David,
The second an atheist utters the word "rights" he's no longer an atheist, now are you saying that "Atheism with a capital A" isn't at all concerned with human "rights"

Dear David (of AFoA),

I concede. You want to talk about atheists having belief systems instead of atheist belief systems, because an atheist's belief system has nothing to do with atheism (like Russell's "What I believe" having nothing to do with him being an atheist). Like wanting to talk about cars being manufactured in Germany to avoid the abbreviation German cars. OK, I do not think this is worth further nit-picking. After all, it was because I knew that people like you object to the term that I avoided it in my first post to pelican.

You impute to me opinions that I never expressed or held. For the rest, I do not see any point in continuing at this level. I was not looking for a fight but if it makes you happy, feel good about having the last word.

George,

When quoting someone, it would be prudent to quote them in the order of what they have said so as to not run the risk of missing the point they were trying to make. You have quoted david f's first two paragraphs out-of-order thus relieving you of addressing the fact that he too - as an atheist - can appreciate the wisdom in holy scriptures, which in turn weakens any significance of the Bible to Christianity.

I find this dishonest.

As someone who is not a literalist, do you find the wisdom in the Bible is what gives it its value? If so, then what does one then make of the unwise and immoral parts of the Bible and how do they fit into the whole picture? But if not, then what else do you think the Bible means to Christianity? What is its significance?

<<...accept the Scripture as a source of wisdom if properly interpreted.>>

Could you explain how one determines whether or not their interpretation of scripture is "proper"? How does one know whether they should take a passage literally or metaphorically?

If it's the context that is important, than in what context does Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son become right? And if one accepts csteele’s explanation, then in what context does God requesting that of Abraham, to test him, become right?

You claim that the interpretation of the story of Abraham only becomes comprehensible within the Jewish and Christian religions, but you have not mentioned what this interpretation is? Only that you agree with csteele that the story shouldn’t be taught to children when he/she never even said that.

So what is this interpretation and why is it comprehensible only within the Jewish and Christian religions?

I know how I (and most other Christians I knew) interpreted it when I believed, and it is not an interpretation that those outside Judaism and Christianity could not understand, so I am intrigued as to what your interpretation is.

Continued…

…Continued

<<This we have in common and I think this is more important than the other things we might disagree on.>>

Not necessarily; especially if what you're disagreeing on has to do with how one arrives at that conclusion to begin with.

Why we agree with someone is usually more important than whether or not we agree with them (take the statement, "The earth is warming", as an example). To express otherwise suggests that one is more concerned with a show of solitary than the truth and how it can/should be arrived at.

Your “crude” metaphors to david f, suggest that you believe there is a higher (or at least different) plane of consciousness or thought that you have tapped into that most of us ordinary people haven’t yet or are unable to; yet when us “old ladies” ask you, the mathematician, to explain this algebra to us, you refuse to.

Why is that?

You missed one, David.

>>Religion is demonstrably intolerant of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools.<<

You left out "other religions".

And this needs a form of underlining-plus-modification:

>>There is no common atheist belief-system<<

There is one belief that is common to all atheists, and that is "there is no God".

This is of course too simple a concept for the religious, who seize upon it with a great "hurrah", and deduce from it that there is, after all a "common-atheist-belief-system". From that flimsy non-premise they can build an entire non-belief structure that includes (usually) Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and all the rest.

There is unfortunately no logic that works against this, as you are perpetually faced with the challenge "prove a negative". Which as any logician, as well as many philosophers, will tell you is not possible.

A simple logical structure would look as follows:

George believes in Jesus
Jesus was a good person
George is therefore a good person.

David doesn't believe in Jesus
Pol Pot doesn't believe in Jesus
Pol Pot is evil
Therefore David is evil

Any fourth-former could drive massive holes through these two, but they contain the essence of religious belief, and there perpetual fight against i) atheism and ii) religious beliefs that do not coincide with their own (vide Belfast).

Substitute Mohammed, Buddha, L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones etc. ad libitum and they still "work" in the same way.

George is of course right when he says:

>>every thinking being, including atheists, has a belief system<<

What confuses him is that while Christianity instructs a Christian's personal belief system, atheism (being a non-belief system) cannot, by definition, instruct any specific individual's personal belief system.

They make personal, ethical choices instead.

Dear David (of AFoA),

You wrote: "Religion is demonstrably intolerant of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools."

The statement above is incorrect. It would be correct if you had substituted 'Some adherents of religion are' for 'Religion is'

It is also correct that some adherents of religion are demonstrably tolerant or supportive of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools."

Religion is a complex phenomenon. Some religious adherents are supportive of separation of religion and state and other things you favour. There would be no argument in churches about accepting the full rights of gays if there were not some who accepted those rights.

Taking unfavourable characteristics that exist in a subset of a group and assigning those characteristics to the entire group is prejudice.