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.