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.