George,

<<I never claimed that theism or atheism on their own were world-views.>>

You didn’t have to. You continuously use the term as if they were world-views on their own. But if you don’t think they are, then how do you go from...

“All three were first of all addressing THEIR congregations - in spite of the publicity given to their speeches...”

to...

“However, I agree that one can promote one’s own world-view without derogating the alternative...”?

I can only assume your use of the term “world-view” is an attempt to downplay the wackiness of religious belief.

If you don’t think that atheism and theism are world-views on their own, then you need to put a qualifier by adding something like, “part of”.

Either way, my point still stands, so this is merely a red herring and I suspect an attempt to bog me down in semantics in order to distract me from my main point. This is a tactic you often employ. You’ve done it again in your address to Pericles...

<<I never spoke of privileges...>>

Whether or not you spoke of privileges is largely beside the point.

<<For the rest of your post, I am well aware - since you told me so many times - that I provide “superficially correct but fundamentally flawed analogies and comparisons” that are lacking and misleading.>>

Then why do you keep doing it?

<<I suppose you simply mean they do not convince you, and I just have to live with that.>>

No, I really do mean they are flawed and misleading.

AJ Philips,
There are many Christian, theist, atheist etc world-views (one of them Jensen subscribes to, another one of them Pell, and yet another is that professed by Dawkins), but there is no THE Christian, theist or atheist world-view. Just look up the definition of world view in your dictionary or Wikipedia: my world-view differs from that of e.g. runner, although they are both based on Christianity, and there are atheists whose world-view differs from that of e.g. Dawkins. However, we have already been through this a number of times.

>>I really do mean they are flawed and misleading<<
Well, that is your prerogative, and, as I said, I have to live with it, even if I would not attach such adjectives to your attempts to communicate your point of view.

George, I hope that you are not hiding behind words here. It does you no credit.

>>I never spoke of privileges<<

You did not use that precise word, I grant you. But surely, you recognize that when you state "What is objected to are sermons in churches, aimed at closed congregations", conclusions will be drawn?

And the obvious - the only, in fact - conclusion that can be drawn is that you claim "privilege" for those sermons. The word is used in the same sense as "parliamentary privilege", in that they are deemed to have a different power and value inside their closed environment.

>>Let me repeat: I was just trying to find out what made you “start to wonder”... I concluded it was the unusually harsh - or whatever word you prefer - words in this year’s sermons, and speculated what could have been the reason for that.<<

I did not suggest anywhere that the sermons were "unusually harsh".

I did mention what I consider to be the "appalling timing of the attack on atheism", given the attention currently being paid to the Catholic church's involvement in covering up crimes.

I did call them "vocal attacks on atheists and atheism, from various pulpits", which I believe to be factually accurate.

The closest I came to being judgmental was when I referred to the priests' "less temperate outbursts against atheists and atheism".
If you think of "intemperate" as being an antonym of "measured", you may see where I was coming from.

Look at it from a slightly different angle for a moment.

Do you consider that Jensen and Pell's well-publicised attacks on atheism at Easter will:

a) strengthen the faith of the respective congregations

b) cause the faithful to wonder why their church's hierarchy is making such a fuss

c) attract any new members to the congregation

d) convert any atheists to Christianity?

That is the question I posed myself that made me "start to wonder".

Since the dawn of time leaders of tribes have invented Gods and religions to control and manipulate. The leader is the only one that can hear or speak to the invented God. When the leader gos off to spread his religion by slaughtering all who oppose his religion, he appoints priests to do his bidding, they write rules with the punishment of death for disobedience. The few religions we have left today have simply slaughtered all others, in inter religious genocide, an estimated 2500 of them.
Every religious Christian apologist that has commented on this blog if born in another country to another culture, would have a different religion and be fiercely anti Christian, such is the absolute irrefutable truth of the stupidity of religious beliefs.
JP and others, if born in New Guinea would probably be a member of a cargo cult, in Saudi Arabia a Muslim, in India a Hindu would have been forcibly indoctrinated from childhood, that is all religious belief or faith is.
As for Pell and Jensen, anyone that waits each year for the spring equinox full moons following Friday and Sunday to declare an Easter holy days is just a snake oil charlatan that belongs to a cult that has ripped off some pagan astrotheologic cult from pre history which archaeology and historically is an irrefutable fact!
PS; Do you mean Adolph Hitler the (religious fanatic atheist) that had Gott Mitt Uns, (God With Us) on the Nazi army belt buckles and introduced taxes for the Vatican, The Vatican State that the catholic fascist Mussolini created in 1929, the first state to recognise Hitler's new German Nazi fascist govt?

George,

<<There are many Christian, theist, atheist etc world-views (one of them Jensen subscribes to, another one of them Pell, and yet another is that professed by Dawkins), but there is no THE Christian, theist or atheist world-view.>>

I fully agree. Hence my point about adding a qualifier like “part of [one’s world-view]”, or “aspect of”.

But I’m not sure why you keep focusing on this point. I’m only using the term “world-view” in the same way you do when referring to atheism and theism, and it doesn’t change my point either.

Here, I’ll paraphrase myself to show you what I mean...

"Remember that theism and atheism are not just two equally opposing ASPECTS OF a world-view. One is a faith-based assertion, and the other is a reason-based response to that assertion."

You see? What I’ve said still retains it’s meaning.

<<However, we have already been through this a number of times.>>

Oh, I know. And like last time, you appear to be using this as way of diverting attention away from my main point...

My statement:
“We’re not just talking about any old world-view. Religion is in a league of its own.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83821)

Your response:
“Do you mean to say that religion is a world-view? This is rather strange.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83834)

...which, as I’ve demonstrated, isn’t affected by whether or not atheism and theism are world-views in themselves or simply a part thereof.

<<Well, that is your prerogative, and, as I said, I have to live with it, even if I would not attach such adjectives to your attempts to communicate your point of view.>>

If the methods I used to communicate my point of view were flawed and misleading, then I would certainly hope you’d use such adjectives to describe them. Not doing so would be counterproductive to the discussion and hinder my growth and learning.

Excellent and articulate contribution David. Frankly, I feel amazed and amused that we have to have this debate at all. To think we're in the year 2010 and we're still debating existence of gods and the like....all too weird, considering we've sent people to the moon etc. However, the fact remains that a goodly proportion of the population insists on indulging in deity worship and are exploiting and indoctrinating others into the bargain. I saw a documentary on the growing practise of exorcism in Italy the other night showing a town of men basically running everyone's lives - that's the way they like it of course. It is always very scary to see people driven by extremes of superstition. I for one am very afraid of religion.