable why God is not part of your reality.

As for contradictions, the onus is on you to prove that something is impossible. I find no contradiction between compliance with the definition of "atheist", as set by The Atheist Foundation of Australia, and being religious. In fact, I am myself an example that both can coexist happily side-by-side. I think that this is an important fact that should be mentioned in The Australian Book of Atheism Part II.

The Blue Cross,

Just to set the record clear, I am not pro-male, nor have I ever considered God to be a bloke...

Yuyutsu, therefore we can agree that God does not exist. Fine, the rest of us can now move on to something more interesting.

But the fact that you either cannot see glaring contradictions in your own statements, or happily accept them - the first foolishness, the second irrational and therefore even worse - disqualifies you from further discussion - on any topic whatsoever. For by your own admission all your words are meaningless. I am afraid there would be more value in chatting to a parrot: at least the parrot isn't pretending to be imparting information.

Dear Watcher,

Have I stopped you, or anyone else from discussing other things which you find more interesting?

While you may not, other members of this forum find the topic of the existence of God most fascinating.

If you look back at my first post here, it was addressed to members such as Runner and ALGOREisRICH who commented earlier, and to other religious silent-readers of this thread. It meant to show them that there is no dichotomy between atheism and religion. It was to tell them not to waste time worrying whether God exists or not, for religion is about LOVING God, not about materializing Him, that such attempts to materialize God are an error and in fact detract one from the path.

My words are indeed meaningless to those who only want to hear about the world, but for those who have ears to hear, they are full of meaning.

If you find contradictions in what I said, you are welcome to point them out.

I will continue to discuss here with those who want to discuss issues with me, on a rational level with those who so prefer, and on a heart level with others who so prefer. If you are unhappy with this, you may ask Graham to kick me out.

Yuyutsu, this discussion, as Eccles64 pointed out with some annoyance, is supposed to be about The Australian Book of Atheism, not a forum for trolls to take over.

If you wish to discuss meaningless anti-concepts such as loving something that doesn't exist or nonsense like there is no dichotomy between contradictory positions, go start your own discussion as a new topic.

AJ Philips

“I’m well aware of that, Philip.” (AJP)

No, AJP Philips, you were not aware of that, or you would not have written,

“The big bang theory asserts no such thing… No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.”

So either you were not aware of the implications or you were trying to bluff your way out, i.e. using deceit in your arguments.

You should take your very own advice seriously, “Come back when you understand science a little better and can provide arguments without fallacies.”

Further, your arguments can’t get very far since you’re arguing from ignorance and also wasting the time of those of us in the forum with deceitful statements.

The Big Bang theory and its significance to leading physicists and cosmologists

Albert Einstein had to admit he made an error soon after evidence confirms the big bang theory.

“Einstein chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.” He wrote: “The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble’s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).” After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.” (Fred Heeren)

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
(Albert Einstein)

The Nobel prize for physics was awarded to John Mather and George Smoot in 2006 for their contribution to the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. Smoot is a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote

"The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated" (p. 135)…Until the late 1910's, humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn't take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning" (p. 30).” Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation. Smoot and Davidson)

My, my, Philip. You creationists become such vicious creatures when cornered. Jesus would be proud.

<<No, AJP Philips, you were not aware of that, or you would not have written,

“The big bang theory asserts no such thing… No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.”>>

Yes, I said that. In fact, I’ll say it again:

The big bang theory asserts no such thing. No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.

And once more for good luck:

The big bang theory asserts no such thing. No one knows if there was a beginning and no credible scientist would assert that.

Why?

Because as I said before, I was responding to your assertion that the big bang proved god and your assertion would only have been somewhat intelligible if you were approaching from the belief that there was nothing before the big bang - something we don’t know. But if you were taking this into account, then please, by all means, explain how the big bang suggests there is a god.

What kind of an idiot would honestly think that an expanding universe didn't start it's expansion from a singularity, anyway? You're really pushing [insert expletive here] up hill - to save your own hide - if you honestly think you could convince others of that.

Show me once where I have used deceit?

Show me once where I have used a fallacy?

Show me once where I have used an argument from ignorance?

Or take back your claims. Baring false witness is a sin, remember, Philip?

I just love it, when man can not see beyond his own developments:)

BLUE

So what I meant by that last post was....mankind no-longer needs little stories to justify his exsistance. The bible has served its purpose and now its all about the politics and the money it makes. See the unfortunate believer has been brain-washed into this enchanted security blanket by no fault of their own.......its the big-wigs of the church that are the child-molesting scum-bags that need to be hung up by their buster browns.

The extinction of religion will happen in its own time, and no-more will it shine thanks to evolution......In-fact....its plain and simple that Atheism brings proof that mankind is evolving just as Darwin has suggested.........and of those who still need an invisible friend.......one can only conclude that for them"...(religious people)....and they are not as advanced as they think they are.

Oh....aren't the poor people of this earth that are in need of something new:)

Please forgive them lord....for they not know what they do.........and I don't think you take that out of context;)

Now for some light entertainment.

There once was a priest, a minister, and a rabbi fishing in a boat together.

One day, the priest said, "I'm thirsty," and stepped out of the boat. He then walked on water and took a drink from a booth on the beach.

The next day, the minister said, "I'm thirsty," and stepped out of the boat. He then walked on water and also took a drink from a booth on the beach.

On the third day, the rabbi said, "I'm thirsty". But as soon as he stepped out of the boat, he drowned.

The minister looked at the priest and said, "Think we shoulda told him where the rocks were?"

BOOM,BOOM:)

BLUE

Now for some really funny jokes:)

An old preacher was dying. He sent a message for his doctor and his lawyer to come to his home. When they arrived, they were ushered up to his bedroom.

As they entered the room the preacher held out his hands and motioned for them to sit, one on each side of his bed. The preacher grasped their hands, sighed contentedly, smiled and stared at the ceiling.

For a time, no one said anything. Both the doctor and lawyer were touched and flattered that the preacher would ask them to be with him during his final moments. They were also puzzled; the preacher had never given them any indication that he particularly liked either of them.

They both remembered his many long, uncomfortable sermons about greed, covetousness and avaricious behavior that made them squirm in their seats.

Finally, the doctor said, "Preacher, why did you ask us to come?

The old preacher mustered up his strength, then said weakly, "Jesus died between two thieves.. and that's how I want to go."

BOOM,BOOM:)

BLUE:)

Two Christians have lived very good, and also very healthy lives. They die, and go to heaven.

As they are walking along, marvelling at the paradise around them, one turns to the other and says "Wow. I never knew heaven was going to be as good as this!"

"Yeah", says the other. "And just think, if we hadn't eaten all that oat bran we could have got here ten years sooner."

and last but not least...A drunk stumbles along a baptismal service on Sunday afternoon down by the river.
He proceeds to walk into the water and stand next to the preacher. The minister notices the old drunk and says, "Mister, are you ready to find Jesus?"

The drunk looks back and says, "Yes, preacher, I sure am."

The minister dunks the fellow under the water and pulls him right backup.

"Have you found Jesus?" the preacher asks.

"Nooo, I didn't!" said the drunk.

The preacher then dunks him under for quite a bit longer, brings him up, and says, "Now, brother, have you found Jesus?"

"Noooo, I have not, reverend."

The preacher, in disgust, holds the man under for at least 30 seconds this time, brings him out of the water, and says in a harsh tone, "My God, man, have you found Jesus yet?"

The old drunk wipes his eyes and says to the preacher, "Are you sure this is where he fell in?

BLUE

So, I keep hearing the voice of Dave Allen, who most clearly is still at large....

Rusty

Dave Allen.
"His Holiness" Dave Allen, paid by the Vatican, the No; 2 Account, the Irish Comedian with nine and a half fingers. I have "His Holiness" on DVD. I had the pleasure of seeing him on stage in Melbourne - one man show, Dave sitting on that stool with his glass of "Holy Water". The show ran for about 3 hours and Jesus, did he take the Mickey out of the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church and the Book of Genesis. Then he finished up by saying: "Now you know why I'm Atheist, Good night, Good luck and may your God go with you".
I left the theatre so hoarse I couldn't speak.

He now sitteth at the right hand of the LORD attempting to convert Him to Atheism and telling Him what a terrible job He did with that bible of his, making it into the worst book of fiction ever written.

The poor old Dave Alan....just loved his work.

So, I keep hearing the voice of Dave Allen, who most clearly is still at large....

Rusty

Yes, I was going to put a Irish tone to it....but you both worked it out.

The Australian Book of Atheism.....Well the mankind started out with Atheism, someone invented 2500 plus gods....and its fair to say Atheism is where it will finish.

To be evolved......is nothing to be ashamed of:)

BLUE