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".