(Extract)
The Atheist Foundation of Australia wishes the non-religious and religious alike a very merry Christmyth season. Many people are unaware that the tradition is drawn from celebrations surrounding the pagan Saturnalia and was usurped by Christianity around the 4th Century CE.
(Full article here: http://atheistfoundation.org.au/media-release/merry-christmyth/)

David

Hi David,

I thought I'd jump in and wish you a very Happy
Festive Season and all the Best for the New Year.
I think it was CJ Morgan who first introduced
the concept of Saturnalia on OLO. CJ passed away
some time ago - and your mentioning myths - brought
back quite a few memories. As CJ would say,
"A Merry Mistress, And A Happy All Year!"
Cheers.

Merry festive season David. Just a seasonal comment re Xmas and religions.

The term atheist is a logical nonsense, as is the term theist. How can you be a committed believer or non believer with absolutely no proof one way or the other?

Agnostic is the descriptive the thinking man goes with I believe.

It isn't just proof that is lacking, sonofgloin.

>>The term atheist is a logical nonsense, as is the term theist. How can you be a committed believer or non believer with absolutely no proof one way or the other?<<

Evidence for the existence of a supreme being is in particularly short supply also, would you not agree?

In the absence of the slightest skerrick of evidence - even circumstantial evidence, the weakest form of all - the logical course is to accept that gods do not exist.

>>Agnostic is the descriptive the thinking man goes with I believe.<<

Nah.

Agnosticism is merely a lack of courage to believe anything at all. Far from being the choice of the "thinking man", it is a position that requires absolutely no thought whatsoever.

Lexi,

Thanks and I return the good wishes. Yes, it is important to acknowledge and celebrate existence the whole year round.

David

sonofgloin,

A Merry Christmyth to you also. But I do wonder what “thinking man” you were referring to. Could it be the ‘thinking man’ that doesn't understand the difference between philosophy and practicality or is it the ‘thinking man’ who is unable to make a choice with the idea of gods but has no trouble with fairies and past and present gods of other cultures and the myriad of other mythological beings and entities. Or is the ‘thinking man’ who assumes that there is some kind of equal situation with the existence or not of gods.

Maybe you can elaborate.

David

Yes thanks to all and a merry xmas.
CJ Morgan had it right.
Long before it became Christmas it was a partying time.
Lets enjoy, non of us can know if it is our last.

Definition of an Atheist."Belief in disbelief". The existance of some god is irrelevant to me.The god botherers and the atheists all miss the point.Atheists have set themslves up to destroy other notions of religion or spirituality.I don't presume to be that wise.

The religious nuts use their imaginary father in the sky to control and pervert our societies.

Life is a journey,enjoy the moment and do your best to help your fellow humans.

Arjay,

Your definition of atheism is quite strange to say the least. Atheists are merely waiting for the evidence; there is no wisdom involved. The purported existence of a god may be irrelevant to you but to those who do consider their version of a god exists, it is far from irrelevant.

“The religious nuts use their imaginary father in the sky to control and pervert our societies.”

Yes there is a basic truth in that but how does your attitude help to reign in religion from perverting society, “Life is a journey, enjoy the moment and do your best to help your fellow humans. “

Atheists recognise the problem with religion and have decided to react against it. They are standing up to be counted. In fact, a world Atheist Census went online about a week ago and a DoS (denial of service) attack took it down until today. I'm sure it wasn't atheists who were responsible. It can be viewed here. http://www.atheistcensus.com/

It will be well worth watching over the coming years.

David

It seems that it is the lot of some to story-tell and develop myths. Lexi and Belly are mythmaking to build their own 'departed' guru. Are they the few anointed faithful waiting for the return of their own Godot, who comes by the most unlikely name of Morgan?

Hey children, there is nothing preventing you from doing what you want to do as long as it is lawful. No need to wait for the non-return of your spiritual leader. Or is that the car of that name? It might make more sense if it was :)

I am wondering though if the 'Lets Burn Christians' game being played here extends to all religions. Or is it deemed 'progressive' for the ritual burning to be restricted to Christians?

onthebeach,

You have mentioned the name Christian twice and I have mentioned it once but only because it is the season of Christmyth.

To atheists, all religions fail the same lack of evidence test, some are more problematical to civilisation than other but we happen to live in Australia where Christianity is the main culprit.

Have you a point I to make I have missed.

David

Sonofgloin and Pericles,

May I refer you both to the Webster dictionary definition of atheist?
One who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or Gods.
My partner is agnostic, which is very different.
I stand by my statement that I am an atheist as defined in the dictionary.
This does not prevent me from respecting different opinions on the issue, and I especially respect the whole planet I live on, and everything above, on, and under this earth as far as it is possible to do.
BTW, I'm also an avid organic gardener. Our excess produce is taken to the Food Bank. So,can I have some brownie points back please?

Arjay,

Where do you dream up these ideas? Give me one example of an atheist starting a war. Like you, we quietly live and enjoy our lives, and help others if and when we can. My "godbotherer" friends live by different beliefs, but I wouldn't class any of them as bad people. Oh yes, and we all appear to enjoy the 'moment' most of the time too.

And I'm certainly going to enjoy the holiday courtesy of religion.

David,

For someone who wants to talk science and evidence you seem evasive in your reply.

To make it simple, you only burn Christians. Is that correct?

You don't make up similar silly and offensive plays on the names of important days for other religions?

You haven't planned anything similarly offensive to burn Muslims on Prophet's Day, for instance? This is a list of the major religious days, many are missed, but it is a guide. What about you tell us which ones you would capitalise on to challenge 'religion' and which ones you would rule out and why?

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-multicultural-australia/calendar-australia/

The Australian Human Rights Commission has this to say about religion,

"Freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right protected by a number of international treaties and declarations, including article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This right encompasses freedom of thought on all matters and the freedom to manifest religion and belief individually or with others, in public or in private.

The right to freedom of religion is supported by the right to non-discrimination on the grounds of religion, contained in article 26 of the ICCPR.

International human rights law also protects people against the promotion of religious hatred which amounts to incitement of discrimination, hostility or violence (ICCPR, article 20)."

Speaking for myself, while I do not necessarily share the beliefs of others I am more than happy to be accepting and tolerant. Most seem to do no harm and there is a lot of good done especially for old and vulnerable people, especially during Christmas. As far as your group is concerned, I can't see how being rude and offensive to people for their beliefs could assist your credibility and standing in the community at all.

However that is your choice and I would defend your right to offend, although you do seem quite one-eyed and gutless in your choice of target.

>>You don't make up similar silly and offensive plays on the names of important days for other religions?<<

Banana-Ramadan? Best I can do.

Cheers,

Tony

David, no need to thank me for setting the Xmas cat among the Xmas pigeons, or doves.

Once again how can you be definitive when there is no closure one way or the other? So theist or atheist, the term is a nonsense in practice and gives only a descriptive of a thought process. One relies on faith and one relies on rebuttal based around incredulity, neither thought process relies on facts.

Amazingly I have managed to insult both camps with one post....agnostic is the correct description given an atheist would change their thought process if actual events that defied physics as we know it materialized. So I stay on the fence at the agnostic end.

Dave, I am a thinking man, theists and atheists are emotionally driven. The “thinking man” tag was not intended as an insult to intelligence, but a descriptive of a thought process. If you can’t prove or disprove something you cannot be sure of your legitimacy in thought.

As Arjay mentioned, atheists are committed to ridiculing something that they can not disprove.

My, my, full of self-righteous indignation aren't we onthebeach?

While most atheists I know quite like Christmas as a social celebration (if not the actual religious bits), you can surely understand that in Australia and western countries they tend to take aim at Christianity more than others because:
1) Christianity is by far the most dominant religion in the countries they live in
2)It also tends to be the one they know most about and are familiar with, i.e. their own own cultural background

I know quite a few ex-Muslim and ex-Hindu atheists that wouldn't dream of making fun of Christianity, but will certainly go to town on their own cultural backgrounds. After all, I don't think they learnt much about our silly traditions in their Sunday schools, but we did.

I think that you should realise this before you get all up and offended that someones making fun of your religion and noone elses. After all it is Christmas.

maybe the atheist should celebrate the earths sudden appearance on anyday and call it random chance day. Just don't advertise the odds as it will make you look very silly.

It's not all tinsel and glitter, onthebeach, and happy National Day of Qatar and Niger to you. Spare a thought on 26 December for all those observing Zarathurst No Disco mourning the death of Zoroaster. I don't know what happened to his horse Toranado.

(By the way, sonofgloin, I did my best to disprove belief on Immaculate Conception Feast Day on 8 December.)

Of course Hindus are lucky and get from 21 to 25 December for their Panza (Sancho) festival - ingored on the DOIC calendar.

Islam? Do you agree that Rama Lama Ding Dong isn't fulfilling?

Maybe you could just accept that Jesus would be miffed it took his followers four centuries to get his birthday wrong, as well as that anyone and anything worthwhile can survive satire and ridicule.

SoG,

You clearly don't understand the concept of the burden of proof. 

It is theists who still have it all to prove. Atheism, in its stronger form, is simply the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence; in its weaker form, it is merely a lack of belief (i.e. someone who doesn't know what they believe, doesn't care, or has never even heard of the concept of a God). Atheism has nothing to prove or disprove.

Contrary to what you think, too, agnosticism is not a fence-sitting position. Agnosticism and gnosticism go to what you know, while theism and atheism go to what you believe.

So it's unfortunate, given what I've said above, that you feel you can stand on high and claim to be a "thinking man". Thinking only works when you have the basics right, and thinking man would at least understand what the 'burden of  proof' was and to whom it applied. 

onthebeach,

‘Evasive” in my reply, really? Is that the best you can do; that is, make up stuff?

And what a silly phrase, “burn Christians”. I assume you mean rubbish them but use the term burn for effect as you really don’t have a case. I ‘burn’ Christianity and all the other religions and not the adherents. That you take it personally is really your problem.

If I have to continue explaining and restating what I have written, I'm afraid we will part company. But, for your dull benefit. Christianity is the dominant religion in Australia as others have pointed out.

Why you quote the Human Rights Commission is a mystery to me. Do you feel persecuted because you cannot defend your ‘faith’ from the naughty atheists? Are you that insecure in the beliefs you hold? How sad.

I think you should take notice of the harm your ‘beliefs’ are doing in Australia let alone the harm ‘beliefs’ in general are doing to the planet and its people. Take off the blinkers would be a very good idea.

Don’t look now, but everyone has the right to be offended. You do not have a special right not to be. You only think you have.

David

sonofgloin,

You need to do a bit more reading and I mean that in the best way possible. I have said this before but I’ll repeat it. One can be agnostic philosophically about all kinds of ideas. The normal examples are fairies, other gods, monsters and entities etc. But practically speaking, normal thinking people are not agnostic about those classes but consider they do not exist.

Without going into the arguments against the idea of a god as the supreme head of the universe, people who have studied the evidence arrive at the conclusion such a being does not exist most probably.

When I say most probably, that denotes a far bigger chance of a god not existing than a plane I'm in would crash. We all use the highest probability of outcome with nearly everything we do. We do this with our own experience or trust in the experience of others, say, the engineers who built the plane.

Therefore, to jump to the conclusion that a god cannot be known to exist or not is special pleading. (If you don’t know about this, look it up) Our culture primes us to think this way.

Atheists cannot conclusively disprove the existence of any of the gods but they can see the damage done by those who believe without evidence a particular one does exist. Adherents of gods are blind to the damage. Such is human nature.

David

David

May I suggest that atheism is an alternate (my sixth) model of god – the null model?

These models are
1. Monarchical- A king and his Kingdom
2. Deistic- A clockmaker and a clock
3. Dialogic – one person and another person and
4. Agent – an agent and his actions (or a self and his body)
5. The social model of process philosophy/theology, in which God’s relation to the world is thought of as analogous to the relation between an individual and a community.
6. The null model of God - no God.

This argument could of course lead to your foundation having a basis for claiming tax deductibility (unless the foundation has already claimed such).

By the way; Thomas Huxley who invented/coined the word Agnostic in 1869 said
“Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”

'Atheists cannot conclusively disprove the existence of any of the gods but they can see the damage done by those who believe without evidence a particular one does exist. Adherents of gods are blind to the damage. Such is human nature. '

Unfortunately also totally blinded to the fruit of their own godless dogmas (ie suicide, immorality, perversion etc etc).

I think the phrase 'burn Christians', as a perjorative for persecuting them is also a curious one, as I think it may be a reference to the Christian tradition of burning witches.

I think the traditional methods of persecuting Christians is by crucifixion, stoning or throwing them into stadiums to be ripped apart by lions or other starving wild animals for entertainment.

The thing is that Christianity is built on persecution, they need to feel persecuted one way or another, otherwise they tend to lose faith. Weird aint it?

David,

That's rather a provocative lisp you've developed...

Dicko,

You can suggest six models of god but I’m not sure how helpful that is to anything. One has to accept the idea of a god before being modelled by it.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has taxation concession on interest held in bank accounts much the same as some football clubs.

Huxley lived at a time when to state atheism publically would at the very least placed one in an uncomfortable social position. Darwin withheld writing ‘Origin of Species” for 20 years because of this constraint and those of a more personal nature but revolving around the same thing.

Although, I think dear old Thomas was a lot smarter than most people consider when they first look at that quote. He uses the proviso, “…without regard to any other consideration…” which of course is a nonsense as there are always or nearly always other considerations. Thomas Huxley was merely pointing out the philosophical truth that nothing can be known absolutely. He didn't live using that as a rule and neither does anyone else who has twigged to its impractical nature.

David

Poirot,

“That's rather a provocative lisp you've developed”

It isn’t a lisp; it’s only the reaction of the facts interfering with fantastical thinking. It’s a perception of a lisp, if you like. :)

David

Lexi my dear,

Seems we've stirred up some very spirited debate, which I'm sure wasn't your intention, and certainly not mine.

Just want to assure you that I'm not affiliated with David or his group - just a loner, and find the the growing intensity of various comments regarding this subject rather amusing.
Certainly wan't my intention in my reply to your post to be provocative, but after reading the comments which followed it would seem this subject has touched a nerve with some members.

Regardless, as I also believe the world will not end on the 21st December,I am with you in wishing everyone a happy and peaceful holiday. As the carol says, Peace on earth, and goodwill to all men. Just loved going through the streets singing carols at Christmas as a child.

(My apologies, I put this on the 'Religion do we need it?' thread by mistake.)

"Just want to assure you that I'm not affiliated with David or his group - just a loner"

Of course you are not affiliated with the AFA, after all, you are a worldwatcher - not a worldhelper apparently. ;)

David

Dear worldwatcher,

I haven't posted on this thread recently. I've
posted at the very beginning to wish David (and everyone)
Seasons Greetings. And David graciously returned the
Greetings. However, I'm not surprised to read emotive
posts on what people believe. I guess like politics -
people can get a bit carried away. I've been raised on
certain rituals and traditions that I find comforting.

Christmas carols can still bring a tear to my eyes.
Especially recently, while attending a Christmas lunch
in a Nursing Home - where the elderly residents sang
with such feeling - the very moving, "Silent Night."

Anyway, I've known David for some time (since joining
this forum) and his posts have always been well reasoned.
From memory, I believe David was raised
as a Catholic.

David,

Your post presumes you know me personally as only a watcher not a helper, and in reality you couldn't be further from the truth but I don't feel it necessary to explain to you why you are so wrong.

However, I'm sure we've never met, as I choose both aquaintances and friends carefully.

Your other preceding comments on this thread provide good reason not to be affiliated with your organisation in any way.

Base any further observations on known facts, not premise please, as vitriol is such an unbecoming attitude for adults to display, and certainly will not further any agenda you may harbour.

worldwatcher,

"Just want to assure you that I'm not affiliated with David or his group - just a loner"

Yes, make sure you are not associated with me because........

Maybe you can fill in the because with some facts and not loose accusations. I'm sure that way we will be able to get along fine.

David

Sorry David, I have no interest in 'going round and round the mulberry bush' with you. Pointless confrontation and point scoring is just not my style.

David,

It is telling that you have to make me one of your hated Christians to criticise and insult me. That is your political correctness coming to the fore isn't it?

Any query or criticism is automatically labelled as coming from the opposing and maligned side.

Political correctness, where all opinions are wrong except yours, the prevailing political correctness. Catch 22.

Then as an additional tactic to sidestep questions you feign impatience with the questioner's 'dullness' saying that you have answered everything on some previous occasion.

You have yet to answer the question why you sledge the Christians exclusively. It is easy to surmise that your offense has a cultural basis too. There are cultural traditions and religious beliefs you are obviously at pains not to offend. There must be some 'good' religions in your head space, right? That must be that 'Progressive' mind-set coming to the fore as part of your political correctness.

No, it is not convincing that you set out to offend Christians exclusively because they are more of them. But even of you do, what do you hope to gain except some personal jollies out of offending ordinary members of the public enjoying their beliefs or traditions?

Lexi,

You are correct. I was raised in a Catholic culture. It was certainly an experience but the very sad thing is that many of those I knew as youngsters are still trapped by its reward and punishment doctrine. It’s very effective if promoted in a ubiquitous manner and why shouldn't it be, it’s been honed to near perfection over the centuries. Nowadays the essential ubiquity part is missing and knowledge of the real world not so restricted. I guess that’s why the percentage of ex-Catholics is so strong on the Atheist Census website. http://www.atheistcensus.com/

“Christmas carols can still bring a tear to my eyes. Especially recently, while attending a Christmas lunch in a Nursing Home - where the elderly residents sang with such feeling - the very moving, "Silent Night."

I agree that the emotional side of religious music can be very enticing. A member of the AFA Committee who recently retired just loved Handel’s ‘Hallelujah Chorus’. He even bought me a copy which I play every now and then but not often. :)

David

worldwatcher,

I have no intention of going around the mulberry bush either, as that is not my style. I just asked of you to explain your comment. I'm not overly disappointed that you haven’t. Have a Merry Christmyth. Seriously.

David

onthebeach,

I don’t hate Christians. Your paranoia is showing. I dislike the effects of religion on people and planet. What inflexible opinions do I hold? Point out where I sledge Christians? Not sure how to say this (again and again) but Christianity is the dominant religion in Australia and the Atheist Foundation of Australia reacts accordingly.

Are you intimating the AFA doesn't pick up Islam when it needs it? Maybe read this thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14209&page=0#245943

I don’t consider any religion good but that doesn't imply a hatred of those who believe in them. I would love to help anyone who doesn't need religion to escape it.

Getting ones jollies has nothing whatsoever to do with this. You need to do more reading and work out why many atheists are not happy with religion.

David

sonof>> >>Agnostic is the descriptive the thinking man goes with I believe.<<

Pericles>> Nah. <<

Love it, I can imagine the utterance coming from your cerebral cortex with incredulity.....lol P.

David >>. Could it be the ‘thinking man’ that doesn't understand the difference between philosophy and practicality or is it the ‘thinking man’ who is unable to make a choice with the idea of gods but has no trouble with fairies.

Dave, a fair point.
Consider the prime reason that we can contemplate a god…..our consciousness.
Fairly early in the piece, at about the time that our ancestors started to bury their dead, humans knew that they were different. As opposed to the animals we understood that there was a tomorrow and we understood that we might not get there. At some stage we gazed at the night sky and considered what big is and how small we are…that is when our consciousness sought a benefactor. One we could beseech in times of trial, fact or fiction.

We still have that consciousness but we have given up believing in fairies and goblins…..but we can’t let go of a creator for some reason as this discussion examples some 100,000 years after the first concept of a creator was sparked. The thinking man adopts the consideration that physics is not all there is.

WW>> I stand by my statement that I am an atheist as defined in the dictionary<<

Stand or lay WW you have formed an opinion and turned it into a belief, as has the theists.
But to my mind it is rational to look at what we don’t understand….which is everything…. and leave all options open. The Big Bang produced matter from nothing, we aint seen that trick again, that is something to contemplate.

It's a great pity that David Nicholls is so anti-Christmas, as he would make a highly convincing Santa Claus...

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/david-nicholls/

Happy Christmas everyone. It's a great time to surround yourself with people whose company delights you.

Oh, and because it is the season of goodwill, try to include some relatives as well...

Enjoy.

ONTB>> Speaking for myself, while I do not necessarily share the beliefs of others I am more than happy to be accepting and tolerant. Most seem to do no harm and there is a lot of good done especially for old and vulnerable people, especially during Christmas. As far as your group is concerned, I can't see how being rude and offensive to people for their beliefs could assist your credibility and standing in the community at all <<

That’s the way I see it too.

David,

From your personal abuse representing the grandiously titled "Foundation" I am left with the impression that it is a cowboy outfit probably only comprising yourself and a PC.

I notice that your web site gives precious little information on the "Foundation", but it does have the begging bowl prominently displayed.

For the record, exactly how many signed up current members does the "Foundation" have, who are the office holders, who are the sponsors, what is the annual operating budget and what reports are available on the disbursement of money collected by donation?

Yes I known, inconvenient questions and more insults will be incoming from you.

Dear Sonofgloin,

<<The term atheist is a logical nonsense, as is the term theist. How can you be a committed believer or non believer with absolutely no proof one way or the other?>>

Why so? There's this trivial primary-school proof (with numerous variations) that God does not exist:

{Can God create a stone that heavy that He could not lift?}

If God existed, then He could create that stone, which He could both lift and couldn't lift - a logical contradiction, therefore God does not exist (unless you consider God to be limited - we shall look at that case in a moment).

God's non-existence is essential for faith and spiritual development. Worshipping God on the grounds that He is believed to exist (or even likely to exist), is mundane. Performing certain activities such as prayers and sacrifices for the sake of receiving material benefits in return (either in this life or thereafter, it makes no difference), merely amounts to trade. Only pure worship that is performed for God's sake, for the love of God without expectation of rewards, counts as religion or spiritual progress.

As for the case of worshipping a limited god, one who is bound by the laws of physics or in the least by the laws of logic, I find no interest in such god.
Yes, one should probably be agnostic about it while leaning in the direction that such a being does not exist.

Perhaps, against all reasonable odds, there's such a being who, despite certain limitations, created a universe or two: so what?!
Would there be a reason to worship that being? perhaps, but then it would just be an ordinary material reason, not a spiritual one.

If a limited god existed, then despite him/her being, from a material point-of-view, much stronger, much faster, much more knowledgeable, much more intelligent than us, etc., despite even creating and maintaining this universe, still from a spiritual point-of-view, he/she would be equivalent and no different to any of us, thus not worthy of worship - one should worship God alone, rather than existence or any part thereof.

SoG writes: "The thinking man adopts the consideration that physics is not all there is."

Yes, and the thinking man also understands that this doesn't make the existence of gods any more likely.

The thinking man would understand that it is a fallacy to think that gods deserve more consideration than fairies and goblins just because a lot of people have believed in them for a long time.

The argumentum ad populum fallacy, to be precise.

The thinking man would also be able to spot important distinctions between mythical creatures and Gods, such as the fact that fairies and goblins tend not to make very good celestial dictators for authorities to exercise control over populations, or populations to exercise control over each other, or celestial father figures to comfort those who have not otherwise been provided with the adequate tools to cope with the hardships some of us may face in life.

Nor do they provide an explanation - however fallacious and unsubstantiated - for why we're here; relieving us from the discomfort of not knowing something.

Merry Christmas to all and a safe and prosperous New Year.

To the odd naughty goblin intent on wreaking mischief.. well, have a few cold ones anyway and try to at least enjoy your own company.

I might add, SoG, that it's quite a stretch for you to claim the position of a "thinking man" when all your position on this matter does is relieve you of having to think.

It's a position of intellectual laziness - and dare i say, cowardice - that hides behind a pretense of open-mindedness and virtuousness, while lacking the ability to ever accomplish anything. 

Dear David,

I fully understand. I guess organised religions have
become, in many cases, as calcified as other
institutions that form the structure of our modern
world. Our religious institutions
have far too often become handmaidens
of the status quo.

I've come to see that true religion is
internal, not external. The spirit within us can't be
blamed for the blasphemies carried out in its name.
What some have done in the name of religion, projecting
their neuroses, even perpetrating evil on the world,
does not make religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid.

I don't want to impose my views on anyone else, I think
whatever one believes - it's a very personal choice.
For me, I can't turn away from religion for the simple
reason that I find that life without a conscious awareness
of God is difficult and religion is theoretically where to
find Him.

Anyway, once again - to everyone posting - may you enjoy
this Festive Season with friends, family, and loved ones,
and may the New Year be filled with Goodwill towards all!

I absolutely loathe people who post threads like this. You do NOTHING of use to anyone and you only waste internet space. You are the lowest. Shame.

sonofgloin,

“…but we can’t let go of a creator for some reason as this discussion examples some 100,000 years after the first concept of a creator was sparked.”

Luckily, education is a part of the AFA’s mandate. A reasonably recent survey of the Academy of Sciences, top people in their fields, had a belief in a god at about 7%. Naturally enough, this wasn’t the young earth type god. The less educated population of the USA has a belief in a god at about 80%. Are you still with me as this is very simple but important? What this means is that a healthy education about science inoculates humans against both evolutionary proclivities to accept woo and enculturation that does likewise.

Unless there is a huge global disaster the increase in people who do not accept the god hypothesis will grow at the extraordinary rate we are witnessing right now.

What are these people in the majority who are giving away religion? Are they atheists agnostics? Early days but, the answer to that question is here. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0

Why is that so, well, it is because many folk can recognise the difference between reality and the unreality of absolute-notions.

So, saying “we can’t let go of a creator” is a personal statement that covers people who are uneducated in the sciences and philosophy. The nightly TV news shows this as true. Science education is the solution.

The AFA doesn’t go out of its way to offend religious people but the problem is, if there is a hint of any statement against faith held concepts, religious people become quite stroppy. The more basic the religion, i.e. some parts of Islam, the more likely such statements will attract a minority to object violently to them. But Christianity also gets jumpy when its tenets are questioned. We see it on this Forum. Only a century or so, as with the case of Charles Darwin, religion didn't allow criticism. Times have changed and religion has no choice in the matter.

Everyone should have the chance to be free from childhood indoctrination of religion.

David

AJP>> It's a position of intellectual laziness - and dare i say, cowardice - that hides behind a pretense of open-mindedness and virtuousness, while lacking the ability to ever accomplish anything.<<

C'mon AJ, where can this thread go given the ethereal nature of the subject matter? As I mentioned religions are called faiths for obvious reasons and the atheists thoughts are opinions for exactly the same reason. There is no validation, nor even fact based hypothesis, there are only opinions, yet theists and atheists claim the high ground with personal observations.

My personal observations are that the subject is centre ball, not proven or disproven

Firstly let me offer my sincere thoughts of goodwill to all for the 365 days of the year after year. So what, you might ask? Well as we all know there are many forces at work on the planet which in terms of commonly accepted humane values are counterproductive. I would wish that all people on the planet could be valued simply for their human potential and qualities. That they be free of oppression, slavery, exploitation, poverty, hopelessness, pain, murder and militarism, the list goes on.

One might ask where does the concept of human value come from, I cant answer for everybody but for me it came partly from family influence but more so from a learned understanding of the life of Christ as portrayed in the New Testament. I do not feel it necessary to practice religion but have no issue with those who do.

It is not the detail in itself that I subscribe to but the philosophical principles which I drew from the story. Put simply "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It is the political manipulation of religion by evil practioners that is the problem.

In terms of believing in any concept of an overarching Godhead the question hinges heavily for me in whether this incredidly complex universe of which we are a part has occurred and is sustained to this point, by accident or alternatively by some design and purpose, I would like to believe the latter.

At this time of artificial good cheer spare a thought for the poor sods whose lives will be destroyed by the bullets and bombs of warring factions, a carnage largely supported by our so called allies. Children and women and men who will not make it to Dec. 25 whether they believe in God or not.
Den71

Dave, it is no surprise that intellectuals flee from a creator.

It is no surprise that the humble, feeble, and lower economic strata flocks to a promise.

May I add that an IQ of over 130 is not solely the domain of the intellectual? There are a load of professors out there that never had the opportunity to be formally educated.

David>> Why is that so, well, it is because many folk can recognise the difference between reality and the unreality of absolute-notions.<<

Absolute notions? What does that mean tiger?

How can you bring the term “absolute” into a concept based on gossamer?

You have an absolute opinion, and that is about that.

Let me remind you of just one absolute from recent the past:

For two generations it has been a standard belief that the neutron, an electrically neutral elementary particle and a primary component of an atom, actually carries a positive charge at its center and an offsetting negative charge at its outer edge.
That changed in 2007 when it was discovered that the neutron has a negative charge both in its inner core and its outer edge, with a positive charge sandwiched in between to make the particle electrically neutral.

Big change from an accepted scientific fact that physicists held for 50 years.

David>> So, saying “we can’t let go of a creator” is a personal statement that covers people who are uneducated in the sciences and philosophy. The nightly TV news shows this as true. Science education is the solution.<<

Nightly news Dave…really.

OTB,
Atheism is critical of mainstream Christianity because it is itself nothing but a sect of Christianity, the "arguments" are internal doctrinal disputes.
Atheists don't believe in God and Jesus but they believe everything in all the other Christian mumbo jumbo about liberty, equality and the family of man. Atheism is probably closer to a pure version of Christianity, in it's current form it's certainly the most stripped back version of Christianity, no God, no Jesus, just pure faith.

onthebeach,

“…it is a cowboy outfit probably only comprising yourself and a PC.”

And you say you have looked at the AFA website. Engage mind and look again. http://atheistfoundation.org.au/contact/

AFA Committee Members, to be on the AFA Committee, sign a long standing Privacy Charter which disallows anything about members, including numbers, from leaving the Committee room.

The AFA has been in existence for over 30 years and is the undisputed largest atheist organisation in Australia. A small amount of checking will confirm this without a doubt.

The Committee of Management take minutes and all financial and other details are available to members.

What is the “begging bowl prominently displayed”. Unlike most organisations we don’t even ask for donations.

I’m only stating the above, not for you, but for others who read these posts. You are only after something to nail the AFA with. Tough luck, you haven’t.

Your time would be better spent educating yourself about religion firstly and then, atheism.

David
PS. I gave the wrong URL in my last post. It should have been http://www.atheistcensus.com/

Lexi,

It would be wonderful if religion could be kept internal. I would then be out of a job. But, alas, it is not so.

David

StG.

“I absolutely loathe people who post threads like this. You do NOTHING of use to anyone and you only waste internet space. You are the lowest. Shame.”

Your personal opinion is noted. My advice would be not to read or post on threads on which you find the contents uncomfortable.

David

DEN71,

“It is not the detail in itself that I subscribe to but the philosophical principles which I drew from the story. Put simply "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".”

That is the cornerstone of civility instead of anarchy. It is an idea that preceded the Bible by thousands of years. The problem is not with that simple but relevant statement but with the religious baggage accompanying it.

David

onthebeach,

As I say, you need to educate yourself. Science is forever refining itself. That is what science is about.

David

Jay Of Melbourne

Hi Jay, I have no problems with atheism. Equally I have no problems with religion. As long as there is no change to our secular state and the authoritarians from either side leave us alone I am reasonably happy. Live and let live. I am willing to celebrate all festive occasions.

However it is worth observing that as a regular community volunteer I am forever meeting parishioners from the Christian churches at the sharp end. We never hear any sermons or attempts at conversion from them.

While some must get a buzz out of annoying Christians as in this thread, they do a lot of the heavy lifting in community work helping people who are down, particularly the aged and vulnerable who live alone, forgotten by relatives and probably isolated by illness and disability.

Maybe if the Grinch responsible for this thread could divert some of his own time and the donations his "Foundation" receives to helping people. It is Christmas.

SoG,

You could save us both a lot of time here if you'd only stop tap dancing around the issue of the 'burden of proof' (why a genuine fence-sitter would feel the need to be intellectually dishonest in such a way is beyond me).

<<...where can this thread go given the ethereal nature of the subject matter>>

Many places.

We could help demonstrate the improbability of a god existing or being found in the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge (myself and others have done this countless times on OLO). Some may learn a bit of history regarding the pre-christian roots of Christmas. We might even help a genuine fence-sitter decide where they stand; making that one less person willing to sit back and let religion ride roughshod over everything with its baseless assertions unearned respect. 

Just because we may never be able to reach absolute certainty regarding the existence of Gods, that doesn't mean we can't attain a high degree of it one way or the other.

That you are unable to see the shades of grey, and incapable of arguing without presuming absolutes at every turn, just goes to show how utterly vacuous your position is on this topic. 

<<...religions are called faiths for obvious reasons and the atheists thoughts are opinions for exactly the same reason.>>

Wrong. 

Religious beliefs are referred to as "faiths" because they are beliefs without - and sometimes in spite of - the available evidence. If a faith-based belief turned out to be true, then it would only be by pure dumb luck that this was so; it would be right, but for the wrong reasons and because of this, could still not be considered knowledge.

Opinions, on the other hand, can be right for the right reasons. Rejecting a claim as unsupported by the evidence, when there simply is no evidence, is but one example.

And no, the mysteries of the big bang are not evidence for a creator; to mistake them as such is to commit a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance.

Can't you people stop smearing your foul stench for one day?

And don't forget Coca-Cola invented the Santa suit of red-and-white.

I pity the children of atheists.
"No, Billy, you can't sit on Santa's lap.
That's just a commercial fabrication, based on a dedundant superstition.
And no candles on your birthday cake, either. Make a wish? Stupid nonsense! Bah!"

Maybe that's the reason for those Christmas suicide statistics we keep hearing about.

David,

No, I looked at the link you provided below your sig line. As well you know from what I said, "I notice that your web site gives precious little information on the 'Foundation', but it does have the begging bowl prominently displayed".

Once again, abuse from you. You admonish me to read what is on the AFA national site which was apparently a different site.

Then later you quietly note that you gave the wrong link previously. To your own site?

No apology from you for misleading through your own error though.

That suggests I was right all along, you are simply out to get attention through offending a soft target with your childish "Christmyth".

onthebeach,

I’ll attempt to wade through the inanity. (Sigh)

“Maybe if the Grinch responsible for this thread could divert some of his own time and the donations his "Foundation" receives to helping people. It is Christmas.”

Grinch indicates one is opposed to celebrating Christmyth. I have shown no such opposition to celebrations, in fact, I promote the festivities. Setting the record straight on what is being celebrated is the point of this thread. You seem to have missed that.

As a matter of fact, even though the AFA is an educational/philosophical organisation and not a philanthropic one, it does have a very proud history of donating to many worthy causes when it has available funds.

To clear your confused mind: This web page is that of the AFA and shows the names of people who run it.

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/contact/ As you will see (or probably have already but are keeping quiet about it), it is not just me and a liddle ol’ PC.

This web site is a product of Atheist Alliance International and it depicts the Atheist Census that has been running now for about three days. (It was taken off line by a DoS attack and I wonder who would do that to an atheist site! – certainly not atheists) I showed this one to demonstrate that atheist is the predominant category.

http://www.atheistcensus.com/

Your sensitivity to being shown you are incorrect, something that is becoming quite monotonous, is not abuse especially when you fail to answer questions. The “begging bowl” reference you made that is supposedly highlighted on the AFA website has not been substantiated by you yet.

When you are shown to be wrong you make no comment about that. This is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Prattling on about attention-seeking by the AFA or me is you defence for having no firm arguments and it wears thin. The ‘reds-under-the-bed’ mentality you continually display is very noticeable and is the result of induced religious attitudes. Blame them, not me.

Your obvious prejudice, is like a drunken person leaning on a lamppost, not for illumination, just for support.

David

Shockadelic,

What an odd bit of criticism to come from someone who grew up in a Jehovah's Witness household! I don't see you picking on them.

Unlike the atheists in your fictional scenario, they actually DO deprive their children of the magic of Santa Claus - as you would know all too well.

Furthermore, letting small children believe in Santa is seen by many atheists as an important part of their development, as they can later apply those acquired reasoning skills to gods.

By the way, what does the belief or disbelief in the power of wishes have to do with atheism?

David,

If I may just interrupt your swagger for a moment....sit down and have a cuppa.

I thought the folks might like to read your article on the atheist convention. It's not often we see someone imitating so precisely the people he so often disparages.

Here's David channelling an old-style revivalist meeting, replete with "powerful exquisite joy", "feelings varying from elation to euphoria" and "an afterglow which burns brightly."!

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13634

We all know what religion means for many young children, and it goes to the very top order.
Would have to be the worlds greatest con, for those that fall for it.
Merry christmyth to all, and that includes every-one

Poirot,

Thank you for reintroducing an article of mine. That is very thoughtful.

How nice to be stalked by you and maybe another. Waiting for a chance must be so frustrating for you. If you haven’t anything intelligent to say, and it appears you haven’t, why bother?

If you can’t appreciate that atheists can also be emotional, the same as can the religious, albeit for the appreciation of rationality and not imagination, then you must live a very glum life.

And goodness, “swagger”. How childish.

David

AFAInc: ”…is drawn from celebrations surrounding the pagan Saturnalia and was usurped by Christianity around the 4th Century CE.”

I thought it was about St Nick who was real and was known to give secret gifts?

Merry Xmas David btw.

I watched The Grey not long ago. Loved this scene from Laim Neeson…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMMdYWCV6Ng

(warning – loud swearing in it)

Au contraire, David,

I'm an atheist/agnostic-whatever, myself.

It's just that I noted your provocative tone.

"...stalked..."

Ho, ho, ho.

You started the thread. You're up for the debate. Pointing out a few of your own foibles is obviously off the agenda.

(I agree - "swagger" is a little childish - perhaps you should desist?)

The Pied Piper,

Merry Christmyth to you and to those you love and who love you.

With old Nick at least one can see the gifts…hey! Nicholas was third century bishop in Turkey who made wheat magically appear and is attributed with giving gifts and I believe that is where the idea of Santa originated. But being from the third century has a lot of myth surrounding him. No news there.

Liam was certainly frustrated by the one-sided conversation. Lot of people become atheist that way. :))

David

Poirot,

People do notice, I suppose you know. Stalking is one of the lowest forms of non-wit.

Try to keep it in check as difficult as that might be for you. It ain't pretty to watch.

David

David,

If I was going to stalk someone, it wouldn't be you.

I take it your "stop stalking me" defence is your fall-back mode, when you find someone criticises your style and you don't like it.

Poirot,

“If I was going to stalk someone, it wouldn't be you.”

Good to hear….but we shall see.

“I take it your "stop stalking me" defence is your fall-back mode, when you find someone criticises your style and you don't like it.”

No, wrong, I have never used the term before.

You are stalking me.

David

David,

I don't appreciate being accused of stalking - because you don't care for my earlier post.

maybe we should see what Graham thinks?

Poirot,

Don’t get me wrong, I have been stalked before on many occasions. It goes with the job of being president of the AFA. Such a position attracts stalkers of all kinds. However, you can claim a first in being the only one I have outed on a Forum about it.

“I don't appreciate being accused of stalking - because you don't care for my earlier post.”

Then don’t do it. Maybe you should look at the content of all your posts in regard to me. You accuse me of using the term ‘stalking’ as some kind of often-used defence, as a put down comment, as are most of or all of your other remarks about me (ad hominem – have you heard of that?) and instead of backing it up, you retort with the above. Pathetic.

Do you really believe I'm not going to defend myself from the likes of your consistent negative comments, the purpose of which is pandering to the lowest common denominator? If so, think again.

“maybe we should see what Graham thinks?”

Sure, why not, if the deep end of the pool is too tricky for you. I can’t see what that will do but fine by me.

David

Yuyutsu>> God's non-existence is essential for faith and spiritual development. Worshipping God on the grounds that He is believed to exist (or even likely to exist), is mundane. Performing certain activities such as prayers and sacrifices for the sake of receiving material benefits in return (either in this life or thereafter, it makes no difference), merely amounts to trade.<<

My mum who is 88 and in good physical condition for her age asked me a few months ago, “do you think there is a god”, followed closely by “I fear death”.
What could I say Y?

Mum had always been a religious woman, without being a zealot. So I told her what I knew she wanted to hear, but also my honest opinion on the subject. I asked her to think back to her childhood and the drays and horses that carried folks and goods around, I reminded her that that means of transport had been with us for thousands of years. I then told her to think about the space shuttle and all the technology that we have invented in her lifetime.

I suggested that we really could not get any smarter, but the natural progress that every new discovery brought, led us onto another and we are quickly and continually moving forward. I then told her about the big bang theory, the best our intellectuals could come up with as to where we came from.

Mum’s reply (that I used earlier in this thread) was simply this:
“So the scientists say that there was nothing and a split second later there was everything”
“Yes mum” I replied dutifully, “that’s the current popular theory”.

I won’t recount the rest, but in that void before the bang my mum found a space that could be what she believes in…..that was enough for me, I changed the subject.

Y, people worship for brownie points, redemption, social acceptance, or simply that they sincerely believe that this is not all there is…..and they could be right….or wrong. But it is their business.

AJ Philips>> We could help demonstrate the improbability of a god existing<<

AJ, I know not why you blue.

You stand neutered by your own verbiage....."IMPROBABILITY"..…”could demonstrate the improbability”, you say.

You may as well say “my guess is”.

Dear Sonofgloin,

<<My mum who is 88 and in good physical condition for her age asked me a few months ago, “do you think there is a god”, followed closely by “I fear death”. What could I say Y?>>

Tell her that she cannot die.

Tell her that she is likely to be back at the state she was in before she was born.

Tell her that only the body dies, and that without this body she will lose contact with this physical world - she will no longer receive any information about it and no longer be able to influence it, that she will no longer have memories or thoughts because these belong to this world, but otherwise nothing will change.

Tell her that now is therefore the time to do her best to bring her worldly affairs to a close the way she wants, that fear of death is in fact the fear of leaving this world with pending, incomplete issues behind.

Tell her to try and have what she misses and realistically still can have out of this world, but to completely let go of those other things that she cannot realistically have.

Tell her to fix everything now in her life and relationships in a way that she will not have any urge to come back to this world, to human existence or to any other existence, in order to fix the things she left behind.

Tell her that you are OK and will still love her after her body dies.

Tell her that it doesn't matter whether there is a God, but rather that God's love for her is always assured, regardless whether she has a body, whether in this or in any other world, or whether she rests without one.

A colleague has just brought my attention to the
following website. I thought it may be of some
interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/12/18/are-atheists-really-wrecking-christmas

AJ Philips “I don't see you picking on [Jehovah's Witnesses]

Keeping notes about my life history? Stop stalking me!

I have every reason to badmouth “The Truth”, as they call it.
However, unlike some people I don't feel the need to make my personal grievances a public crusade.

I fervently believe in the liberty of our citizens.
With liberty comes less-than-desirable consequences.
We just have to live with that.

And there's a bit of a difference between “religion” or a non-religious belief in “God/gods” and mind-control cults.
Strange how we hardly hear a peep from atheist spokespersons about them.
Warning people about cult techniques would be far more helpful than just badmouthing religion in general.

“what does the belief or disbelief in the power of wishes have to do with atheism?”

Aren't atheists the ones always going on about facts, evidence, reason?
Surely that applies to much more than the concept of God?
Aren't you going to be consistent in your child-rearing?

“the improbability of a god existing”

50% probability. They either do or don't exist.
What is the probability of being born a twin? 50%.
You either are or aren't a twin.

It doesn't matter what the statistical *frequency* of twin births is.
That's not “probability”, that's just collecting data about those *already* actually born twins.
Probability of twins 50%. Probability of gods 50%.

>>50% probability. They either do or don't exist.
What is the probability of being born a twin? 50%.
You either are or aren't a twin.

It doesn't matter what the statistical *frequency* of twin births is.
That's not “probability”, that's just collecting data about those *already* actually born twins.
Probability of twins 50%. Probability of gods 50%.<<

ROFLMAO

Probability of Shockadelic ever having a successful career as a professional gambler, bookmaker or mathematician: 0.

Cheers,

Tony

Maybe it would be a good idea to discontinue this thread.

It would now appear to be promoting ill-will among Forum members, although it has at times raised interesting points and vigorous discussion. However, it is now going beyond this and becoming rather distasteful.

Surely enough points of view have been made [ and scored ] already to satisfy one and all!

True, the Christmas spirit is somehow sadly lacking.

Perhaps this can help,
I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow(1807-1882), 1867

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.
I thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.
And in despair I bowed my head:
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men."
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men."
Till, ringing singing, on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime,
Of peace on earth, good will to men!

Go with the sentiments. There is no call for offending anyone who is going about their peaceful business and enjoying the Christmas tradition and spirit. If some have faith that sustains them, good for them. Anyhow, science now says that prayer can have beneficial effects. Others might choose meditation, or music. Whatever rocks your boat. We all make our choices and are responsible for them. Freedom.

Now to make those Christmas puddings as rich as last year. Where is that unbleached linen?

David,

I posted two comments on this thread before you labelled me a "stalker".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0#151274

and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0#151353

It's obviously a hilarious tactic to shut down criticism of your style by labelling fellow posters as stalkers. You're the one who can't handle the deep end, if that's your only strategy.

Btw, you really do have tickets on yourself. As if I could be bothered stalking a blowhard like you. That's the funniest thing anyone's posted to me in yonks.

SoG,

So long as you remain completely incapable of thinking outside a paradigm of absolutes, I suspect my attempts to explain to you where your thinking is confused will be as futile as trying to explain a 3-dimentional world to a 2-dimentional character.

Is your inability to think outside a paradigm of absolutes restricted to this topic alone? If so, then ask yourself why. I'd imagine the answer would be quite revealing. Sadly though, I suspect this is yet just another symptom of the undue privilege that religious beliefs enjoy; relieving them from ever having to abide by, or adhere to, the same standards and expectations that every other claim in the world has to.

This is why I find “fence-sitters” so irritating. They think their position is reasonable and righteous, yet in reality, it is counterproductive at best.

<<You may as well say “my guess is”.>>

There are varying degrees of guesses, ranging from wild stabs in the dark to near certainties. 

There is also the implication from you here that if we can't achieve absolute certainty, then there's no point in even trying to think.

Which is wrong, of course.

Shockadelic,

Sorry, I didn't mean to cut so deep with the whole Joho bit. But you have to admit, it was a pretty glaring inconsistency in your bizarre attack on atheism. 

<<Aren't atheists the ones always going on about facts, evidence, reason?>>

Not necessarily. You're thinking of rationalists and sceptics. Atheism only addresses whether or not one holds a belief in god(s); either they do or they don't (and no, that doesn't mean that 50% of people are atheists).

Personally, I consider myself to be a sceptic first and an atheist second. 

<<Aren't you going to be consistently in your child-rearing>>

Like the many other atheists I know of, I let my children believe in Santa because of the magic it provides them with while they're still innocent enough to enjoy it, and because the reasoning skills they may acquire in discovering that he doesn't really exist could prove useful when confronted with religious claims later in life. 

As for your understanding of percentages and probabilities... 

Wow! Just... Wow!

Poirot,

“I posted two comments on this thread before you labelled me a "stalker".”

This is pure you. Use basic evidence and try to make a case from it for the audience. You know I also mean earlier posts. Stop playing to the crowd.

Those two comments were inane and off topic may I remind you and maybe you should check back a bit further on other threads.

“It's obviously a hilarious tactic to shut down criticism of your style by labelling fellow posters as stalkers. You're the one who can't handle the deep end, if that's your only strategy.”

Oh, so I don’t use the ‘tactic’ as a given then. But you throw insults around as though you have every right to do so without knowing what you are talking about. And now you attempt to disguise that fact.

Being upset by my style as an excuse to act out your mental aggression towards me is so incredibly unbelievable as to be ridiculous. It's nothing more than dick-waving.

“Btw, you really do have tickets on yourself. As if I could be bothered stalking a blowhard like you. That's the funniest thing anyone's posted to me in yonks.”

Easy solution, if you are incapable of making relevant comment but can only come up with ad hominem phrasing, (still) then maybe you should stay away from my posts. I can’t imagine why you don’t.

Don’t think I'm going into discussion with you about this matter. That is only a ploy to try and extricating yourself from the very large hole you have dug. That is your sneaky style. I’d have a close look at myself if I were you. Being guilty of stalking is akin to internet bullying but with me that doesn't work. I don’t get intimidated that easily, rather, I fight back.

Trust me when I say this but I am quite disgusted with your methods.

David

David,

It wasn't my intention to upset you quite to the extent as you appear to be.

You have to admit that you are pretty "in your face" with your anti religious rhetoric. I thought it was fairly provocative to begin this thread - although you are right that people don't have to participate if they don't wish to. I assumed that as you appear to relish "debate" in this sphere that you could take a bit of ribbing regarding the organised flavour of the AFA and its affiliates.

I was obviously mistaken, and criticism of that kind is definitely not on your agenda.

To label someone a stalker who has merely commented on a few of your threads and criticised certain aspects of organised atheism, in my opinion, is an hysterical overreaction.

Again you are correct that it is easy for me to keep away from your threads - something I fully intend to do.

Poirot,

We are at one then.

To show my goodwill for the season, I won't respond to your comments.

David

Poirot, please hold to that.

You must have realised by now he likes to have the last word.

Please indulge him, and then he'll happily stop - hopefully.

Hey, nearly there, so Merry Christmas to you and yours.

AJ Philips “it was a pretty glaring inconsistency in your bizarre attack on atheism.”

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, a specific cult, and “religion/divinity in general” are not the same issue.
There's no inconsistency.
The witnesses hurt me very much, but I don't generalise that experience into a vengeance against *all* belief.

You, on the other hand let your kids believe in Santa.
Then why can't you let them (or anyone else) believe in Jesus, Thor, Shiva, Osiris?

<<Aren't atheists the ones always going on about facts, evidence, reason?>>

“Not necessarily. You're thinking of rationalists and sceptics.”

Exsqueeze me?
That's just pathetic.
Atheism is supposedly “rational” and “sceptical”, yes?
Why are you compartmentalising as if these are unrelated?

“Atheism only addresses whether or not one holds a belief in god(s)”

And it does so by arguing there's no “evidence” or “facts” to justify faith, so therefore “reasoning skills” (your words) would dictate one be atheist.
Sheesh!

“that doesn't mean that 50% of people are atheists”

No, that would be empirical *frequency* not probability. Which you seem to confuse.
Each person has a “probability of being atheist” of 50%.

<Aren't you going to be consistent in your child-rearing>>

“I let my children believe in Santa.. because the reasoning skills they may acquire in discovering that he doesn't really exist could prove useful when confronted with religious claims later in life.”

They may also conclude their parents were big fat lying hypocrites who couldn't decide how to parent!

“As for your understanding of percentages and probabilities...”

Probabilities are expressed as a percentage, yes? Because probability is a mathematical concept.
In areas where the outcome is *unknowable* (Will an embryo form twins? Does any God exist?) the best you can say is 50%. It either is or isn't.

worldwatcher,

What a kind gesture and wishes to Poirot.

Here for you and everyone is a music video which would ring true for many,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uey6VktC5ms

>>Each person has a “probability of being atheist” of 50%.<<

If I take a standard six-sided dice and paint over every number except the 1 with a smiley face I will have a dice that only produces two possible outcomes when rolled: it either is a smiley face or it isn't.

What is the probability of rolling a smiley face on this dice? What is the probability of rolling a 1 on this dice? What is the probability of rolling a 1 on a normal dice?

>>Probabilities are expressed as a percentage, yes? Because probability is a mathematical concept.<<

No. Not to the last bit: probability is a branch of maths albeit one that you don't seem to have understood very well. But probabilities are usually expressed as a number between 0 and 1. There's nothing wrong with expressing them as a percentage - 0.42 is the same as 42% - but it's generally not the done thing.

>>In areas where the outcome is *unknowable*<<

When is the outcome ever 'knowable' before an event has taken place? If you have some method of predicting with complete accuracy whether the dice will come up 1 or smiley face then I know a lot of people who would like to talk to you. And I would like to borrow your time machine.

Cheers,

Tony

AJ Philips>> There is also the implication from you here that if we can't achieve absolute certainty, then there's no point in even trying to think.<<


AJ, your outrage at the fence sitter speaks volumes in regard to your rationale. You want to argue a point with your primary premise being underpinned with the term “probability” or “improbability”.

I counter with a premise based on probability as well, but my probability is fence sitting while yours for some reason carries more weight….more probable. I take it that scientific facts would form the basis of your synopsis as to no creator. As I said to Dave the atheist, for past fifty years we knew what a neutron consisted off, but a few years ago we found that that model was wrong.

AJ all I am saying is that without the knowledge of what “was” before the big bang how can you hang your hat on the no creator peg. You know about as much as I and all the scientists of the globe regarding this subject, and that is nothing.

worldwatcher,

"You must have realised by now he likes to have the last word. "

Mmmmmmmmm..... That is quite an interesting observation/guess and it's from someone who has only been on this Forum since 13/12/2012?

Maybe you have been observing my interactions for years without signing up. Again, most interesting.

David

The atheist foundation is correct in that the Christmas tradition has pagan origins. However, I don't really see why that matters. The new tradition of Christmas is that we are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, regardless of what day He might have been born, or where the tradition came from. It comes down to what your intentions are, what the motivation is in your heart. If it is to glorify the risen Savior, I don't think Heaven is going to frown upon it.

Washed,

In the Wikipedia article on the 'Historicity of Jesus', it provides these endnotes to affirm the truth of the existence of Jesus according to many ancient historians:

Notes

^ a b c In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

^ Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61

^ a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

^ a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

^ a b c d Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

Professor of philosophy, Dr William Lane Craig, has provided 'Evidence for Jesus' at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

Onthebeach,

Thank you - I enjoyed listening to Chris Rea on the youtube clip. Have to admit I hadn't heard of him prior to your mention, but like his laid back style on this. A refreshing change to hear a melodic song - get rather tired of hearing the caterwauling screaming which passes for music these days.
My preferences in music are eclectic, but rarely can find any of the latest offerings are to my taste.

Since I was a child, at this time of year Bing Crosby's croony rendering of I'm dreaming of a White Christmas has been my alltime favorite, and would you believe second comes The Chipmunks carol album, and third is Calgary Youth Choir's.

Brag time. Having won an eisteddfod singing Ave Maria in Latin, I get boosbumps every time I hear it sung.

This is so completely off the original thread, but the great Ella Fitzgerald sang Summertime, and until Fantasia sang it on American Idol, I didn't think anyone could ever topple Ella's version.

Shockadelic,

I’m sorry to hear that the Witnesses hurt you. However, I’ve never suggested that anyone take their bad experiences and turn them into a lust for vengeance.

<<You … let your kids believe in Santa.
Then why can't you let them (or anyone else) believe in Jesus, Thor, Shiva, Osiris?>>

I wouldn’t dream of stopping them, or anyone else. I’d prefer people came to their senses in their own time and by their own accord. But that’s unlikely to happen if we all just shrug our shoulders and say, “Meh, whatever floats their boats.”

No matter how moderate or harmless most religious beliefs appear, they still affect us all because our beliefs inform our actions and our actions affect others. Not to mention to legitimacy they provide extremists, who find solace in the billions of their fellow travelers.

An individual’s belief (regarding anything) may not be detrimental to their wellbeing, but if they believe it for bad reasons then they run the risk of believing other things, that may be detrimental to their wellbeing, for bad reasons too.

And in case you missed it, I gave a few good reasons earlier as to why belief in mythical creatures is different to belief in gods (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151315). That goes for Santa too. People don’t try to influence our laws or start conflicts based on a belief in Santa.

<<Atheism is supposedly “rational” and “sceptical”, yes?>>

Atheism isn’t an inoculation against irrationality or gullibility. It’s just a label for those who don’t hold a belief in god(s).

<<Why are you compartmentalising as if these are unrelated?>>

I never said the three were mutually exclusive.

<<[Atheism] does so by arguing there's no “evidence” or “facts” to justify faith…>>

Atheism doesn’t argue anything (and if faith was justified, then it wouldn’t be called “faith”). It’s not a doctrine or a philosophy. It’s a label. That’s all.

Regarding mathematics, it seems you’re unable to differentiate between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’.

Taking Tony’s dice analogy, the smiley face may make up 50% of the possibilities (since there are only two) but the actual probability is only 0.16666666.

SoG,

There’s no outrage here. I’m simply pointing out the flaws and fallacies in your way of thinking in a matter-of-factly way.

<<I counter with a premise based on probability as well, but my probability is fence sitting while yours for some reason carries more weight….more probable.>>

Fence-sitting isn’t a probability, but if you meant a probability of precisely 0.5, then great. How did you reach that conclusion?

<<I take it that scientific facts would form the basis of your synopsis as to no creator.>>

Not entirely.

I reached my conclusion based on the fact that believers in gods never seem have good reasons to believe in them, their apologetics is riddled with fallacy after fallacy after fallacy (check out OzSpen’s link for examples) and the historicity of their Holy books is woefully inaccurate.

My posting history on OLO is filled with reasons why the Abrahamic doesn’t exist, here’s a recent one http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398#248464.

But if you want talk about some deistic god, then I would still say that it’s improbable given that every mystery, that had ever been explained by a god, was found to have had a perfectly natural explanation. So the chances that we’ll eventually find something with a supernatural explanation appears to shrink with each new discovery.

<<As I said to Dave the atheist, for past fifty years we knew what a neutron consisted off, but a few years ago we found that that model was wrong.>>

Yes, and if they ever find good evidence for a god’s existence, then I’ll reconsider my position.

But regardless of what neurons consist of, they’re still a natural phenomenon. So to take the, “Who knows what we’ll discover”, factor from that example and then try to apply it to a scenario with a supernatural component (phenomenon we’ve never had ANY evidence for) is a bit of a stretch, to say the very least.

<<You know about as much as I and all the scientists of the globe regarding this subject, and that is nothing.>>

Just because we don’t know some things, that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything.

Sorry SoG, I misread this…

<<You know about as much as I and all the scientists of the globe regarding this subject, and that is nothing.>>

A more appropriate response would be to remind (again) you that this does not make a creator any more likely. It simply means that we don’t know.

This is why your fence-sitting is fallacious.

I don't understand what all this fuss is about.
Who cares what someone believes or practices
(as long as they don't try to impose their
beliefs on others, or hurt anyone). People practice
religion for several reasons. Many follow a religion
simply because it is part of the heritage of their
culture, tribe, or family. Religion gives many people
a feeling of security because they believe that a
divine power watches over them. These people often
ask the power for help or protection. Numerous people
follow a religion because it promises them salvation and
either happiness or the chance to improve themselves
in a life after death. For many people, religion brings
a sense of individual fulfillment and gives meaning to life.

In addition, religion for some, provides answers to such
questions as "What is the purpose of life?" "What is the
final destiny of a person?" "What are one's obligations to
other people?" And finally, many people follow a religion to
enjoy a sense of kinship with their fellow believers.

Whether one follows a religion or not is a matter of personal
choice. Making judgements about what people do or don't
believe reminds me of the character in Henry Fielding's novel,
"Tom Jones," - Mr Twackum. "When I mention religion, I mean
the Christian religion and not only the Christian religion, but
the Protestant religion, and not only the Protestant religion,
but the Church of England."

I guess some people are like Mr Twackum. They believe that
what they believe is true and all others are misguided,
superstitious, even wicked... I guess that's life.

Lexi,

I’ve explained all this many times. Once even to yourself (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13053#225549). So I’m not sure why you still don’t understand what the “fuss” is about. A response to much of what you’ve just said can even be found in my post to Shockadelic.

Our beliefs, no matter how benign, affect others in some shape or form - no matter how indirectly. So it’s important that we have good reasons to believe them.

<<Many follow a religion simply because it is part of the heritage of their culture, tribe, or family.>>

Yes, motives, no matter how pure, still do not negate the harm they can cause. Here’s a good example…

<<These people often ask the power for help or protection.>>

When energy and time is wasted doing this, rather than devoting full time and energy to actually preventing or fixing a problem, then it is potentially causing harm.

Like the problem with homeopathy. The remedies are harmless (since they are just water), but providing them and trying them wastes the time of people who could be finding real help elsewhere.

<<Numerous people follow a religion because it promises them salvation and either happiness … For many people, religion brings a sense of individual fulfillment and gives meaning to life.>>

If people can't find happiness without false promises and imaginary father figures, then that indicates a sickness in our societies, and masking it with make-believe doesn’t help anyone in the long run.

<<In addition, religion for some, provides answers to such questions as "What is the purpose of life?" "What is the final destiny of a person?" "What are one's obligations to other people?">>

And you don’t think searching for a reality-based answer would always be better?

<<I guess some people are like Mr Twackum. They believe that what they believe is true and all others are misguided, superstitious, even wicked... I guess that's life.>>

No, it’s about caring about the truth of one’s beliefs and having as few false ones as possible. I think if everyone did that, we’d be living in a much better world.

worldwatcher,

Thank you, you reply brought music to my ears. I could not resist playing the tracks you mentioned and I am grateful for the reminder.

"May peace and plenty be the first to lift the latch on your door, and happiness be guided to your home by the candle of Christmas" -with thanks to the Irish

Dear AJ Philips,

Who's to say what beliefs are "True?"
Can Truth be owned? What's true for
some is not the case for others, as I
tried to point out. We have our individual
differences and we make our individual choices.
The point that I was trying to make was -
"Live and let live."

I think it would be a better world if we
removed the walls that separate us. Wouldn't
it be great if we turned our focus more on
what unites us than on what divides us?

Lexi,

“Whether one follows a religion or not is a matter of personal choice.”

If only this were true but it is not. Most cultures indoctrinate their children into a geographically popular religion. Children do not get a choice. And make no mistake, religious indoctrination works. To deny this is to call white, black.

Many people born into a religion in this way do make a choice and that choice is to become non-religious because of the lack of evidence and for other reasons such as not being able to dismiss with non-convincing platitudes the massive planetary suffering etc.

A rapidly growing number in this demographic are declaring they are atheists. Others call themselves humanist, agnostics etc. There are a variety of reasons why this is so but the twine that binds them and this is the only definitive commonality, is they see no evidence for any supernatural phenomena, past or present, and therefore dismiss the idea as just a human notion.

Some religious persons claim the knowledge of the supernatural comes from within. That is fine except as AJ Philips points out, they still belong to the club that is causing strife at various levels in civilisation.

I'm more inclined to think that society needs total separation of church and state. This means no religion is supported financially to the extent that exists now and the state does not interfere with religion and religion does not interfere with the state. This would halt religious indoctrination of students by the state. The state should teach students about all religions as a subject in the humanities with no preferential treatment given to any of them.

This would include that religions have no empirical evidence in support and the foibles produced by religion not hidden. When the child then reaches a mature age it can choose to follow a particular religion or none.

If this happened there would be no need for the Atheist Foundation of Australia and then society would support people who choose a religion. Now, what could be fairer?

In general, religion says no to this.

David

Dear AJ.,

I forgot to add that I'm not deliberately trying
to be contentious or that I feel I'm on the
"high road." I'm simply trying to say - we should
respect the rights of those who want to believe,
and equally the rights of those who don't.
You are entitled to your opinion. I feel that so
am I to mine.

Dear David,

You raise some very valid points.

I'm a Catholic, but not a very good one.
I can see the errors the Church has
made in the past and continues to make.
To me the Church does not hold some francise
on my spiritual life. They are consultants and
frameworks, but they are not God himself. I
don't confuse the path with the destination.

I feel that organised religion will have to change.
It will have to step up to bat, religiously or it
will wither away. I am not a spiritually half-interested,
complacent congregant that many of our parents were
when we were growing up. Many people today are insisting
on changes being made. As Paul Collins points out in his
book, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have A
Future?" :

"Personally, I am optimistic that Catholicism in Australia
will survive, certainly with lesser numbers, but with
more commitment and ministerial energy. But to achieve
that Catholics will require genuine local leadership
and a willingness to confront both the difficulties and
opportunities that the church faces..."

Whether this happens only time will tell.

Lexi,

You must try and not skirt around religious indoctrination. It is the key factor and the Catholics have it worked out superbly not that other religions don’t also ply the same methods. They are having more difficulty nowadays implementing it, not because of aberrant behaviour by some clergy but because education levels have increased markedly as has general information about physical reality.

If you were raised a Catholic then you must ask yourself if you are one of its victims. It is no good stating about personal relationships with a god or any of that stuff as all religions say the same thing. Think Twin Towers.

Without in anyway meaning to be rude, to be able to appreciate both sides of the argument, you have to first understand fully what you are arguing against. You have to know the other sides arguments as atheists know the religious arguments. If you don’t do this then that is being dismissive of opposing views without even knowing what they are. This makes it impossible to make informed choices.

You are doing this with the topic of childhood indoctrination. This doesn't just need momentary thought; it needs critical thinking that allows a proper investigation with conclusions drawn on the evidence.

The Catholics are responsible for taking critical thinking abilities away from their flock.

This is child abuse especially when the terror of hell is instilled into children if straying is even contemplated let alone achieved.

David

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, “they see no evidence for any supernatural phenomena, past or present, and therefore dismiss the idea as just a human notion.”

No, you dismiss the evidence.
There are a myriad of reported supernatural experiences, by people all over the world, in every era and culture.
You just ignore it.

Children are “indoctrinated” with all kinds of ideas they have no “choice” about.
That's life. Deal with it.

AJ Philips, you just like to play childish sleazy word trickery games. I won't bother responding to you any more.

Tony Lavis “There's nothing wrong with expressing them as a percentage”

So why are you bitching about it?

Not a mathematical concept? Are you kidding?
Probability is nothing BUT a mathematical concept.
It can ONLY be calculated and expressed mathematically.

In the case of “gods/the divine/supernatural” it isn't even possible to calculate a “proper” probability.

You mention dice.
Here is “mathematical probability”.
The possible outcomes ARE “knowable”.
There are a *known number* of possible outcomes. NUMBER. Known.

You can therefore calculate the probability of any outcome and express it mathematically (including as a percentage, if you so choose).

Obviously, there is no “known number” of possible outcomes when it comes to God.
Unless you do as I did, and accept two outcomes. Exist or not exist. 50%
No other calculation is possible!

The other type of probability is “empirical”.
This is based on observation of the frequency of an outcome in a sample.
Again, this is impossible for the issue of “God”.
You cannot empirically “observe” something in another dimension.

The only thing you could observe is belief among the human population.
In this case, the probability of atheism is extremely low.

Since atheism is extremely improbable, one could reasonably conclude that the claims of atheism, rejected by the vast majority of people, are also “improbable”.
If their stance was highly probable, surely more people would agree with them.

This looks as good a place as any.

To all those on the forum who I have disagreed with, agreed with, insulted, lampooned, ridiculed, made fun off, offended, thought were as crazy as me in 2012 I wish YOU ALL a happy holiday season and a great new year. Looking forward to more of the same in 2013.

All the best Paul.

p/s I should also thank our great political leaders including The Bimbo, The Mad Monk, Bob Browneye, Swany, Slippery Pete etc for without them this forum truly would be boring.

Shockadelic,

“No, you dismiss the evidence. There are a myriad of reported supernatural experiences, by people all over the world, in every era and culture.

You just ignore it.”

That is not evidence of supernatural reality. That is evidence that a myriad of people report supernatural experience.

How about we alter the sentence slightly and see if you agree to your original statement still.

“No, you dismiss the evidence. There are a myriad of reported alien abduction experiences by people all over the world, in every era and culture.
You just ignore it.”

Does that make alien abduction real? Does that mean we should indoctrinate children with the idea that alien abduction is real and if they don’t believe it reinforce the idea that the aliens will torture them forever in a galaxy far, far away? Does that mean governments should lavish huge amounts of money on alien abduction devotees? Does that mean that alien abduction devotees should be controlling those of us who do not accept aliens abduct people by way of parliaments?

Change supernatural or alien abduction to other popular supposed beings like Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monster, ghosts etc. To exclude these as somehow different is to use the fallacious argument known as special pleading.

Your sentence is not the result of any critical thinking at all. This is common and no one should be admonished for doing that. But once pointed out and it still continues, then that is another matter.

David

David>> A rapidly growing number in this demographic are declaring they are atheists. Others call themselves humanist, agnostics etc.<<

Dave, religions have always been the tool of the powerful. During the Russian communist revolution they shipped most of the Russian Orthodox priests to sunny Siberia. Only the old still worshipped in secrecy. Twenty years later Hitler pops up and Stalin opens the churches and brings back what was left of the priests from Siberia to give the people hope. After Russia’s victory he toes the communist line again and religion is tolerated but not allowed to flourish.
Religions do not start wars, the powerful do and it has always been about gain.

David>>Some religious persons claim the knowledge of the supernatural comes from within. That is fine except as AJ Philips points out, they still belong to the club that is causing strife at various levels in civilisation.<<

Again Dave your willingness to blame religions for the arrogance and greed of the powerful is simplistic. If your corrupted logic holds true then without religions we would have had no wars throughout our history. Are you aware of Jane Elliott’s brown eyes/ blue eyes experiment? Alternately have you heard of the Milgram experiments with electric shocks?

Both these exercises abundantly exhibit the inherent human anti social condition that lives in most of us. I can’t take anything you say seriously as you are reading from someone else’s song book. You have found your little cause and you hang onto it like a terrier. You are a carbon copy of the religious zealots that you degrade……not an original thought in your head.

David>> This is child abuse especially when the terror of hell is instilled into children if straying is even contemplated let alone achieved.<<

Yes David and you employ intellectual abuse….it certainly abuses my intellect when you babble on about the surety of no creator. Nobody knows....except you ofcourse.

sonofgloin,

My name is David.

“Religions do not start wars, the powerful do and it has always been about gain.”

Who said religions start wars directly as a result of religion although that has happened in history. The indisputable fact is that many wars are demarked by religion with each side praying to their particular god to kill the enemy. If I need to point out examples, I will be disappointed in your powers of perception.

The blue eye brown eye experiment is very relevant to religion. Religions scapegoat a particular trait in the human race, whether that is gender, sexuality, other religions etc. and then using their authority, (like the white coats situation in the said experiment) they create a prejudice against those categories.

Confusing zealotry with rationality and critical thinking is not something I personally would be proud of. This is called lashing out because you have run out of arguments. That is what you should be concentrating on. I'm not intolerant of opposing views but I will argue against them if they are shown to be faulty. Don’t look now, but the mirror might show who really is acting in a zealous manner.

I really wish you would read these posts. Where have I ever said that there is “the surety of no creator”? Until you point that out, please do not come back with other nonsense.

David

sonogloin,

"...You are a carbon copy of the religious zealots that you degrade..."

...which was the point that I was making earlier - before the tactic was employed to call me a "stalker".

It's the tenor of "crusade" that sounds loud and clear.

Any movement born of opposition to something will attract that sort of criticism, especially if it fashions itself along similar lines and employs similar rhetoric.

David,

I admit that my earlier post lacked respect and apologies are probably in order there, however, you should be mindful that any enthusiastic "movement" can't help but convey sentiments that are similar in their basic expression to the movements they oppose - we all seek satisfaction from our causes.

Talking about aliens:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-21/french-mayor-says-stay-away-from-apocalypse-shelter/4439320

OzSpen,

Those are great sources, and they show that the idea of a mythological Jesus is not taken seriously, even among the predominantly atheistic bible scholar community. Even Richard Dawkins admits the existence of a historical Jesus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRg0AIiGAyQ

There is actually more evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus than Socrates or Plato! If we use the methodology that historians use to determine the historical reliability of ancient documents, then we are forced to conclude that the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming.

We also have the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. Isaiah 53 predicts the coming of the suffering Messiah, describing the life and ministry of Jesus to a T, and it was written 700 years before His time. It is so clear that people immediately recognize it is about Jesus when it is read to them.

There is also the prophetic fulfillment of the destruction of Jerusalem which was predicted by Jesus, and also the reformation of Israel which happened in 1948. We see the fulfillment of signs in Matthew 24 in these times like no other generation in history. There is really no shortage of reliable evidence which points to Jesus being the Savior of the world and the bible as the word of God.

Poirot,

So, I gather, you didn't take your own advice and stay away. You refer to a “movement”. Can you elaborate thanks?

You may be referring to the growing number of people leaving religion in droves but because someone leaves something can hardly be called a movement. You may be suggesting that the growing disparate group consisting of Atheists, Humanist, Agnostics, Rationalists etc. is a movement when in actual fact this is just a change in society. It could be classed as a rapid phenomenon but, a movement, that’s a poor descriptive word. Yes, I know, some dictionary definition will support the idea of a ‘movement’ but if it does and you are an atheist/agnostic, then you are a part of it. Welcome to the “movement”.

Oh, I see, atheist hold conventions and attract large crowds so that is the movement. But when religions hold conventions and attract large crowds (The Parliament of the World’s Religions as but one example) that is not a movement or when basket weavers hold large conventions that is not a movement.

Maybe you could explain what your mean.

Sniping at zealotry is a problem of yours, not mine. I am an atheist and I feel very lucky that happened to me. I therefore offer the reason why that is so which gives other people an idea to think about. Some atheists consider they are self-made, rubbish of course as circumstance and availability of knowledge are the main factors, and even knowing the advantages of holding that position, they are not prepared to share the luck.

When I was formulating a world view as a child I would have just loved there to have been a me and the Atheist Foundation of Australia. Many atheists make the same comment; somehow, you think supporting a very good idea, atheism, not necessary. Somehow, those suffering under the heal of religion are just not worth your effort. Good stuff.

David

No I decided not to stay away.....it occurred to me that although you initiated this thread, that it was open to any member to comment.

anyhooo, I considered my lack of respect in my second post here was a tad provocative, so I thought I'd try another tack.

I don't have a problem with your rational thought at all. I'm interested in the "phenomenon" as you put it. Your role appears to be a facilitator and representative of this "phenomenon". Conventions and foundations have to be orgainised, so there becomes an organised flavour to the phenomenon - which some of us would liken to a movement. You appear to be taking it up to those of religious bent - this thread title is a case in point. If you choose that path, it's not surprising that occasionally you will encounter comparisons with that which you oppose.

Btw, I wasn't singling out the AFA as a movement...I believe all religions are movements, as are any congregations espousing a world view...(do basket weavers espouse a world view?)

Dear David.,

You talk about the "indoctrination" of children into
religious beliefs. That's a rather sweeping statement
that doesn't allow for individual differences - such
as my own experience. I'm no Pollyanna about my Church.
I know all too well where it falls short. I know all too
well where it is unique in terms of reach into
individual lives and the impact it has on the needy parts
of the community.

It's been an interesting discussion.

All The Best.

Poirot,

“Your role appears to be a facilitator and representative of this "phenomenon".”

You haven’t heard of the numerous other ‘facilitators’ I presume. I do this because I can; the same as others. We are not representative of anything. Atheists don’t need telling what to do. Atheists, like all humans don’t gain benefit from being isolated by their societies. Therefore the AFA helps atheists know that others exist and they are not alone.

“it's not surprising that occasionally you will encounter comparisons with that which you oppose.”

Yes, of course it is not surprising. And it is even not surprising that some atheists resent their conscience being pricked also, just like religious folk don’t like it. It does come across as bitterness though.

“Btw, I wasn't singling out the AFA as a movement...I believe all religions are movements, as are any congregations espousing a world view...(do basket weavers espouse a world view?)”

That’s interesting about the AFA…. now. ‘Congregation’ generally means a group of people of faith. Do you mean atheists have a faith? Do you have a faith? ‘Congregation’ does have a more general meaning but the word is ambiguous. Why use. Shall I tell you? Let’s I shall.

You use the word ‘movement’ in a pejorative manner without answering whether you are a part of this movement. The way you get around this is to use the intentionally chosen word ‘congregation’ because you didn't go to the GAC and therefore were not a part of the ‘congregation’ and not in the movement. The GAC has happened twice in a lifetime by the way.

You haven’t thought about anything I have said and you are still trying to manipulate the language supported by your own linguistic gymnastics.

Why not ask yourself as to why you do this. Who do you think you are benefiting? Why are you giving support to woo because that is exactly what you are achieving?

'Worldview’ means a comprehensive view of life. Explain the athiests worldview? Why use the word at all in this context? Atheism is only a part of a worldview.

David

washed,

Let us simplify the muddle in this topic, starting with a few basic facts.

All historians of any worth consider Julius Caesar actually existed.

Not all historians of note consider the New Testament Jesus existed.

A consensus of historian has concluded that the Jesus of the New Testament existed. Most of those have a religious bent and there are many arguments for and against this proposition. But let’s accept it on face value for the exercise.

The reason for the controversy on this part of history is that the evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus is very scant. If the NT Jesus existed, the highest probability is that he was ineffectual as being an ‘anybody’ when alive. If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them. They did not. There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine.

He was not known in his time because he was just one of the run of the mill 'messiahs'. Dime a dozen would be an adequate expression. There would be no way that he would have escaped the attention of the Roman authorities let alone the Jewish population. This is the biggest argument against the New Testament being a valid account of wonders and miracles.

Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted.

Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians.

David

David,

You seem to be overly sensitive.

I employed the word "congregation" as representative of people who "congregate".

We all use linguistic gymnastics (you included)- it's part of the attraction of debate.

I'd equate an atheist worldview as one that embraces a rejection of a deity and related metaphysical explanations in favour of a rational approach based on empirical evidence.

Poirot,

I refute completely that I use any kind of linguistic subterfuge in my writings but as you have admitted you do, the case rests.

And you have done it again with the worldview of atheists. Let me tell you what atheists think in common. Here it is and here it is alone with nothing else about the world. Are you ready? ‘There is probably no god’. That’s it…period.

To babble on about atheism being a woldview is nonsense.

The opposite, that there is a god is also not a world view, but following the alleged divinely inspired words of the alleged god or believing one knows what the alleged gods wants, is a worldview.

You are wasting my post numbers and I’d rather you stuck to your advice of going away if you are not going to discuss topics in which I am involved in a sensible, adult and comprehensive manner.

If brownie points are your life’s ambition at any cost, then maybe think why.

Atheism is of tremendous interest to the public as it shows a changing demographic in a world ruled by religion. This is historically very significant. In fact, it is of such interest that it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today that Dick Gross’ Opinion Piece on the 2012 Global Atheist Convention had more comments than any other topic. Nearly 2,000. http://www.smh.com.au/national/most-commented-stories-of-2012-20121219-2bm0y.html

There is a problem with religion in all societies and you are not a part of the solution, if fact, you are aiding and abetting the problem by you sneaky underhanded methods of communicating on this forum. It really is objectionable.

David

yep....

Okay, David, I give up.

I tend to veer away from discussion with personalities prone overreaction and volatitlity, but I thought I'd have one more go at communicating with you.

For a start, I did not accuse you of "linguistic subterfuge".

You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in having it all your way and taking offense.

"...sneaky underhand methods of communicating..."

(That says it all. I'm communicating with you in exactly the same way I do all the time on this forum - everyone else seems to think it's okay)

I showed your "stalker" accusation to a few friends who, after they stopped bouncing across the floor laughing, commented that I seemed to have hit a nerve.


You're the one who's objectionable - even when I come back and apologise for my second post and maintain a measured stance, you react in a bellicose manner.

Good luck to you mate - you'll need it with your attitude.

Dear Lexi,

We arrive at the truth by basing reasoned arguments on logical absolutes. That is the only reliable pathway to truth, given what we currently know. We’re not always going to reach absolute certainty, but absolute certainty is useless anyway.

<<What's true for some is not the case for others>>

The truth is not subjective. We can believe what we want, but we don’t get to pick and choose for ourselves what is true; truth in this sense is merely belief. We can determine how closely our beliefs align with the truth using the method I mentioned above.

<<The point that I was trying to make was - "Live and let live.">>

Of course! But there are some who are riding roughshod over our rights, security and wellbeing, and all with the passive support of the billions of their fellow travelers.

Where do we draw the line?

<<I think it would be a better world if we removed the walls that separate us. Wouldn't it be great if we turned our focus more on what unites us than on what divides us?>>

I agree, and I think if we all cared about the truth of our beliefs, we’d kill both birds with one stone here.

With religion being perhaps the biggest wall, I think helping others to see reason is one of the best ways of going about the former. If some get upset and feel attacked, then that’s unfortunate, but divisiveness is too engrained in the doctrines, and entrenched in the attitudes, of most of today’s major religions to sit back and wait for ALL theists to find some way of practicing their faith in a civilised way.

We need to be realistic and while we may not change the minds of everyone, we can at least spread enough reasoned thought around to make it too embarrassing for those with absurd beliefs to want to legislate or control others with them.

While we need to respect the rights of others to believe what they want, we shouldn’t have to do this at the expense of our own wellbeing.

Shockadelic,

Running out of arguments does not give you the right to start throwing around offensive accusations. It's telling that you are unable to point to any examples.

Or is it simply that you lack the sophistication and English skills to understand basic concepts and definitions?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and assume it's the latter…

Atheism has no doctrine and nor is it a mode of thought. It is (in the broader sense) simply a label applied to those who don't hold a belief in any god(s). The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of any god belief. Atheism says nothing about whether or not one is a Rationalist or a Sceptic (in the philosophical sense) and nor does it say anything about one's ability to think rationally or sceptically.

You with me still here?

Rationalism and Scepticism are philosophical schools of thought. While all Rationalists and Sceptics are atheists, not all atheists are Rationalists or Sceptics. Some are into all sorts of New Age mumbo jumbo.

So as I said earlier, the three are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they one and the same, and I never implied that they were.

Capice?

I was going to provide you with a ton of links as references, but in doing so, I could have been accused of the Gish Gallop and hey, you can Google this stuff yourself.

<<Obviously, there is no “known number” of possible outcomes when it comes to God.>>

We may not be able to produce precise figures, but that doesn’t mean we can’t come to a reasonable presumption by basing reasoned arguments on both logical absolutes and what we currently DO know (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151490).

<<Unless you do as I did, and accept two outcomes. Exist or not exist. 50%>>

Like I said to SoG, that would simply mean that we don’t know. The probability does not default to 50/50. What we CAN default to, however, is a position of disbelieve until those making the positive claim have fulfilled their burden of proof.

AFoAI>>A consensus of historian has concluded that the Jesus of the New Testament existed. Most of those have a religious bent and there are many arguments for and against this proposition. But let’s accept it on face value for the exercise.<<

Sport, it is a transparently simplistic tactic to recognize that in the consensus of scholars Jesus existed, then put in a caveat that it is not universally held and it is a majority of Christian’s scholars that acknowledge it, regally proclaiming “but we will accept it on face value for this exercise”. I honestly expected that you would be better at rebuttal given you’ve made it your life’s work. But you are not tiger.

You bear bait with the obvious childlike jibe of “CHRISMYTH” and when negatively responded to you cry stalker, to two separate posters. You are not good at this atheist caper are you digger?

Have you ever heard of Flavius Josephus, he was a roman historian born in Roman Judea in the same century Jesus lived? A local lad who made mention of Jesus and the infant Christianity in “Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews”, written around 93–94 AD, it includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18. Modern scholarship has universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

Josephus was not recording from a distant time and place; he was there, as were the first readers of his diary. AFoAI, why play ducks and drakes with acknowledged history. Why don’t you just say that Jesus existed, but he was mortal, human, and not the son of god? It is that type of fixated interpretation of information coupled with your phobia regarding stalking that degrades your perceptions to others.

AFoAL, let’s move away from this banter, given you are a leading atheist give me ten reasons as to why there is no creator and I will seriously contemplate what you say.

Marry Christmas to all my friends.

Dear David,

You speak about "indoctrination," of children.
You sound like Richard Dawkins.

I don't agree with that concept. Children grow
up into adults with minds of their own and
make their own decisions as adults.
Each of us goes through transitions and
transformations in life. I'm no pundit. I have only
my own life experiences to go on. We all have obstacles
to overcome in life, but I doubt very much that unless
we are feeble-minded - that we accept wholeheartedly
in its entirety everything that our
parents, teachers, or religious leaders tell us. I don't
know any complacent congregants. The people I know -
question everything. Many turned away from organised
religion (my husband is one - he was raised by the
Christian Brothers). However, many have also come back -
because like me they found that life without a conscious
awareness of God was difficult.

I feel that organised religious institutions are in for a
huge transformation, for the simple reason that people
have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Dear AJ Philips,

Thank You for sharing your thougts. As I've written in
the past I don't have the answers to the big questions
in life. I'm still on my own road to discovery.
But everything is relative; everything has its story; and
everyone has obstacles to overcome. They are our greatest
teachers.

Just wanting to be on page 21 on the 21/12/2012

Phew it didn't happen, or I'm early...

And another M Xmyth to the atheiths. :)

David,

<<The reason for the controversy on this part of history is that the evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus is very scant. If the NT Jesus existed, the highest probability is that he was ineffectual as being an ‘anybody’ when alive. If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them. They did not. There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine.>>

These are your assertions that seem to be based on your presuppositions. You provided not one example to support your claim.

<<He was not known in his time because he was just one of the run of the mill 'messiahs'. Dime a dozen would be an adequate expression.>>

This is no more than David's assertion. Do you think that I'm going to be persuaded by that lack of evidence by you?

<<Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted>>.

So says David.

<<Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians.>>

Again, so says David.

You have as much chance of persuading me of your arguments as a Toyota salesman telling me of the benefits of a Ford car.

Lexi,

I am not a practising member of any faith, atheism included (Poirot's criticisms are relevant). However I was quite taken by Caroline Jones' description of her spirituality and the support and solace her faith has been to her. Maybe it is of interest to you too, see here,

http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s809804.htm

Live and let live is a good motto. As a community volunteer I am continually bumping into volunteers from local church congregations. Many do much more than I do. I have never heard of any trying to convert anyone and none expect thanks. What people believe in doesn't matter where they care for others and show it through their attitude and behaviour. I frequently witness the worth of faith and prayer to the faithful among the people we help.

I repeat that I see no call for crass insults directed at the beliefs of fellow Australians. Focusing on one of their significant days of of observance to provoke them is childish and grubby.

The Christians have come out of it well, as have the members of other religions who could have responded but didn't. They have all turned the other cheek. They did not respond in kind. Good for them!

Merry Christmas.

sononfgloin,

I do have a name, please use it if you wish to converse with me.

You may but I have no wish to authenticate or not the existence of the New Testament Jesus. It is unimportant. The total absence of evidence for divinity is the main game here as I explained in my last post and which I will not repeat. If he existed as a ‘nobody’ with no ex-biblical miracles reported, it goes against the divinity claim. Obviously!

You should really do you own history reading because noticeably you haven’t a clue about Josephus and the ‘Antiquities of the Jews’. I have two quite-old copies.

Josephus was not alive at the time of Jesus and wrote ‘Antiquities’ half a dozen decades later. He worked on hearsay.

The passage to which you refer is known as, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum and the consensus of history by credible scholars is that parts or all of it are an interpolation by fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea with him being the first person to actually report the passage. Eusebius lived at the time of Constantine and has a reputation amongst scholars as being a forger. This is backed up by an early church father,Origen, who was trying to win over converts to Christianity in the second or third century CE. Origen could have had a very convincing story to tell if he merely showed the to-be converts the passage as is. He never did even though it is reported he may have known of it. If he did know of it, therefore it must have been in a form then that was not convincing enough.

But as I say, I am not going to argue about it. Leave it to the scholars.

Let me help you with the burden of proof that has been done to death on this forum and everywhere else. If you are stating there is a creator-god, prove it. I'm waiting. And let me save you some trouble. If that could be proved, there would be one god and one religion and everyone would be convinced.

David

David,

<<Josephus was not alive at the time of Jesus and wrote ‘Antiquities’ half a dozen decades later. He worked on hearsay.

The passage to which you refer is known as, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum and the consensus of history by credible scholars is that parts or all of it are an interpolation by fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea with him being the first person to actually report the passage. Eusebius lived at the time of Constantine and has a reputation amongst scholars as being a forger. This is backed up by an early church father,Origen, who was trying to win over converts to Christianity in the second or third century CE. Origen could have had a very convincing story to tell if he merely showed the to-be converts the passage as is. He never did even though it is reported he may have known of it. If he did know of it, therefore it must have been in a form then that was not convincing enough.>>

You have a bad habit of telling us information about various figures from church history and then do not give your sources. You have done that in this citation regarding Josephus, Eusebius and Origen. But you provide not one piece of documentation. What you say could be true, but when you don't document it, I'm left to believe that it is out of the mind of your presuppositions.

By the way, most historians that I read, live AFTER the events which they document. This is so with Josephus. I have his 'Complete Works' (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregal Publications 1960)

However, there are historians who were alive at the time of Jesus who have recorded some of the historical events in the life of Jesus, but you won't believe them. They are called the Gospels of the New Testament. Craig Blomberg has written, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press 1987), but you don't seem to be open to listen to the historical criteria used by Blomberg to support the historical reliability of any document, including the four New Testament Gospels.

David,

David: <<I have no wish to authenticate or not the existence of the New Testament Jesus. It is unimportant.>>

That's the language of dogmatism - don't convince me with evidence about Jesus and the New Testament because I've already made up my mind. And I'm anti!

OzSpen,

The subject matter is derived from memory of books I have read. It is unimportant to me as I have constantly repeated.

Anyone who can use Google can find information by searching the main names. Or find references to books that can be purchased. One I found most helpful was, 'Constantine and the conversion of Europe'by A.H. M. Jones.

All this material should be known by anyone wishing to argue a particular point of view. If it is not known, then it is a one sided discussion which I have mentioned earlier.

It would be a good learning exercise for folk to do their own investigation.

David

Religious charity is often brought up as a means of defending religion, trying to negate the bad that comes from it, or sometimes - more cynically - attempting to suggest that theists are kinder and more generous than atheists. But I think we really need to get some perspective here regarding the charity of religions and their followers.

Firstly, the absence of belief in something doesn't usually motivate people to band together and start a charity organisation. Especially when that's all they have in common (although some are slowly starting to pop-up since there are non-believers out there who want to be able to help the less-fortunate without providing religions with any more of a reason to exist than they have to), we may as well pick on people with blonde hair for not starting charities.

Secondly, those who are genuinely volunteering their time, purely out of the goodness of their own hearts, would be doing it whether it not they believed in a god.

Sadly, however, some of the charity that comes from Christian's is born of the guilty conscience that the religion instilled in them in the first place. Some is done for much more selfish reasons such as a desire to rack-up a heavenly credit rating. Other times it's done because the believer simply believes that that is what their god wants them to do; which brings me to my third point...

If someone performs a good deed because they believe that that is what a god wants them to do, then that's not morality, it's obedience. So based on that, one could possibly argue that atheists are more moral. 

Now while one could point to the sense of community in religion that helps bring these charities about, one could also reasonably ponder if it has still all been worth it. Or even if we would have such a need for so many charities had religion not had it's tentacles weaved though out our societies, influencing our politicians, inciting bigotry and warping the morality of people who are otherwise perfectly sane. 

Continued...

...Continued

Not to mention the past horrors of the dark ages, witch burnings, the inquisition and just superstition in general that had possibly been prolonged by a supposed messiah who apparently chose to perpetuate myths about demon possession instead of providing us with valuable information about... oh, I don't know... the benefits of basic hygiene maybe?

Let's not forget the centuries-upon-centuries of suffering and persecution the Jews have had to endure at the hands of Christians, and possibly all because of a mistranslation that saw a "young" Mary become a "virgin" Mary. Even the suffering of Jews under the Nazi regime - seen by many as being a form of secular anti-semitism - had distinctly Christian roots.

It seems that it doesn't matter what an organisation is guilty of, if it can explain the origins of the universe - no matter how fallacious; or if it can make grand promises - no matter how unsubstantiated; then it's not only forgiven, but revered as something virtuous.

AFA - "If you are stating there is a creator-god, prove it. I'm waiting. And let me save you some trouble. If that could be proved, there would be one god and one religion and everyone would be convinced."

A very good question!

I remember asking a Nun a question like that at my Catholic Girls College final year in high school. The Nun looked aghast, and then said that all one had to have was faith to believe in God and His Son.
It was the first time I really started to question what I had been taught.

I can't say I'm an atheist yet though, because no one has proved to me there is no God either.
I really don't know...and neither does anyone else.

Hi David, I enjoyed your chat on the radio today. :)

David,

<<All this material should be known by anyone wishing to argue a particular point of view. If it is not known, then it is a one sided discussion which I have mentioned earlier.

It would be a good learning exercise for folk to do their own investigation.>>

I have done my own historical investigations of Jesus and the New Testament and my conclusions are radically different from yours.

David,

<<The reason for the controversy on this part of history is that the evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus is very scant. If the NT Jesus existed, the highest probability is that he was ineffectual as being an ‘anybody’ when alive. If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them. They did not. There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine....

Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted.

Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians.>>

This is an example of your use of the genetic logical fallacy, which is defined as, "A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing"(available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html).

A genetic fallacy uses fallacious reasoning. We cannot have a logical, rational discussion when you engage in the use of logical fallacies. Here your genetic fallacy is represented by the statements:

1. "There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine";
2. "Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted";
3. "Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians".

Suseonline,

You were much more astute and questioning as a child than I. I assumed nuns, brothers and priests had a direct line to God, that Bishops must be near divine and the Pope, well, I would have put on money on he could levitate if he so chose.

It is most unlikely that anyone will ever prove there is no god any more than the existence of fairies will be disproven. Humans will be able to live in their minds without fear of being ever exposed by such proof. But, what is happening is that many people are working out the inconsistencies with the god concept and its many religions and that the idea is adding to the suffering of humanity.

I know that many just disregard the god thing but don’t call themselves atheists. Ostensibly though, they are atheists. It’s from the Greek, ‘without a deity’. I have the feeling that calling oneself an agnostic, and I'm not saying you do that, and this wouldn't be in all cases, but the niggling fear of a revengeful god lingers in the back ground so why take the risk.

One thing that leads folk to eventually call themselves atheist is that they tend to consider the rational universe as proof positive that a god who engineered it would not be so petty as to torture people forever because it didn't supply enough rational evidence to prove its existence. Atheists do not consider ‘faith’ to be a virtue. Faith is a not knowing position and that can and is manipulated by the many religions to the detriment of billions of people.

You are oh so right that no one knows if there is a god or not. Popes or Imams have no more idea on this than anyone else. Many make out they do though. :)

Anyhow, enough of that. Glad you enjoyed my radio interview. The AFA fields numerous media interviews on atheism throughout the year. We have a team of spokespersons to cover it. I have a couple lined up for Christmyth day. No rest for the wicked…hey!

David

David,

David,

You wrote: <<It is most unlikely that anyone will ever prove there is no god any more than the existence of fairies will be disproven. Humans will be able to live in their minds without fear of being ever exposed by such proof. But, what is happening is that many people are working out the inconsistencies with the god concept and its many religions and that the idea is adding to the suffering of humanity.

I know that many just disregard the god thing but don’t call themselves atheists. Ostensibly though, they are atheists. It’s from the Greek, ‘without a deity’. I have the feeling that calling oneself an agnostic, and I'm not saying you do that, and this wouldn't be in all cases, but the niggling fear of a revengeful god lingers in the back ground so why take the risk.

One thing that leads folk to eventually call themselves atheist is that they tend to consider the rational universe as proof positive that a god who engineered it would not be so petty as to torture people forever because it didn't supply enough rational evidence to prove its existence. Atheists do not consider ‘faith’ to be a virtue. Faith is a not knowing position and that can and is manipulated by the many religions to the detriment of billions of people.>>

This creates false dichotomies like god vs fairies; humans living in their minds vs fear of being exposed by proof; and rational universe vs proof positive of torturing people forever.

There are strong pointers (not mathematical certainty) to the existence of God and philosopher/theologian Dr Bill Craig has demonstrated these in this interview and then a university presentation:

1. Can God's Existence be Demonstrated? (William Lane Craig), an interview between Craig and Robert Lawrence Kuhn (host of PBS' "Closer to Truth"), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFn0hopqSFw

2. Evidence for the Existence of God - William Lane Craig (Imperial College, London): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hW3ceQYxic

OzSpen,

The information you have supplied so far demonstrates you have only looked at a one-sided investigation on Jesus and the New Testament. I strongly advise you to look at information not emanating from religious sources. Some religious material is good and accurate but much of it is false and misleading intentionally or unintentionally but mainly because of bias. The problem is working that out.

Accepting information that ties up with existing ideas can be the result.

Maybe you shouldn't try to be too clever when you really don’t understand what a genetic fallacy is. Confusing logical progression with genetic fallacy is very revealing about your command of the subject matter.

BTW, when I say I'm not fussed as to whether a Jesus the man exists or not, I mean it. It wouldn't dent my way of thinking if I went back to the period in a time-machine and spoke with Jesus the man. The idea of Jesus the man and Jesus the divine are two completely different concepts. I’d rather you didn't call that a dogmatic stance as obviously it is not.

You rely on the New Testament Gospels (Selected out of many in the time of Constantine to make a good story) without knowing who the authors are or anything about them. You are relying on anonymous persons from 2,000 years ago with uncritical acceptance of their words. Non-partisan historical scholars don’t.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia, as with most atheists, has looked at the evidence for gods and found it wanting. Atheists are more interested in helping the world question long held believes that are causing strife. That strife has been listed in many places including the Online Opinion forums ad infinitum.

If you wish to argue about the nitty-gritty of your particular religion, please question yourself as to why you do. I find these quasi-theological discussions not worthwhile but engage in them for the sake of those who don’t. That is not heroism on my part, it just goes with the job.

David

David,

<<I strongly advise you to look at information not emanating from religious sources. Some religious material is good and accurate but much of it is false and misleading intentionally or unintentionally but mainly because of bias. The problem is working that out.>>

Here you go with another genetic fallacy. It is a fallacious argument and we cannot have a rational conversation when you do this.

I have looked at evidence from non-Christian (atheistic) and Christian sources over a period of 50 years. I have concluded that you, as an example of an atheist, will not look objectively at ALL of the evidence, including the New Testament. When you write off the historical reliability of the NT Gospels, you are demonstrating your bias.

I know what a fallacious Genetic Fallacy Argument is and you use it.

>> AFoAL, let’s move away from this banter, given you are a leading atheist give me ten reasons as to why there is no creator and I will seriously contemplate what you say.<<

This is the only request I have made of you.
Once again can you give me your ten or five or two top reasons for your atheist views?

A simple question, I am not looking for a thesis, just the reasons for your thoughts. I could list the reasons that put me in the “agnostic” camp and I don’t run a web site to proffer my views.

Please do not respond as you have with others here, by directing them to Google it. You are the AFoAI….act like it….educate me tiger.

Dear onthebeach,

Thank You for the link of Caroline Jones.
I've always admired her and it was interesting
to read her comments especially about Jesus.
As the Jewish literary critic George Steiner
says in his autobiography, "Errata" the most
scandalous thing about Christianity is that it
believes in forgiveness, even of an enemy.
"Christ's ordinance of total love, of self-offering
to the assailant, is, in an strict sense, an
enormity. The victim is to love his butcher.
A monstrous proposition. But one shedding fathomless
light..."

You mentioned volunteers and communities. The works
of the Saint Vincent de Paul Society. "Vinnies"
is a Catholic lay organisation with which I am
familiar. It was introduced into Australia in 1854,
The growth here has been remarkable. In 2007 there
were 19516 members and volunteers in New South Wales
and the ACT, 7973 in Queensland, 7682 in Victoria,
and 7300 in other states and the Northern Territory.
Nationwide there are over 42,500 members and
volunteers, easily making it Australia's largest charity.
Their work is closely linked for those most in need.
"Need" is the only test applied.

No one is asked about their religion, race, social status,
gender preference or belief. What is extra-ordinary is the
range of services offered. The total number of people
annually assisted by Vinnies is an extraordinary 1.8 million.

Vinnies are unobtrusive, publicity-shy, de-centralised.
They represent Catholicism at its best.

Seasons Greetings everyone and All The Best for 2013 - for
me this discussion has now run its course.

OzSpen,

Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?

David

Atheist, Antony Flew, moved from atheism to theism (not Christianity), based on his examination of the evidence. Here is Antony Flew's interview with Gary Habermas: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

Flew has since died.

Dear David,

As Paul Collins points out in his book, "Believers..."

"The most radical aspect of Jesus teaching goes
beyond even the commandment of love is his insistence
on forgiveness, even of enemies. In contrast to
Christianity, the other monotheistic religions, Judaism
and Islam, believe in 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth.' There are many non-violent Jews and Muslims
who are committed to peace, but Jesus is the first person
in history to say that the vendetta and the desire for
revenge are totally inappropriate responses for his
followers..."

Here is the real core of Jesus' moral teaching. Everything
else is secondary. Perhaps that might help answer your
question.

See you on another thread.

SoG,

You still don't understand the burden of proof, despite having had it explained to you numerous times (had you understood it, then you'd realise that the atheist's position is justified by default so long as believers have not produced any evidence), and you still don't understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, despite that having been pointed out a few times here too. 

You have shown no interest or ability to be educated thus far, so what reason would David have to think you're willing to start now?

AJ Philips>> You have shown no interest or ability to be educated thus far, so what reason would David have to think you're willing to start now?<<

AJ, don't give ALoFI an out re his burden of proof. I have simply requested his reasons for his views, so what moderators chair do you arbitrate from when you deem ALoFI has no reason to answer?

AJ Philips>> Rationalism and Scepticism are philosophical schools of thought. While all Rationalists and Sceptics are atheists, not all atheists are Rationalists or Sceptics. Some are into all sorts of New Age mumbo jumbo<<

AJ, after this statement you have the mordacity to say I don’t understand the semantics of atheist and agnostic.

Rationalism is the belief that thought and action be governed by reason. So you have arbitrated that all rationalists are atheists. Military Generals, Captains of Industry and Academics are rationalists by vocation and many have and do believed in a creator. Your blanket statement is wet irrational self-serving propaganda.

Further I know Christians who are absolutely committed to taking all things generated from humanity with a grain of salt…skeptical. Yet you again pronounce their atheism. Then you capture the rest of the demographic with the claim that the simple soul, not a skeptic or rationalist, is also atheist.

AJ, the implication is that anyone with half a brain is not a theist……..absolute rubbish sport.

I have not challenged the atheist’s views, they can believe whatever they like, and it is not my business. I have challenged their intellectual credibility on choosing the term atheist. How one can have 100% surety of no creator when there is no knowledge of what process or event created matter, and we know the universe had a start point in time. What created the matter and the time we now measure?

As long as that question is not resolved we can have no premise for arbitrarily discounting the possibility of a creator, and I leave that term open for interpretation.

AJ Philips,

Thanks for the support but you can see by sonofgloin’s latest post he is impervious to logic.

David

OzSpen,

Firstly, most atheists had never heard of Anthony Flew until it was touted he had changed his mind. Anthony Flew did not believe in a personal god or even the Christian god but came down on the side of a kind of deism. But there is more to this story than meets the eye.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/2481/the_death_of_another_deathbed_conversion/

No matter what Flew thought about the existence of a force in nature, he had no more information than you or I. In fact, he had less as articles about him demonstrate unless you read from some Christian websites. Seek out Richard Carrier who had correspondence with Flew. Here’s an example:

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article369.html

But besides all this pointless bickering I have posed you a question which I expect you to answer.

I’ll elaborate on it and ask all religious people who have been following this conversation to answer it as well.

So here we go.
_______________________________________________

I am very happy with my life and live it similarly to most reasonable people in the community.

Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?

David

Sonofgloin, No one will ever be able to say who or what started our universe.

Most Christians today base their beliefs on the bible, but how do they know that this is a truthful book and not just a good set of stories?

Muslims believe their Koran has the true story, and many Chinese think Confucious has all the answers.

Don't you agree that there is just too many unanswered questions to really have any truth that a God really exists at all?
Faith is really the only reason people believe...not truth.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc “How about we alter the sentence slightly”

Will you be setting up the Life Only Exists On Earth Foundation tomorrow? No?
Then don't introduce stupid straw men.

The fact many people can “experience” contact with aliens doesn't “prove” they exist, but neither can you claim “no aliens exist” because of the personal nature of the reports, just as you can't claim “no gods exist” for the same reason.

You can choose to ignore the reports of supernatural or alien experiences, but that doesn't mean they are baseless, or that you can claim to know with certainty that there are no such things.

“If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them.”

Why are only “historians” relevant? How many “historians” even existed 2000 years ago?

Maybe many people didn't report these “miracles” because in those days, such events weren't considered so odd.
Magicians, seers, prophets were all over the place.

The only people Jesus would be notable to were the certain crowd of people he addressed, claiming to be *their* Messiah. Why would anyone else care to notice this?
Other peoples had their own mystics, magicians, prophets and priests. Who's this Jeshua dude to them?

“Josephus was not alive at the time of Jesus and wrote ‘Antiquities’ half a dozen decades later. He worked on hearsay.”

Yeah, most historians do write about history *after* it's already happened. Weird, eh?
Do you only consider *contemporary* references to Adolf Hitler reputable? No books written after that fact are relevant?

“Anyone who can use Google can find information”

Oh, so *you* don't need to cite references. But everyone else does.

“Are you ready? ‘There is probably no god’. That’s it…period.”

Ah, no. That's the view of *agnostics*.

“Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.
Why should I follow anything he says?”

Um, because you're “assuming he's God”. How did you get chosen as spokesperson?

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
If you are the authorized spokesperson for this organisation then you are an insult to intelligence and history to call it a myth. You are in the same league as holocaust deniers of events 70 years ago of which we do have contempoary records.

It is evident you lack knowledge of historical facts that Christianity has tradition linked to persons of the first century. I suppose you do not believe the stories and exploits of Julius Caesar because no contemporary records of him exist today. No you are selective in your acceptance of fact; beside Julius has no devoted followers who consider him a god today, as the first century Roman’s believed.

Shockadelic,

There is life on earth so there is the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. There is no supernatural sphere anywhere known. What is your point if you have one?

People can claim they have had alien or supernatural experience. There is no reason anyone else should accept the claim without evidence.

This site gives an idea about first century historians: http://ed5015.tripod.com/BHistoriansAndJesus129.html

“The other historians of that time, Arrian, Lucius Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Pater Calus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Phlegon, Persius, Pompon Mela, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Lucian, Apollonius, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Quintilian, Forus Lucius, Lucanus, Phaedrus, Epictetus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Alulus Geuius, Statius, Ptolemy, Columella, Diochry Sostom, Hermogones, Lysias, Valerius Maxiimus, Cornelius, Titus Livius, Cluvius Rufus, Publius Petronius (the Roman consul) who lived in Jerusalem. All these heard nothing, not a word was written about J.C.”

Enough fish and bread to feed a multitude, water into wine, raising the dead, helping fisherpersons to catch heaps, curing the blind and lame, getting demons to leave pigs (really?) and finally coming back to life. The spoken word was the ancient internet and these things would have spread like wildfire if they happened.

Other magicians could not do those things. Unless you’re suggesting they did.

Actually, Hitler was written about as it was happening or very shortly after. Imagine the stories if we waited 50 or a hundred years before writing anything but relied on word of mouth.

I expect people to know the arguments if they wish to discuss them. Then, that material can be evaluated by both sides. Pushing a one sided story without proper investigation is no way to draw conclusions. The information is available to all.

If you can’t follow the agnostic argument which has been explained umpteen times, I’m not going to do it again.

“Um, because you're “assuming he's God”. How did you get chosen as spokesperson?”

This sentence doesn’t make sense. Can you rephrase it so it does thanks?

And, and it’s a big ‘and’, you did not answer the question.

David

Josephus,

“If you are the authorized spokesperson for this organisation then you are an insult to intelligence and history to call it a myth. You are in the same league as holocaust deniers of events 70 years ago of which we do have contempoary records.”

It would be a better idea if you didn't use stupid phrases like "an insult to intelligence and history" without knowing what you are talking about. The divinity of Jesus is a myth (extraordinary story without evidence) which is believed by Christians. The existence of a character called Jesus has acceptance, but not universal acceptance, by historical scholars. Is there some word or phrase you do not understand here. If so, I will explain again if you ask politely.

“It is evident you lack knowledge of historical facts that Christianity has tradition linked to persons of the first century. I suppose you do not believe the stories and exploits of Julius Caesar because no contemporary records of him exist today. No you are selective in your acceptance of fact; beside Julius has no devoted followers who consider him a god today, as the first century Roman’s believed.”

Tradition is not proof otherwise you would believe that Mohammed rode a horse to heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel and spoke with Allah. Do you believe that?

Historians are unanimous in accepting Julius Caesar existed.

If one follower accepted Jesus was God, that person would be locked up. Because lots of people believe it they are not. People believe many things. That does not make them true.

Would you do me a favour and humour me and answer the question thanks.

David

Suseonline>> Don't you agree that there is just too many unanswered questions to really have any truth that a God really exists at all?
Faith is really the only reason people believe...not truth.<<

Suse, I can’t dispute that…its faith.

But the “truth” of the matter is not yet resolved, and all I am saying is that until that is resolved we can only factually be agnostics, not atheists, a term that describes an absolute. Anyone who has convinced themselves that there is no creator is guessing, as are the theists.

While we are on the subject, I notice AFoAI has not come up with one reason as to why he is an atheist. Quite happy to take advantage of the Christians during their holy period to exhibit his view, but not so well at expounding that view, will not tell them why they are wasting their time…..look it up on Google.
Sport, just give us ten reasons why it is a dead end to believe in more than the fruits of physics…….

>>But the “truth” of the matter is not yet resolved, and all I am saying is that until that is resolved we can only factually be agnostics, not atheists, a term that describes an absolute.<<

Depends who you ask. I am an agnostic theist:

http://reason-being.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/chart.png

Merry Christmas,

Tony

You are right Sonofgloin , we are all mere humans on a tiny planet in a huge universe trying to guess who, if anyone, is a God who made us.

I think that is the reason I have never called myself an atheist, but more a sceptic...

It's all just part of a huge guessing game, which is why I consider religion as more of a gathering together of like-minded people who believe in one theory or another.

I prefer to work with scientific facts rather than 2000 year old books...

David,

<<Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?>>

First, since you 'assume', that is a presupposition and I would propose a hypothesis and test it for validation or falsification from the available historical evidence regarding Jesus.

However, the worldwide evidence indicates that your first statement does not define the nature and personhood of who Jesus is. 'Jesus is God' cannot be a complete statement about his true nature as the New Testament reveals. Your 'Jesus is God' scenario is erecting a straw man logical fallacy as Jesus' nature is more comprehensive than that.

As to why you should follow Jesus, you will have to make that decision yourself, based on the truth of the New Testament Scriptures - which you state that you don't believe as an atheist. But you are a long way from accepting that so I will not deal with that matter as I would be 'casting pearls' and I'm not about to do that.

As for Antony Flew, you stated: <<Firstly, most atheists had never heard of Anthony Flew until it was touted he had changed his mind. Anthony Flew did not believe in a personal god or even the Christian god but came down on the side of a kind of deism. But there is more to this story than meets the eye>>. That is a statement about the ignorance of the atheistic establishment, if what you state is true, because Antony Flew was a leading atheistic British philosopher who taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, Reading and York University, Toronto, Canada. The atheists' ignorance of Antony Flew and his beliefs does not alter the fact of his prominence in the atheistic establishment before his conversion to deism.

David: <<The divinity of Jesus is a myth (extraordinary story without evidence) which is believed by Christians.>>

Not according to the historically reliable New Testament Gospels (see: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4225535/k.1274/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm).

To everyone on this thread - thank you. The thrust and parry has been very entertaining.

Especially to onthebeach, thank you for your kind wishes, and peace and joy 'back atcha' always. Would like to offer these sentiments to all - even poor David, as I think he really needs some TLC from us - or someone.

Suseonline,

Science cannot prove the absence of a God, a supreme being or whatever. All science can do is make the observation that the evidence provided does not constitute adequate proof. That is of course compared against present scientific knowledge.

Providing they comply with laws I don't really mind what my fellow Aussies choose to believe, what interests they choose, or the way they conduct their lives. Same too regarding the people of other nations. To all I'd say "First do no harm" and subject to that go for it, whatever rocks your boat.

I don't believe that many Aussie Christians slavishly follow the edicts of clergy. They don't. Or that they see the Bible as the rigid pronouncements of a deity. More likely as a body of stories to moralise over. But whether they do or not should not be of concern to others. We should not presume to tell them they are wrong. We should not be looking over the fence bothering our neighbours either. We should find better uses of our time.

Many people find benefit in being a member of a congregation for social contact, to share local happenings and to support their own ethics and outlook on life. Many get something out of prayer. A good sing is uplifting too. Where some get more than that, jolly good for them I say.

But I would never go out of my way to offend, dump on them, or persuade them to my religion-neutral, secular ways. Aussie belief in freedom and human rights implies that there also be freedom of worship and religious belief. The sniping, sledging and bad taste niggling we wouldn't aim at (say) Aboriginals and women we shouldn't be directing at people for their beliefs either. As long as Australia remains a secular State I am happy. Although that too constantly needs defending.

SoG,

If you really are a fence-sitter, then I don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand the burden of proof. I'll try explaining it to you.

There are two types of 'burden of proof': the legal burden of proof, and the philosophic burden of proof.

The legal burden of proof requires that the prosecution present a case beyond all reasonable doubt. Until they do, the default position of the jury is that the defence is 'not guilty'. Unlike in your world, the judge or jury do not expect both sides to present a convincing case right from the get go. The prosecution has to have produced something of substance first.

To give an example of the philosophic burden of proof, if we take all possible nouns and all possible adjectives, and apply them to the statement "A is B", most of the statements we could construct at random would be false (e.g. The sky is red). Only a very small minority of statements in that form are true, whereas most of the statements in the form of "A is not B" are true. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the positive assertion - "A is B".

Do you get it now?

<<Rationalism is the belief that thought and action be governed by reason.>>

Correct, and religious faith is the antithesis of reason. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something... http://tinyurl.com/c4f8yz9

<<Further I know Christians who are absolutely committed to taking all things generated from humanity with a grain of salt…skeptical.>>

Um, I DID mentioned that I was referring to Scepticism in the philosophical sense... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

<<I have challenged their intellectual credibility on choosing the term atheist.>>

Then learn what it means first... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

<<How one can have 100% surety of no creator...>>

Here you go again with the absolutes. Nothing about atheism says or necessitates 100% certainty. This is something you have invented yourself.

<<...and we know the universe had a start point in time.>>

In its current form, yes. Ever heard of string theory?

I might add though, SoG, that I'm quite happy to include some theists into the Rationalist and Skeptic categories. In fact, I'll take what I said back there if it makes you happy. It would only strengthen the point I was making to Shockadelic at the time anyway.

More importantly, however, it has no bearing on the points I have been trying to make on this thread, and that you have been struggling with immensely for some mysterious reason.

Although I suspect you simply found what you thought to be a glass jaw and went for it as some diversionary tactic to mask the fact that none of your points have withstood the scrutiny they have endured.

Which really dosen't make you look like much of a fence-sitter. 

I agree onthebeach. I would never presume to tell someone what to believe or what not to believe.
However, I would reserve the right to point out why I don't believe in Gods.

That's one of the reasons I enjoy living in a secular Australia. At least we have the right to disagree with religions or other ways of life.
Many countries don't have that religious belief freedom, and it is the cause of much angst and fighting...

"Many countries don't have that religious belief freedom, and it is the cause of much angst and fighting..."

True enough :(

Sometimes the young can light the way for us:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1452086/Muslim-teen-defends-Christmas-tradition

All of the religious and cultural special days are there for us all to respect and share our common humanity. Particular beliefs for instance Muslims might get special significance from theirs, but we can share at some level and so on. One of the events we went to for the first time (for us) was the Buddha Birthday festival in Brisbane. It was most enjoyable. Here is the 2013 program for information,

http://bbdf2012.buddhabirthdayfestival.com.au/

Might as well enjoy our allotted three score and ten years above ground. We only ever regret the times we didn't share with family friends and other people :)

Atheist Foundation “There is life on earth so there is the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.”

But to claim “no aliens exists” because you don't see any evidence would be preposterous!

“What is your point if you have one?”

What is YOUR point? That if you disregard people's reported experiences, therefore those people are liars?

“There is no reason anyone else should accept the claim without evidence.”

You don't have to. But you can't then claim it's all false/non-existent!

“Actually, Hitler was written about as it was happening”

Duh! But would you only consider *those* sources reliable?
Time magazine made him Man Of The Year!

“Pushing a one sided story without proper investigation is no way to draw conclusions.”

I'm not pushing any story.

“If you can’t follow the agnostic argument...”

You are the confused one, saying the core atheist view is that God “probably” doesn't exist.
Sorry, there's no “probably” in atheism. There can be in agnosticism.

“This sentence doesn’t make sense.”

Why *wouldn't* you listen to what Jesus said if you are ASSUMING HE'S GOD!?

Of course, you could choose not to listen, but that wouldn't change a thing about him being God, would it?

He would *still* be God, you just wouldn't care.
That still wouldn't justify an “atheist” identity, would it?

You can rebel against or reject God all right.
In the Christian account, Adam and Eve did, and before them Satan.

You could claim to be a “sinner” or “dissenter”, but not an “atheist”.
Not if you are “assuming Jesus is God”.

“If one follower accepted Jesus was God, that person would be locked up.”

Why? Is he dangerous? Should deviant thought be automatically punished or “treated”?

“Because lots of people believe it they are not. People believe many things. That does not make them true.”

It also doesn't make them false.

The only way you could *prove* one belief is false would be to prove a *contradictory* belief is true.

Since none of these beliefs can be proved true, NONE can be definitely said to be false either.

Dear onthebeach,

Your words of reason have touched my heart
and I Thank You for them!
Big hug!

OzSpen,

“First, since you 'assume', that is a presupposition and I would propose a hypothesis and test it for validation or falsification from the available historical evidence regarding Jesus.”

The word ‘assume’ is used in the sense of hypothetical.

“However, the worldwide evidence indicates that your first statement does not define the nature and personhood of who Jesus is…”

Again, this is a hypothetical and it means any god of any believer. Each can answer in their own manner. Strange but expected but none have. Your skirting around it is noticeable. Answer it about the god in which you believe.

I would not follow the words of Jesus if they did not tie up with the highest ethical standards unless he pointed out he would torture me for eternity if I didn’t. I would accept he is god and would no longer be an atheist, of course!.

Repeat mode on: Even if Anthony Flew was very well known by all atheists, and he wasn’t, his words would not be accepted just because he is an atheist. You obviously have not looked at anything but religious nonsense about him.

This is funny. I say the divine Jesus is a myth only believed by Christians and you offer proof that he is not, from a Christian view.

David

worldwatcher,

“....even poor David, as I think he really needs some TLC from us - or someone.”

Sorry to disappoint you, but I get lots of TLC and you know what, it’s not from imaginary friends.

David

Shockadelic,

“But to claim “no aliens exists” because you don't see any evidence would be preposterous!.”

Who is making that claim? There is a good chance that simple alien life exists and a possibility that intelligent aliens might also. There are both kinds of that life on earth, although the latter category is overstated going by some of the posts on this thread and the earth is in the universe which has trillions of planets.

The huge distances probably preclude alien visits and therefore evidence is needed to verify claims of abduction and visitations.

David

AJ Philips>> Here you go again with the absolutes. Nothing about atheism says or necessitates 100% certainty. This is something you have invented yourself.<<

Dunno AJ, all the reference books I have use the term nonbeliever when describing the word atheist. But interestingly the thesaurus has the terms “doubter” and “nonbeliever” as alternatives. Nonbeliever is pretty absolute to me whereas doubter is not an absolute. Agnostic also has the same alternatives in the thesaurus but broad alternatives are given a run given it is a thesaurus.

But at the end of the day there are two words, atheist and agnostic, and each have a specific application. Agnostic is best served by the word doubt, meaning no judgment has been made. Atheist engenders nonbeliever, an absolute position. In the context of this thread, atheists have declared there is no god, they are wrong footed intellectually given they want to argue their point intellectually.

A self proclaimed atheist such as ALoFI cannot disprove the creator scenario, but chooses to take a PERSONAL stance on the subject. Perhaps he had a Catholic upbringing, or he got molested by the priest…….but for whatever reason ALoFI hates religions and does not consider the possibility of a god, it is not an intellectually intelligent position to take. It is a personal observation driven psychologically.

By the way, ALoFI, I am still waiting for your top ten “there is indisputably no god” reasoning’s

Shockadelic,

“That if you disregard people's reported experiences, therefore those people are liars?”

They could be mistaken, deluded and yes, or liars. What would you class the people as who wrote other holy books?

“You don't have to. But you can't then claim it's all false/non-existent!”

Who does?

Please read what I have said about your Hitler analogy.

Please read what others and I have said about agnosticism.

“Why *wouldn't* you listen to what Jesus said if you are ASSUMING HE'S GOD!?”

That is answering a question with a question.

“He would *still* be God, you just wouldn't care. That still wouldn't justify an “atheist” identity, would it?”

I wouldst be an atheist under that circumstance. That would be stupid.

“Why? Is he dangerous? Should deviant thought be automatically punished or “treated”?”

Yes, you are correct; I left out possibly, ‘would possibly be locked up. It was a joke with a serious message. I’ll be less subtle in future.

“It also doesn't make them false.”

You are correct. Of course, billions of people follow what you think are false claims which you wouldn't and they wouldn't follow what they consider are false claims by you. They are called every other religion except Christianity.

“Since none of these beliefs can be proved true, NONE can be definitely said to be false either.”

Then, why did you ‘choose’ the one you are now defending?

Now we have been through this stuff, can you answer the question thanks.

David

sonofgloin,

“A self proclaimed atheist such as ALoFI cannot disprove the creator scenario, but chooses to take a PERSONAL stance on the subject. Perhaps he had a Catholic upbringing, or he got molested by the priest…….but for whatever reason ALoFI hates religions and does not consider the possibility of a god, it is not an intellectually intelligent position to take. It is a personal observation driven psychologically.”

So many wrong assumptions and so little time!

The burden of proof is on those proposing there is a creator. I have no reason whatsoever to take a ‘personal’ stance about being an atheist. Yes, I had a Catholic upbringing and as stated it was interesting. No, I was not molested by a priest although a Brother did take interest in me but that never led to any misconduct. The Atheist Foundation of Australia does not hate religion. It is opposed to those parts of religion that harm many in the human race. One of the harms is to the many of its adherents who become very bitter and stroppy when questioned about their ‘faith’. They become angry and irrational. Depending on the historical position of any religion, it can even lead to killing others who don’t believe the same as they do.

Atheists consider the god idea is a possibility albeit a very small possibility. Atheists also consider that fairies are a possibility but a very small possibility. Possibilities are a philosophical stance everyone takes. In reality, some people choose the highest probability. Others, such as religious believers, choose the lowest possibility.

Are you saying that atheists are driven to be atheists by bad experience? That is total bollocks and only demonstrates you are cocooned in a fantasyland of religious making.

Your final question is one of desperation. You have to prove your creator god exists. That is why I am an atheist because no one ever has.

Say this again and I will consider you are incapable of rational thought. I could have used other than ‘rational thought’ but it is the Christmyth season of goodwill.

David

David, thanks for your reply. Your position is not as steadfast with the inclusion of the word “possibilities”….and that is all I have been bleating on about. My first post was simply a comment on semantics….in fact semantics is almost exclusively all I have written about.

I started with this:
>> Merry festive season David. Just a seasonal comment re Xmas and religions.

The term atheist is a logical nonsense, as is the term theist. How can you be a committed believer or non believer with absolutely no proof one way or the other?

Agnostic is the descriptive the thinking man goes with I believe.<<

And the rest was a debate about semantics, with AJ primarily, but I did think that given your willful provocation you would have some secret weapon of rebuttal for the Christians other than “The burden of proof is on those proposing there is a creator”.

Re your comments that religions pits human against human…..sure it does, as do red hair, skin colour, gene pool, greed, jealousy, financial status etc etc.. Religion being the great divider of humanity can be rebutted deed for deed action for action by positive outcomes due to the moral foundation that religions bring to cultures.

Anyway……Merry Chrismyth to you my heathen brother…..lol.

David,

David: <<Again, this is a hypothetical and it means any god of any believer. Each can answer in their own manner. Strange but expected but none have. Your skirting around it is noticeable. Answer it about the god in which you believe.>>

I’m not interested in pursuing your hypothetical concept of God as it is nothing more than trying to get conversation going with me. I’m skirting around NOTHING. The Trinitarian Lord God Almighty in whom I believe has stated this of your atheism: ‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good’ (Psalm 14:1 NIV).

The biblical worldview as described in the Christian Scriptures fits like a hand in glove with the world around me – I see it’s beauty and its ugliness. I have recently retired after 34 years in family counselling, the last 17 years full-time. I see the beauty and ugliness in human beings (including myself) and God has told us that that is exactly the way it is in the Scriptures:

‘For you [the Lord] created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you [the Lord] because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well’ (Psalm 139:13-14 NIV).

‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. 3 They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. 4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun. 5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth’ (Psalm 19:1-6 NIV).

(Part 1 continued in Part 2)

As for the ugliness in our world, we find the cause coming from the first two human beings who lived and had the choice to obey or disobey God. They chose to disobey and we reap the dire, sinful consequence. Read about it in Genesis 3.

But a new heaven and a new earth are coming (See Revelation 21).

Until then, all human beings have the opportunity of new life through Christ: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’ (John 3:16).

David: <<I would not follow the words of Jesus if they did not tie up with the highest ethical standards unless he pointed out he would torture me for eternity if I didn’t. I would accept he is god and would no longer be an atheist, of course!.>>

Humanistic answers like you have given here are a dud. I know. I tried them. Only a relationship with the God-man, Jesus Christ, changed my life. I would not trade that for all the $$$ in the world.

David: <<Repeat mode on: Even if Anthony Flew was very well known by all atheists, and he wasn’t, his words would not be accepted just because he is an atheist. You obviously have not looked at anything but religious nonsense about him.>>

Your bigotry is showing up again. You want me to believe that your atheism has the sense for me to follows and that anybody’s relationship with Jesus Christ is ‘religious nonsense’. When will you quit using this ad hominem logical fallacy?

(Part 2 continued in Part 3)

(Part 3, continued from Part 2)

David: <<This is funny. I say the divine Jesus is a myth only believed by Christians and you offer proof that he is not, from a Christian view.>>

That is NOT what I stated. This is what I said: <<However, the worldwide evidence indicates that your first statement does not define the nature and personhood of who Jesus is. 'Jesus is God' cannot be a complete statement about his true nature as the New Testament reveals. Your 'Jesus is God' scenario is erecting a straw man logical fallacy as Jesus' nature is more comprehensive than that.>>

He is the God-man Jesus Christ. That’s the biblical evidence. He is not just God. He is God who became flesh and that makes Jesus the God-Man.

sonofgloin,

Knowing the distinction between probability and possibility is very important for forming an accurate representative view of reality. Don’t leave home without it.

Maybe you could answer the question as others are apparently fearful of it.

And a Merry Christmas to you if that gets you through the night. :))

David

OzSpen,

Anthony Flew lost the plot and was manipulated by others to admit to there being a designer when he did not have up to date scientific information. He was suffering from senility at the time. Get your head out of religious websites and smell the roses.

You have failed to properly check this story out and you have failed to understand the unimportance of it. This is a dumb religious strawman. No one cares what Anthony Flew thought. Okay, I’m wrong there. Apparently some Christians think it is important. Let me rephrase that, most atheists are not interested in what Anthony Flew thought.

I really don’t even care if he was of sound mind and chose to believe in a designer force, a deity or a god or even the Christian God, the Islamic Allah or Bugs Bunny.

Calling my comments on this matter, bigotry is inaccurate. (to say the least)

I certainly don’t want discussion with you to go any further. What made you think I would?

A fluster of posts with Biblical quotes, religious stories and anecdotes do not answer the question I posed.

Can you answer it thanks. It will not harm you.

David

SoG,

<<...all the reference books I have use the term nonbeliever when describing the word atheist.>>

Okay...

I'm not sure what your point is, sorry.

Do you mean to say that you have reference books contradicting what myself, Wikipedia and most (if not all) dictionaries say about atheism? If so, could you please list some for me so that I can check them out?

I don't think you can, because I suspect these references don't exist.

<<But at the end of the day there are two words, atheist and agnostic, and each have a specific application.>>

No, essentially theism and atheism go to what you believe, while gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you know. The two are in no way mutually exclusive, even if you only apply your understanding of agnosticism. 

<<Agnostic is best served by the word doubt, meaning no judgment has been made.>>

Not entirely... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

<<Atheist engenders nonbeliever, an absolute position.>>

Erm... no. You've got your absolutes mixed-up in a splendid display of the equivocation fallacy.

'Believer' and 'non-believer' are *logical absolutes*, meaning that one is either a believer, or they are not. Similarly, an object is either a rock, or it is not. There are no in betweens with logical absolutes. 

So in this context, 'believers' believe in a god, everyone else comes under the non-believer category - whether they are doubters, strong atheists, confused, don't know or don't care. 

The "non" in non-believer is simply a negation of the word "believer". It says nothing about how strongly one believes or doesn't and neither does the fact that they are LOGICAL absolutes. 

<<In the context of this thread, atheists have declared there is no god...>>

How so?

David,

You are into logical fallacies again as you have demonstrated here: Genetic fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy.

No, I will not answer any further as there cannot be a logical discussion when you continue to use logical fallacies like this towards my posts.

SoG writes: "Your [David's] position is not as steadfast with the inclusion of the word “possibilities”….and that is all I have been bleating on about."

Wow. 

So the magic word was "possibilities". That's like a cruel joke. It reminds me of those Indian gurus who claim to know the meaning of life, but have never told anyone what it is because they apparently haven't asked the right way.

Incidentally, I did actually cover the difference between 'possibilities' and 'probabilities' with Shockadelic (or maybe you just needed to hear the word from David).

SoG,

While that's all fine and well, you committed three fallacies in the wake of your attempts to hear that one word (and avoid understanding what others had been telling you).

The argumentum ad populum;
The strawman;
The equivocation fallacy;

And you came dangerously close to the argument from ignorance.

Not exactly what one would expect from a thinking man or a fence-sitter.

David,

<<A fluster of posts with Biblical quotes, religious stories and anecdotes do not answer the question I posed.>>

Yes, they do, but you don't want to listen to all of the reliable historical evidence that is available from Scripture. Yes, reliable historical evidence. This has been proved many times over, but you don't want to hear about it.

Dr. Paul Barnett, a former history teacher at Macquarie University, Sydney, has written a number of publications that confirm the historical reliability of the Bible. He wrote as a historian and a Christian. His publications include:

1. Is the New Testament History?
2. Jesus and the Logic of History;
3. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity;
4. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years
5. Paul: Missionary of Jesus

He was so competent as a historian that Macquarie University hired him to teach history. He confirms the historical reliability of the New Testament.

But, ah! You, as an atheist, don't want to hear that evidence. You write off 'Biblical quotes', but Dr Paul Barnett, the historian, can demonstrate the historical reliability of the New Testament. As an atheist, you have decided to exclude reliable historical records from your repertoire of historical evidence? Why? Your presuppositional bias against the Bible!

OzSpen,

Looking back at some of your posts over time shows a preponderance mention of various fallacies, which you love to throw around like confetti for effect. Mostly they are not related to that which you are criticising and it is only done to show you are innocent of written wrongdoing yourself and the master describing the literary faults of others. If I had to guess, I would say that religious-method-lessons, (some religious websites promote this dishonesty and a start to investigate can be found here http://www.atheismsfallacies.com/ ) panic, desperation, run out of ideas and insecurity causes this.

And about the question, well, looks like your fear of the wrath of Yahweh is showing even though you didn't state it just in case he found out.

Do you mean Paul William Barnett, the ex-Anglican Bishop of North Sydney? Yes, he would be unbiased as it gets. Not.

BTW, the Garden of Eden was not real, it is a bad metaphor at best and anyone using it in discussion as though it was real, should be careful of calling other people names concerning credibility. And I am not going into the creationist mumbo jumbo arguments…trust me.

David

Lexi,

Thank you and hugs are returned to you. The good thing is that love and hugs are not limited. They are in boundless supply.

As a very analytical person my inclination is to challenge for what we like to call facts and evidence.

But I have experienced enough of life to realise how limited and impoverished we are when we always do that.

"To give life meaning, one must have a purpose larger than one’s self" - Will Durant

AJ Philips>> Not exactly what one would expect from a thinking man or a fence-sitter <<

Sadly that is life AJ, expectations shatter.

David,

<<Do you mean Paul William Barnett, the ex-Anglican Bishop of North Sydney? Yes, he would be unbiased as it gets. Not>>.
He is such a competent historian that Macquarie University hired him. And you, an atheist, would be as unbiased as it gets. Right??

<<BTW, the Garden of Eden was not real, it is a bad metaphor at best and anyone using it in discussion as though it was real, should be careful of calling other people names concerning credibility. And I am not going into the creationist mumbo jumbo arguments…trust me.>>

This is David, the atheistic president of the Australian Atheist Foundation speaking. Please tell me your qualifications in biblical hermeneutics.

Here you are with your ad hominem logical fallacy again: "the creationist mumbo jumbo arguments"

We cannot have a logical discussion when you resort to these kinds of tactics in your misotheism.

David,

<<Looking back at some of your posts over time shows a preponderance mention of various fallacies, which you love to throw around like confetti for effect. Mostly they are not related to that which you are criticising and it is only done to show you are innocent of written wrongdoing yourself and the master describing the literary faults of others. If I had to guess, I would say that religious-method-lessons, (some religious websites promote this dishonesty and a start to investigate can be found here http://www.atheismsfallacies.com/ ) panic, desperation, run out of ideas and insecurity causes this.>>

This is a false accusation. This is also another example of your use of a fallacy of relevance: An error that does not address the issues.

When I have accused you of using this and other logical fallacies I have been accurate in my accusations. I happen to know what opponents of Christianity do and you are no exception with your use of logical fallacies.

<<If I had to guess>>

That's exactly what you have done here.

OzSpen,

“He is such a competent historian that Macquarie University hired him. And you, an atheist, would be as unbiased as it gets. Right??”

Let’s get some facts straight as you are being quite disingenuous on a number of fronts. Paul William Barnett is a fellow in ancient history at the Macquarie University. He has written about the history of the New Testament and not the divinity of Jesus. As far as I know he does not aspire to creationism.

The existence of Jesus of the New Testament is not under dispute in this thread as it is unimportant. What is of paramount significance is whether this character was divine. There is no credible ex-Biblical evidence for that As a Christian, he may hold the view that Jesus was divine on faith but that is all.

“Please tell me your qualifications in biblical hermeneutics”.

No, I’m not an expert on interpretation of the bible. Neither are you. And if there was one interpretation then there would be one religion. This method of escaping the question of your creationist leanings is another example of manipulating the language.

I don’t have to be an expert as the human race is very lucky, it has the best truth finder there is, it is called science. It’s not perfect but nothing comes close to it. Science would be very pleased indeed if creationists could demonstrate another force in the universe but creationism/intelligent design has failed to produce any studies refuting evolution in accredited scientific journals where they may be investigated by peer review.

And please don’t come back with excuses that scientist have a conspiracy theory against God, are influenced by the Devil or are deluded and therefore won’t allow any studies to be published. That is nonsense.

A GAC speaker and evolutionist, Eugenie C. Scott, is the Executive Director of the National Centre for Science Education. Have a look at what she says here. Watch at 33:50 if not wanting to view the whole video. But, it is glaringly obvious that you definitely need to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8&list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&index=14

David

David,

David: <<Let’s get some facts straight as you are being quite disingenuous on a number of fronts. Paul William Barnett is a fellow in ancient history at the Macquarie University. He has written about the history of the New Testament and not the divinity of Jesus. As far as I know he does not aspire to creationism>>.

Here again you are using a fallacy of relevance. I was not addressing an aspect of creationism. You wanted to discredit Paul Barnett in a previous post because he was the former Anglican bishop, so what do you do now? You switch horses with a red herring fallacy. I gave you books on the demonstrated reliable history of the New Testament written by a competent historian, Dr. Paul Barnett. But you are not interested in pursuing what Dr. Barnett states about the New Testament as history. It is in the historically reliable New Testament that we have the biblical evidence for the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. He is the God-man and not just God or just man.

David: <<The existence of Jesus of the New Testament is not under dispute in this thread as it is unimportant. What is of paramount significance is whether this character was divine. There is no credible ex-Biblical evidence for that As a Christian, he may hold the view that Jesus was divine on faith but that is all>>.

The existence of Jesus, the God-man, is under discussion in this thread, which is authenticated by the NT, and you have denigrated the historical veracity of the NT.

David: <<No, I’m not an expert on interpretation of the bible. Neither are you. And if there was one interpretation then there would be one religion. This method of escaping the question of your creationist leanings is another example of manipulating the language>>.

You are demonstrating your ignorance. I happen to have a BA in biblical literature and NT Greek, which means that I have completed courses in hermeneutics. I'm currently working on a PhD in New Testament with a university. You have misrepresented me.

OzSpen,

The New Testament Jesus may be under discussion by you but it is irrelevant to me. I am not going to say this again. It is the divinity of Jesus that is pertinent as Jesus the man is only a man. Bugs Bunny is a rabbit and only a rabbit. He is not an actual creature.

It is a red herring that you play continually on the historical Jesus. Don’t do it.

If you have qualifications, (where did you achieved them) or if you are a young or old earth creationist and you wish to have proper discussion, those facts should be divulged. Please lay this information on the table now.

You can consider that Jesus was a God-man but there is no evidence for that. Stop manipulating the topic to make out there is. What is the ex-biblical evidence for Jesus being a God-Man? I mean universal evidence that would be accepted by all.

Oh, and by the way, the terribly hard question I posed does have a very simple answer.

Here is the question again.

>>>”I am very happy with my life and live it similarly to most reasonable people in the community.

Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.

Why should I follow anything he says?”<<<

Answer: Because you will go to hell if you don’t.

The implications should be obvious.

David

>>>He was not known in his time because he was just one of the run of the mill 'messiahs'

David,

Have you ever heard of the expression "where there is smoke, there is fire"? Does someone get to become the most famous and influential person to ever live, changing the world many times over, by being a run of the mill dime a dozen religious personality? That seems like an unreasonable hypothesis to me. There is no exaggerating the impact that Jesus has had on the Earth. Consider the words of Napleon:

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/04/napoleons-proof-for-divinity-of-jesus.html

His words in the NT are what proves they are His genuine testimony. The power of those words to change the world, and shape nations do not exist in any other book. The power of those words to change lives, to transform a person from the inside out, could not be written by just anyone. There is no one like Jesus; His writings and wisdom are unique in all the worlds history. That isn't something anyone could just dream up. Look at what Einstein said:

George Viereck: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

Einstein: “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

George Viereck: “Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”

Einstein: “No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.”

The worlds most intelligent human in recent times agrees with my line of thought, which is that the words of Jesus could not be manufactured. They are the genuine article and their transformative power over the world and mens hearts is the proof.

>>>There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence >>>suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine.

David,

Jesus Himself offered to prove His existence to anyone who would open the door to Him:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

There are two kinds of skeptics. An honest skeptic and a dishonest skeptic. An honest skeptic is someone who doesn't know but is willing to find out. A dishonest skeptic is someone who doesn't know and doesn't want to know. Which are you? Would you be willing to sign your name to this statement?:

God, I don't know if you exist or not. I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I don't know if Jesus Christ is your Son or not, but I want to know, and because I want to know I will make an honest investigation, and because it is an honest investigation I will follow the results of that investigation where ever they lead me, regardless of the cost.

If you are willing to sign off on it, then your assignment is to read the gospel of John. The purpose of the gospel of John is stated thusly:

John 20:31

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

It was written specifically so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you would have life in His name. Although you don't now believe, you can say to God..God I don't know if this is your word of not, but if this is your word, show me. I'll make up my mind before the fact that I will obey you only if you show me this is your word and speak to my heart.

Would you be willing to do that?

washed,

I think OzSpen would pull you up about arguments from authority. That is on his cute little fallacy list. Be interesting to see if he does or doesn't. And by the way you left out a bit of Einstein’s conversation. Why did you do that? Here it continues.

“I seriously doubt that Jesus himself said that he was God, for he was too much a Jew to violate that great commandment: ‘Hear O Israel, the Eternal is our God and He is one!' and not two or three. Sometimes I think it would have been better if Jesus had never lived. No name was so abused for the sake of power!”

Einstein doesn't mention that Jesus was a God-man and Einstein did not convert to Christianity he remained a cultural Jew and discounted the trinity magic. Have you a point to make?

Over a billion people follow the words of Muhammad and they influenced civilisations also. By your logic, they must be right. Can you explain that discrepancy thanks?

I'm not going to investigate every quote you bring up unless it proves the existence of a god. Then I will check it out.

Mass-quoting from the bible is only a sign that you have been indoctrinated as a child and you were susceptible to that indoctrination the same as people who quote from the Koran and other holy books. That is why the Atheist Foundation of Australia is opposed to children being mentally interfered with by religion. We are trying to give children a chance not to turn out like you. I hope others on the Online Opinion Forums see the importance of the AFA position on this.

I’ll ask you also but I know it is pointless, supply proof of your god that everyone will accept the same as everyone accepts the law of gravity or that the earth revolves around the sun etc.

And, what is your answer to my question?

Surely you are not so fearful of your god as to be frightened to answer it. I thought it was the god of love.

David

Can any Forum member explain how this was possible please.
After posting on this thread, I immediately received an e-mail from the Atheist Foundation in my personal mailbox? Does this mean that posting on this site makes my e-mail address available for everyone?

David,

There are some false statements in what you have written here.

1. David wrote: ‘The New Testament Jesus may be under discussion by you but it is irrelevant to me. I am not going to say this again. It is the divinity of Jesus that is pertinent as Jesus the man is only a man’. You might try to get away with diverting the divinity/deity of Jesus from the New Testament, but it is in that historically reliable NT that I find the teaching on the deity of Christ. Nice try, but it doesn’t work.

2. David: ‘If you have qualifications, (where did you achieved them) or if you are a young or old earth creationist and you wish to have proper discussion, those facts should be divulged. Please lay this information on the table now’. You don’t have the humility to acknowledge what you don’t know about me. Another red herring.

3. Above, you wrote of New Testament historian, Dr. Paul Barnett: ‘Paul William Barnett is a fellow in ancient history at the Macquarie University. He has written about the history of the New Testament and not the divinity of Jesus’. That is another of your false statements. See Barnett's book, Messiah: Jesus, the evidence of history, in which he deals with the deity of Christ.

Paul Barnett affirms the deity of Christ in his online article, ‘The Great Creeds', http://paulbarnett.info/2011/06/

You are digging yourself further into the hole of ignorance with what you stated of Paul Barnett and his view on the divinity/deity of Christ.

4. You also stated of me, ‘I think OzSpen would pull you up about arguments from authority. That is on his cute little fallacy list. Be interesting to see if he does or doesn't’. Here you are engaging in another ad hominem logical fallacy against me. Sure sounds like you don’t like being called for your use of logical fallacies when you say things like this about me.

I will not continue my discussions with you because of your use of logical fallacies, making it impossible to have a logical discussion.

worldwatcher,

<<Can any Forum member explain how this was possible please.
After posting on this thread, I immediately received an e-mail from the Atheist Foundation in my personal mailbox? Does this mean that posting on this site makes my e-mail address available for everyone?>>

I find that to be a serious breach of privacy on a public forum. I think you should be addressing this to the management of On Line Opinion.

OzSpen,

1. There is no ‘nice try’ about it. You ‘believe’ Jesus to be divine. Great.

2. No information as it might embarrass you. I understand. We’ll take your words on ‘faith’ then, shall we?

3. Yes, I was partly incorrect about Bennett. Apparently, he is somewhat infected by the religious gene. Therefore everything I say is wrong.

4. No condemnation of washer’s fallacies. It was an ad hominem to a sensitive you but a mere truthful statement from me. Proven, by the way, as you still have not picked washer up about it. Very selective of you.

Allow me to add a few more numbered statements:

5. No proof of the divinity of Jesus enough to convince everyone.

6. No answering the question I posed. This is a biggie and you know it. It would destroy your hanging-by-a-thread credibility if you did so. The fear of retribution is behind it all and that is a terrible burden to place on children who cannot combat it. It is child abuse.

7. No understanding of the Anthony Flew situation. This was quite a blunder by you. Not just a blunder but a monumental misreading of the matter. This was either a result of only taking information from dubious Christian websites or intentionally meant to misrepresent the case by you. Either way, it demonstrates a totally one-eyed view of (un)reality.

8. A continual overusing of the currency concerning fallacies. Don’t look now but that is not working. Or is this the not-working fallacy?

Goodbye and enjoy the only life you are ever going to have.

Merry Christmyth.

David

worldwatcher,

Apart from the fact you received an email that might be tied up with this Forum but I doubt that very much, the Atheist Foundation of Australia does not send out random emails to anyone.

What was the subject and content of the email?

Please forward a copy of the said email to info@atheistfoundation. org.au

David

worldwatcher,

<<Can any Forum member explain how this was possible please.
After posting on this thread, I immediately received an e-mail from the Atheist Foundation in my personal mailbox? Does this mean that posting on this site makes my e-mail address available for everyone?>>

What did the email from the Atheist Foundation state? Have you supplied these details to the editor of On Line Opinion?

OzSpen,

No, I didn't even bother to open it. Just immediately deleted it.
Didn't inform the editor either. Treated it the same as any other unwanted e-mail - straight to the trash bin.

However, it does bother me that this could happen, as I believed that my e-mail address was not available to anyone unless I handed it out.
I stay away from Facebook and Twitter for that very reason.

I have my doubts any e mail was received.
Yes it has been done, e mails passed on by request.
But just as so many get it wrong in comments.
A FEW GET IT WRONG IN MATTERS OF TRUTH.
However happy Christmas to all.
Including that mod from Lakemba, and the black Darlek like pedestrians on Sydneys streets.

OzSpen,

You mean, of course, the alleged letter from the Atheist Foundation of Australia. We sent no such letter.

This is a disquieting accusation by worldwatcher and it is in need of clarifying. If worldwatcher does not wish to forward the alleged email to the AFA so our technical people can look at it, and no such email has arrived, I agree with you a first priority should be to contact the Online Opinion editor.

The AFA treats all emails as confidential and is very strict with that rule.

It would be the correct thing for worldwatcher to do to let Forums members know what the stage of proceeding are. Has the Online Opinion editor been contacted and what is in the email.

David

worldwatcher,

"No, I didn't even bother to open it. Just immediately deleted it."

Then go to deleted items and retrieve it.

Accusing Online Opinion of letting out emails and accusing the AFA of sending unwanted emails is a serious issue and the AFA treat such accusations seriously.

David

If OLO had had anything to do with it, it would have been a request from David to forward his email to worldwatcher (which obviously wasn't the case). It wouldn't have been an email directly from the AFA. It would have been from Online Opinion forwarding an email address, as Graham will sometimes pass on email addresses if requested (although I've never asked him to do it for me). Usually, this arrangement is agreed to by posters before the request is made.

I would like to say sincerely, a very Merry Christmas to those who follow the Christian tradition and a very Merry Christmyth to those who do not.

Take care all and enjoy the festivities.

David

Belly,

By inference you call me a liar. You can criticise any comments I make, but I really do object to being called a liar. I can live without ugly comments like that. I expected better from Forum members.
You touched a very, very large nerve there. I have always lived by the dictum that one should always tell the truth, even if sometimes the truth hurts. This is what I taught my children too. They were punished for misdeeds, and punished twice as hard for lying to me about them.
Maybe in your world it is unimportant to throw out statements like you have. In my world trashing a person's character is taken very seriously. I joined this Forum solely for discussion and to broaden my sphere of knowledge through the wisdom of others, not for insults.

David, Unfortunately as it turns out it's been completely deleted from my computer. Can't send you something which is now unavailble on my system, and I don't know the contents because I didn't open it. Regardless, my question was whether my e-mail address is publicly available by participating in this Forum, and yes, I have taken Ozpen's suggestion and have asked Graham this.

You have to admit your post, and my comment about my own beliefs has certainly opened vigorous debate on the Forum.

And for me, the comments have been both provocative and enlightening, and at times even insulting, but always interesting, although it is an argument with no possible clear winners or losers.

Poirot's probably right. Either that or it was an OLO email alert saying that David had posted a comment.

As an IT expert, though, who works in the IT industry (and an atheist who understands what the motivations of an organisation such as the AFA would be, and someone who understands how OLO's Graham works regarding the handing out of emails, etc.), I'd have to say that this recent development is both amusing and disheartening.

Amusing because it would take quite a computer-illiterate dope to actually think that something like this could happen without one's browser and/or security software ringing alarm bells every time you visited either OLO or the AFA's website. Which makes me suspect that this is just a desperate and deliberate smear.

And disheartening because it shows how conspiratorial and just downright irrational some can be. David Nichols receives quite a beating from even those who are fellow atheists (and fence-sitters who don't realise they're atheists too) on OLO, and while I may not agree with him, or his way of going about things, 100% of the time, to think that he, or the organisation for which he is president, would actually hack OLO to get emails to spam (as OzSpen had implied) just goes to show what a fantasy some live in.

On the contrary, it is actually theistic organisations who are guilty of this sort of devious behaviour. The false DMCA claims and the creationist votebots that atheistic YouTubers have been the constant victims of over the past few years are classic examples.

As the Internet has helped to demonstrate, it is theists who are the only one's desperate enough to resort to dodgy/criminal activity on the web because they have nothing to support their claims, forcing them to resort to cowardly and desperate censorship tactics.

AJ Philips,

I freely confess to being a completely computer -illiterate dope. My 4 year old grandchild understands them better than myself. I also recently bought my first simplest available mobile phone,which the salesman kindly set up for me. Not sure how to make that work properly either. Electronic communication may be easy for someone like yourself, but we're not all whizz kids. I don't even know what hacking is [but by tomorrow I will], so why would I suggest that happened.

Also why do you imagine I would post a "desperate and deliberate smear" against David? What could I or anyone else hope to gain from that? I don't know the guy, and even if I did I would respect that he's entitled to his opinions - some of which funnily enough,I happen to share. It is also obvious that David can give as good as he gets, and he would have to agree this thread has certainly empowered him to put across his point of view too.

While we are looking for a physical being as God we have missed the point. God cannot be identified by the physical sciences. God is the Spirit behind being. God is Spirit [unseen], expressed in attitude, character, motive, behaviour. Jesus declared the character of God - made God known. God is not a visual being; God is Spirit who gives loving passion and pure motive to living. Such values are seen in the life of Jesus which identifies him as expressing the very nature of God.

It is true many can only worship the physical person for their looks or achievements and not recognise the spirit of the person.
Christmas is looking for the enlightenment of spirit - the recognition of the worthy character of God.

>>>Have you a point to make?

Yes, the point was that even hardened skeptics who do no accept that Jesus is God admit quite readily admit that He existed, and that the NT is a reliable attestation of that fact. While Einstein did not convert, the light that he did have told him that Jesus was the genuine article and His testimony in the NT is reliable. Read what he said:

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

No myth is filled with such life, he said. The entire premise of your argument is refuted by people who never believed that Jesus is God. Your assertion that Jesus is a myth and the NT is unreliable is exposed as completely unreasonable by people with no dog in this fight.

>>>Over a billion people follow the words of Muhammad and they >>>influenced civilizations also. By your logic, they must be right. >>>Can you explain that discrepancy thanks?

There is no comparison. The influence that Jesus has had outstrips by orders of magnitude the influence of Islam. Islam may have numbers, but the point remains; no dime a dozen religion personality could have had the influence Jesus has. Your mischaracterization of Jesus as such is truly inexcusable.

>>>And, what is your answer to my question?

David, I gave you the answer to this question; could you please respond to it?:

Jesus Himself offered to prove His existence to anyone who would open the door to Him:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

There are two kinds of skeptics. An honest skeptic and a dishonest skeptic. An honest skeptic is someone who doesn't know but is willing to find out. A dishonest skeptic is someone who doesn't know and doesn't want to know. Which are you? Would you be willing to sign your name to this statement?:

God, I don't know if you exist or not. I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I don't know if Jesus Christ is your Son or not, but I want to know, and because I want to know I will make an honest investigation, and because it is an honest investigation I will follow the results of that investigation where ever they lead me, regardless of the cost.

If you are willing to sign off on it, then your assignment is to read the gospel of John. The purpose of the gospel of John is stated thusly:

John 20:31

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

It was written specifically so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you would have life in His name. Although you don't now believe, you can say to God..God I don't know if this is your word of not, but if this is your word, show me. I'll make up my mind before the fact that I will obey you only if you show me this is your word and speak to my heart.

Would you be willing to do that?

David,

Aside from our conversation, I want to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season. God bless.

World watcher it is unlikely I will trouble you much here in OLO.
By inference you said GY our sites owner broke your privacy by passing on your details.
I prefer not to believe that.
And Sport, note your opinions on this sites rules, like your one eyed comments are avoided most times.
GY care to comment about the e mail said to have been sent?
World watcher I say good by to you enjoy your stay and this festive season.

Belly,

I don't believe any email was sent....and if it had, it would have been from OLO - not AFA (the same goes for an email alert on the subject of this thread)

I mentioned that merely to highlight that that is the only exchange of info which sometimes takes place on OLO...as there is no other mechanism to privately exchange contact information.

washed,

Discussion with me requires you read what I have said. The premise of this thread has nothing to do with the existence of the historical Jesus. It is about the alleged divinity of Jesus.

Einstein made no comment supporting the idea that Jesus was divine. Of course, it matters not what Einstein thought about the subject as he is a human being and human beings are mistake prone. Here are some of Einstein’s mistakes. http://io9.com/5884863/albert-einsteins-10-biggest-scientific-mistakes

Various religions have had huge impacts on civilisation. Because one religion is better subjectively than another at a particular time in history doesn't mean anything. In fact, that they all make similar mistakes is a more important point.

That none of them can bring any kind of harmony to humanity but instead cause immense strife, when they have had centuries to get it right, shows they are only a faulty human construct. Yes, I know, ‘man’ is a sinner da da da. And lucky for you, you are better than them. A very arrogant conclusion, no!

Any answer you say you have given to my question has been lost in the biblical quotes. I use my own language to address this topic. I do not refer to Superman comics and I would suggest you speak for yourself. I’ll rephrase the question and expect you to answer it in your own words.

If your particular god is shown to exist to everyone and I do not follow its words, what will happen to me?

And a sub-question:

Atheists consider that there is no proof for any of the gods including the Christian one. (They consider this because there is none – we are still waiting) What will happen to atheists, including me, if we die as atheists?

I have read all the quaint religious sayings and words you supplied and many have supplied them before and no god appeared or made itself known to me. Does a god only make itself know to those who are indoctrinated as children and don’t think for themselves? A god relying on indoctrination is not an ethical god.

David

Belly,

FYI, I've had a reply from Graham.

I've noticed that you read what you like into anything posted by anyone on the threads, and then put in your own interpretation peppered with many deragatory remarks.

The forum is for discussion, not childish vituperation.

Let us leave that to the politicians.

Belly,

Typo error - derogatory is the correct spelling.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
Can I suggest how God is revealed. Reread my earlier post.

While we may be looking for a physical being as God we have missed the point. God cannot be identified by the physical sciences. God is outside of physics, God is Spirit behind all being. God is Spirit [unseen], expressed in attitude, character, motive, creativity, behaviour. Jesus declared the character of God - "made God known in the flesh". God is not a visual being; God is Spirit who gives loving passion and pure motive to living. Such values are seen in the life of Jesus which identifies him as expressing the very nature - God.

It is true many can only worship the physical person for their looks or achievements and not recognise the spirit of the person.
Christmas is looking for the enlightenment of spirit - the recognition of the worthy character of God.

Josephus,

I have no need to reread your earlier posts. Subjective material does not alter by reading it twice.

Atheists do not accept the ‘spirit’ god as existing in any form.

Words from a time when people were ignorant about the laws of nature, most were illiterate and they believed in demons etc. are not reliable evidence for a god who likes playing hidey.

What is known and it is solid evidence, is that cultural/religious indoctrination that is not ubiquitously challenged, produces the delusion of the god idea in adults.

People nowadays with access to information unavailable to the ancients are dropping this god idea in droves and it doesn't look like it is going to stop.

What will happen to them when they die?

Broaden you knowledge base is my suggestion.

The very positive result of this is that countries that have less religion (any religion) have less social dysfunctional than those with more religion. Australia is a good example. Why would anyone in their right mind promote a society to go back to a time when religion had much greater or even full control?

Just for your interest, the more the very simplistic religious arguments are put forward by the faithful, the more I have the opportunity to show others how they don’t hold water. Thanks for the opportunity.

David

worldwatcher,

<<No, I didn't even bother to open it. Just immediately deleted it.
Didn't inform the editor either. Treated it the same as any other unwanted e-mail - straight to the trash bin.

However, it does bother me that this could happen, as I believed that my e-mail address was not available to anyone unless I handed it out.
I stay away from Facebook and Twitter for that very reason.>>

That's disappointing that you have deleted it as it discards the evidence of content and the origin of the email. This means no further investigation can be made of the email.

Don't you realise that no email address is secure. That's why I don't send confidential details by email. There are email harvesters who supply our email addresses to marketing organisations, etc.

QZSPEN gday and welcome.
Rest easy, world watcher at best has made a mistake no such action is likely to have taken place.
I have posted here from 2005, our Host WOULD NEVER intrude on our privacy.
I think, having pointed out this, and coped a bit from world watcher, he/she should with draw the claim.
IF WE mark the box, saying send me an E MAIL if some one replies, then automatically every new post in a thread gets an e mail.
It clearly says a new post has been posted in the thread, you name.
I value truth too, and balenced COMMENT FOR OR AGAINST MY THOUGHTS EQUALLY.
And know without doubt this site is not using our e mails or address.

world watcher come down from your ivory tower.
Tell us the truth!
You made a mistake and do not have the INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO ADMIT IT!
I am much more than reluctant to enter conversation with you, and just a few others.
But unless you man up! UNDERSTAND JUST HOW SEROUS YOUR CLAIM, WRONGLY MADE IS be forever lessor for it.
I will avoid you forever but if you hunt me around the site be prepared to be served back the JUNK you serve me.
YOUR CLAIM IS UNSUSTAINABLE!
As a mistake totally forgivable, you must say if it was that or a false statement.
What ever the out come do me the favor of not trying further conversation.

David,

<<I am very happy with my life and live it similarly to most reasonable people in the community.
Let us assume for a moment that Jesus is God, he does exist and all the other gods are false.
Why should I follow anything he says?>>

You are not yet ready to follow Jesus or anything he says for these reasons:

You don’t want to know God, your condition before God, and why God needs to change you. You will never want to move from ‘happy with my life’ to new life through Jesus Christ unless you acknowledge and experience some fundamentals:

1. Who is God? He is the absolutely holy (Leviticus 19:2) and righteous/just (Deuteronomy 32:4) God. This last verse confirms that He is without sin/iniquity.

2. This God declares the nature of all human beings including you and me: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God’ (Romans 3:10-11). This unrighteous nature of all human beings brings consequences, ‘For the wages of sin is death [God’s understanding of death], but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Romans 6:23). Unless you understand your sinful state before God, you will go on living your ‘very happy’ life according to your current worldview.

(continued in Part 2)

David,

(Part 2, continued from Part 1)

3. For those prepared to acknowledge who God is and their true condition before him, God offers a new beginning through confession of sin and trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life’ (John 3:16).

4. How can it happen for you, me and anyone else? Repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for salvation! Repentance means that we have an inner sorrow for sin; we renounce it, and have a commitment to forsake sin and live in obedience to Christ. ‘For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death’ (2 Corinthians 7:10).

5. This leads to new life in Jesus Christ and the amazing experience of knowing that a person’s sins are forgiven or blotted out. ‘Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out’ (Acts 3:19).

My background sounds as though it was very different from yours. I was raised in a home where I went to Sunday School and church, but I was just as much a sinful rebel against God as anyone I could meet on the street. I don’t think, in your present understanding, that you will understand the amazing release that comes when I experienced my sins forgiven by God and receiving new life in Christ.

Even if you had a genuine understanding of Jesus as God, which you do not currently have, that will not enable you to experience the joy of sins forgiven and new life in Jesus (based on what I've written in these 2 posts).

Ozspen,

Think I deleted my answer to you just now. So will try again.

This is my first computer, and my brother set everything up for me.

Thank you - I asked a simple question about whether my e-mails could be made public, and you have answered my original query for me.

No, being new to this, I assumed that anything written or sent by e-mail was secure. So far this is the first time I've heard about 'harvesting'.

Was so pleased with my new toy I sent an e-mail to my brother, along with some family chit-chat. He rang me straight away to tell me that my e-mail to just him had gone out to all the contacts he'd put on the computer for me. Think I must have pressed a cc which he says is the same as sending out carbon copies of a letter. Apparently I had also broadcast his e-mail address too. Then I got a load of mail from the recipients saying maybe I'd been hacked. Brother assured me this was not so, but told me to stay away from cc in future.

I've asked him how to retrieve a deleted item, but he says I can't do it because I deleted the contents of my trash bin twice, which makes it a permanent deletion. First one sends it to the recycle bin, then from there you permanently delete it. I do this every time I receive unwanted mail.

Obviously, in this particular instance I now wish I hadn't done this, as I have no proof to offer David, or those members who think it is a fabrication on my part. Though why anyone should think there was any ulterior motive in my question is still beyond me, especially as I concur with some of his views.
C'est la vie!

World watcher it is easy for me to believe you made a mistake.
I have made every one of them, some twice.
Of an age that will never have the understanding or control an 11 year old already has.
You made a mistake,and if reporting right, your brother did too.
In telling you cc sends out to every one.
It must have been sent to ALL that is ALL in your address book.
Harvesting is a fact but avoidable, just get the right email server and spam is not going to get to you.
I want however to say this, it hurts me to come back here.
Several posters irk me, I truly am trying to regain a foothold here.
By not having contact with them.
Here is a truth, my actions have been in defense of this site and its owner.
Ever now and again, both have been targeted wrongly.
Yet this is and will remain, long after you and I are gone, the best in this country.
It worldwatcher needed no PC skills, just one humanity, most of us has, the ability to say sorry I got it wrong.
I will while here avoid hurting your one sided fragile feelings by avoiding YOU.
See from the start you have had no trouble finding fault with me.
But have been blind to your charge being wrong.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
So yo deny that attitude, character, motive, behaviour have any reality. These values are the reality of the person, not the flash and bones that are merely borrowed from other consumed life forms and substances to give us physical presence.

Belly,

<<QZSPEN gday and welcome.
Rest easy, world watcher at best has made a mistake no such action is likely to have taken place.>>

worldwatcher has told us that it DID happen and he/she has deleted it from Inbox and Trash (I use Thunderbird). Let's accept that as the truth from someone who is not experienced with email communication.

<<Harvesting is a fact but avoidable, just get the right email server and spam is not going to get to you.>>

I have a top flight email server with a national reputation, but I still get the occasional spam, some in the form of sending an email virus link. I got caught once - only once - but I'm with a very secure provider and with sound virus protection on my PC.

<<It worldwatcher needed no PC skills, just one humanity, most of us has, the ability to say sorry I got it wrong.>>

This is an assumption you are making that worldwatcher "got it wrong". That may not be the case at all. He/she could have received an email from an atheistic source. Some of the spam, virus links I receive are fabricated to come from my son or daughter to me. Harvesters and spammers pick up on who sends email to me and target my email accordingly.

worldwatcher,

I am blessed that you, in spite of your novice abilities with the computer, including email, are prepared to come here and interact with us.

I hope that the criticism you have received from some will not deter you from coming here to provide your input.

<<I've asked him how to retrieve a deleted item, but he says I can't do it because I deleted the contents of my trash bin twice, which makes it a permanent deletion. First one sends it to the recycle bin, then from there you permanently delete it. I do this every time I receive unwanted mail.>>

My son is an IT professional. I'll ask him if there is any way you can retrieve an item that has been deleted from the Inbox and Trash. I have never had to do that over many years of working with email, but he should be able to provide me with the answer.

washed,

You wrote: <<No myth is filled with such life, he said. The entire premise of your argument is refuted by people who never believed that Jesus is God. Your assertion that Jesus is a myth and the NT is unreliable is exposed as completely unreasonable by people with no dog in this fight.>>

In support of your claim, why don't you take a read of this new article that appeared on 24 December 2012 and was published on Australia's ABC radio network's, 'Religion and Ethics', programme by John Dickson, 'A fight they can't win: The irreligious assault on the historicity of Jesus', at: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/12/24/3660194.htm. John Dickson is a Sydney evangelical Anglican, Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and an Honorary Fellow of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

His challenge is: 'if anyone can find a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived, I will eat a page of my Bible, probably Matthew chapter 1. It's been a year since I first tweeted the challenge and religious critic John Safran retweeted it to his 60,000 followers. My Bible remains safe'.

worldwatcher,

I explained your email situation to my son with regard to what you have deleted and his response was: 'If they've deleted it like that, it's gone'.

OzSpen,

Discussion with you is next to useless and you have mentioned Leviticus and the nature of your god. Here are some other parts of this god’s nature from Leviticus (KJV version). As you know, there are Christians promoting ‘dominionism’ as a way of governing countries. (Are you one of them?) This means following the Bible as is written. Scary stuff.

20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

And check out Leviticus 24:10-16 which is about killing blasphemers.

All this is shades of Islam don’tcha think. As I said, all religions make the same mistakes.

Do you agree with your Lord’s adjudications as above or do you only ‘choose’ the nicey bits from the Bible? Seems Yahweh doesn't mind a bit of hissy-spit killing to keep the attention of his people focused. Other Bible writers have their own version of this god's mayhem and absurdity.

I really don’t need or warrant your condescending remarks about me not being ready for your particular god. No, I’m not ready for any of the thousands of gods, but only because I have not surrendered my mental integrity to indoctrinated nonsense.

David

Josephus,

“So yo deny that attitude, character, motive, behaviour have any reality.”

They are a reflection of the mind’s experience through the senses and genetic proclivities. Dogs have those attributes. What is your point?

I note you have failed to answer the question again.

David

David,

<<Discussion with you is next to useless and you have mentioned Leviticus and the nature of your god. Here are some other parts of this god’s nature from Leviticus (KJV version). As you know, there are Christians promoting ‘dominionism’ as a way of governing countries. (Are you one of them?) This means following the Bible as is written. Scary stuff.>>

AND

<<I really don’t need or warrant your condescending remarks about me not being ready for your particular god. No, I’m not ready for any of the thousands of gods, but only because I have not surrendered my mental integrity to indoctrinated nonsense.>>

These are further examples from you of red herring logical fallacies. You did not respond to the 5 points I made in two posts. You were off and running with your own agenda without addressing the content of these five points.

Discussion with you is impossible when you continuously resort to the use of logical fallacies. Nice try but no cigars!

OzSpen,

I don’t smoke, so no cigar for me thanks. A beer to go with the Saturnalian originated festivities of the season would be acceptable though.

There are no reasons good enough that you have offered, for me to take the words in your bible seriously, so I don’t. It’s not that I won’t accept these scribbling’s from centuries ago by a superstitious race of people, it’s that they are meaningless to non-indoctrinated folk.

I do have a sadness for you but I am not responsible for you surrendering your mind to your childhood teachings, not being able to escape the instilled terror of torture forever and your incapability to be able to face death head on, but I do mind that you would just as easily lay this rubbish on the innocent minds of children who have no defence against the fears you would instil. If you wish to think in this contorted fashion although it is not your fault, so be it. Only you can undo the damage you have experienced.

Your god talk is no different than the god talk of other sects of Christianity or other religions.

It is ridiculous to ask me to respond to biblical ideas. That is just a ploy to escape answering the question I posed. Some would call this gutless on your behalf, but I rather think of it as something not of your doing.

It is obvious that the AFA must try harder so as not to let this kind of warped behaviour infect the thought process of new generations. But, on the other hand, the zealotry observed on this thread by religious people is a lesson enough to others that even in Australia, religion, like rust, never sleeps.

The good thing is that like rust, the material rusting eventually rots away to nothing. We are seeing this demonstrated with Christianity now. Even though the flaying around is palpable, within a couple of generations religion will be a negligible and powerless part of society.

I see there has been no answer to the biblical quotes I provided. Interesting.

David

Another pulpit, another bunch of pointless sermons.

What puzzles me most is why the religious find it necessary to lecture atheists at such length, using only their beliefs as evidence. Surely the rational part of their brain - I grant that there must be one - should alert them to the fact that the only arguments available to them are totally circular, in that only if you believe that the Bible is "the word of God" can you remotely imagine that anything in it has any disputational value whatsoever.

Sometimes, it becomes totally bizarre, with accusations such as this one from OzSpen.

>>You are not yet ready to follow Jesus or anything he says for these reasons: You don’t want to know God, your condition before God, and why God needs to change you.<<

The urge to substitute "Bugs Bunny" for Jesus and "Wily Coyote" for God in the above sentence is almost, but not quite, irresistible. Sadly, even if I had succumbed to the temptation to do so, it would not have had any impact at all on its meaningfulness.

Here's another perspective:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/21/christmas-atheism-conversation

Ozspen,

Your son just confirmed what my brother told me. Brother is such a busy man I don't like taking him away from his business long enough to answer what to him are such easy questions, so am not progressing quickly enough for my liking in understanding this [for me] new way of interacting with this machine.
I have nobody else to ask when I don't understand little things which keep happening. As I said, somehow I deleted my first reply to you, and still can't understand if I hit a wrong key somewhere.

Really need time to explore further, but time is precious in my life as I care for my partner who has cancer. That in itself is a full time job which takes preference over 'me' time.

Yes, I will still read the posts, having decided that despite some disparaging comments made by certain Forum members to my own posts, in general it appears there are enough good discussions put forth to warrant my continuuing interest. So it is easy for me to mostly disregard those people who lower the tone - offer no constructive theories, and are abusive to some other members.

I've been told this is called cyber bullying, and want no part of it.

worldwatcher,

Some of the posters have shown suspicion that all was not well with your story and they have a reasonable right to think that way as this kind of thing does happen intentionally.

There was a recent ‘incident’ on the Religion do we need it thread. You will notice I was waiting for the evidence and made no such accusations.

I think there are grounds to accept you are ‘a babe in the woods’ with computers and we forget this episode and move on. You will get the hang of it eventually. :))

David

ozpen/ww
Cyber bulling?
Answer this simple question Arther Fonzerel [the Fonz never said sorry]What did GRAHAM TELL YOU?
if as I think he asured you he NEVER PASSED YOUR E MAIL ON.
Why have you not said sorry I got it wrong?
I have often.
BOTH OF YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THIS!
Inferring this,our country,s number one such site, did that, is no minor thing.
So easy to fix, even get some good feelings by being honest!
A foundation I think you have been put upon here and show remarkable coolness in not persueing it further.
Some thing is wrong here,it will in time be seen, a mistake is so easy and even easier to fix but be careful.
Something about ww is wrong and in my view far better experts than I should be able to convince both cc is nothing other than a way to send to more people without their names appearing on thee mail.
I treat, still strongly defending the site and DEMANDING WW tell us if GY did not assure him it never happened!

“That is not evidence of supernatural reality. That is evidence that a myriad of people report supernatural experience.”

The usual semantic games.
So people's personal experiences aren't “evidence” of anything? Really?

What “evidence” is there of anything? That you exist?
It's all personal experience, even “scientific” experiments.
Modern physics has even shown that the OBSERVER affects the outcome!
You cannot excise subjective human experience from anything, even science.

“But to claim “no aliens exists” because you don't see any evidence would be preposterous!.”

“Who is making that claim?”

I never said they were. I am making a *comparison* to the atheists who claim “no gods exists” because they don't see any evidence.
You are the one who made the analogy with aliens in the first place, not me.
If you can't even follow your own logic, don't speak.

“They could be mistaken, deluded and yes, or liars.”

And? So what?
You could be mistaken or deluded. Why the need for "foundations" opposing other people's possible folly?
Why the need to rubbish their special day?

“they wouldn't follow what they consider are false claims by you. They are called every other religion except Christianity.
Then, why did you ‘choose’ the one you are now defending?”

I'm not making any claims, you just presume I'm Christian, because I criticise atheists.
You're the one who brought up the “if Jesus was God” hypothesis, not me. I merely responded to that.

“Please read what I have said about....”

I can't be bothered any more.

David,

<<The good thing is that like rust, the material rusting eventually rots away to nothing. We are seeing this demonstrated with Christianity now. Even though the flaying around is palpable, within a couple of generations religion will be a negligible and powerless part of society.>>

With this statement, you are promoting falsehood. You have demonstrated your and the Atheist Foundation of Australia's ignorance about the growth of Christianity worldwide that is happening NOW: http://www.whychurch.org.uk/worldwide.php

Shockadelic,

“The usual semantic games. So people's personal experiences aren't “evidence” of anything? Really?”

Yes, that’s correct and it has nothing to do whatsoever with semantics. It may be real or real to people who have an experience but others are not obliged to accept that as true. This is very simple stuff. Indoctrinating children with personal experience as though it is true, is very bad ethics. No one knows if the personal experience is true, a delusion, or a lie. And there is no way to work out which.

You are misrepresenting science. It is known that the observer interferes with the experiments especially in quantum mechanics. That does not discount all of science if that is what you are saying. Leaving me guessing with your statements is the sign of a confused mind.

Please don’t infer that I am not following logic and what I have supposedly said. Read it again. I find that annoying you do this.
I have not rubbished anybody’s day. I’m giving another opinion. I am not stating anything to be deluded about. If so, what is it?
Are you saying I’m defending a religion? Can you be clear in you language.

Maybe you should be bothered and be precise in what you are stating. You are not making much sense.

Why the aggressive attitude. I don’t use aggression and maybe you should try that. This is a discussion, not a war.

David

OzSpen,

"With this statement, you are promoting falsehood. You have demonstrated your and the Atheist Foundation of Australia's ignorance about the growth of Christianity worldwide that is happening NOW:"

If you had read the sentence before the one you quoted you would not have made such a dick of yourself. Here it is: “even in Australia, religion, like rust, never sleeps.”

Notice, I was speaking of Australia. It is purported that Christianity (And other religions) are growing in backward nations. That is not a recommendation; it is sad fact if true.

You are showing religion in a very poor light, I'm disappointed you have to use chicanery or poor understanding.

David

David,

Thank you for your very gracious post. I appreciate your insight that I was simply trying to understand if e-mail addresses are publicly available. Had no intention of starting such a furor

You seem more convinced than myself that I will ever become sophisticated using my new toy. Unusual for me to have self doubt, but the darn thing has so many complexities to overcome that I'm not sure I have enough years left to do it, and still allow enough time to satisfy my quest for knowledge in so many other fields as well.

On the whole I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and the differing viewpoints, and am most impressed at how well informed many people are on various historical references they have produced in support of their arguments.

ozpen as you have involved your self in wold watcher MISTAKE TEST ME PLEASE.
IN YOU NEXT POST
tic the box at the bottom under preview.
send me an email no ficaction exetra.
open your e mail server straight after
you will see an e mail to you.
IT INFORMS YOU OF THE NEW POST, AND EVERY NEW POST IN THAT THREAD.
wish only to clear my name 7 years plus months here, I support this forum in both donations and against wrongs.
It was in one posters hands, it still is, to say sorry I got it wrong.
History warns me, not every one is as they appear, in time world watcher may admit a mistake, or other events may add to this one.
No amount of complaining can change this fact*until withdrawn in print as was the inference* WW has charged our forum with a thing it never did*.

>>>Discussion with me requires you read what I have said.

Your assertion was that Jesus was a nobody, a "dime a dozen" religious zealot. I gave you evidence to show you that this couldn't possibly be the case. That's fine, however..let's talk the divinity of Jesus.

>>>A very arrogant conclusion, no!

Jesus never claimed that world peace would dawn in His absence. It is the claim of Christianity that there will be judgment of mankind, and then there will peace. You are holding Christianity to a standard that it never imposed on itself; in fact the claim is exactly the opposite. I'm not better than you, either. God doesn't love you any less than He loves me. But yes, you have got the gist of it. Man thinks the problem is in the system and not in himself. The actual problem is the depravity in mans heart, which is why Jesus came to save us.