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.