Spencer

I completely understand you not wanting to continue the conversation. You've painted yourself into a corner not even Michelangelo could paint himself out of.

I'll leave it to others to determine if I "invented a straw man" of your argument, in as much as it could be described an argument.

If you did not defend your asssertion on the accuracy of Christianity by citing Australian historian, Dr Paul W Barnett’s, books on the histority of Jesus and the NT (as per the plain english interpretation of your remarks), then I'm mystified as to what on earth you were talking about.

Perhaps others can enlighten me on what I've missed.

Perhaps you have some fool proof defeater hidden in there which renders all my objections mute, but I, along with everyone else has just been too dense to see it?

I note you at first tried to claim my challenge irrelevent. When that didn;t work you claimed I'm misrepresenting your argument.

This is the informal fallacy of moving the goalposts - but you take to to a new level! You fail to clarify what your argument is. This becomes moving the goal posts plus taking one's bat and ball and going home.

I find it disappointing, but not surprising, you can't atleast acknowledge that it's ridiculous and incongruous to claim secularism is a religion, but perhaps you'll be more cautious before making the claim next time.

Nevermind - there's the old saying that beliefs formed without reason are unlikely to be moved by it: notwithstanding the ability to google logical fallacies.

In response to; Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 22 July 2016 11:51:07 AM [Fri]:
Greetings Spencer,
When reduced to its essence your issue seems devoted to the cause of reducing or elevating the position of "no religion" to "yes religion". Having been deeply involved in fora such as this since 1995 I have seen various sincere and not so sincere efforts to substantiate such a case with evidence. It has been done before in this forum with no significant success, especially no major break-through by either contending party.
Your dictionary does not treat the concepts of "world view" and "religion" as synonyms.

You write; "In following the Macquarie Dictionary, I'm using religion and worldview as essentially equivalent concepts as the dictionary associates religion with worldview and praxis (practice, as opposed to theory). So religion amounts to worldview in action."

And I advise you that no such position is legitimately established simply because you wish it to be so. An "association" of the two concepts by a dictionary is hardly sufficient reason to render inconsequential two millennia of theological deliberations that sought to divorce religious faith from the mundane and the profane, from worldly things.

Have you sought further authority from other dictionaries in support of your contention? Do you not see some irony in using an essentially secular source as support for a religious argument? [cont........]

[cont........]It is worth iterating; There may be some legitimate points as to religious faith forming someone's world view and that world view being comprised entirely of religious faith. But saying that extends no legitimacy whatsoever to your contention that every individual world view is wholly theological, one comprised entirely of religious faith. It does not follow logically and never will in spite of your interpretation of the Macquarie Dictionary. The ridiculing of my analogies demonstrates their effectiveness.

A.J.Phillips p18 wrote how theists brand atheism as a religion in order to vilify it. Rational Razor observed similarly that when theists found need of denigrating those repudiating religious faith they insult the repudiators by branding them as religious.
I think theist motives, when logically examined, are unintentionally acknowledging that the baggage that accompanies religious faith limits resort to logic, hinders rational reasoning and thus is disadvantageous to those so encumbered. Apparently martyrdom doesn't always satisfy.

You claim, ‘We are made of the same stuff as the stars’. Are you kidding? With flesh and blood?

You must realise, all that exists is chemistry, is comprised of chemicals. If you wish to look frther I recommend <http://www.livescience.com/3505-chemistry-life-human-body.html>. The subject of abiogenesis is outside the purview of this topic.

Hi Pogi,

Maybe it might help to use Venn diagrams: overlapping circles indicating:

* religion
* world-view
* football
* reasonable dislike of Victoria

So, yes some world-views verge on religion; some don't. Some people frame their lives around football, some don't. Amongst those who do, some regard football with the fervour of zealots, and some don't. And of course, most sensible people have at least a disparagement of Victorians, of course. But it's not a matter of 'only A = B, and only B".

Just putting my oar in :)

Joe

greetings Loudmouth: Your opinions are so often refreshing and to the point. I'm sure a number of us was expecting something better from Spencer.

On p2 he writes: "I ask: why secularism has to be democratic as in the 10-point plan? Why can't it be totalitarian under Stalin or Mao? The fundamental in any worldview is: Who or what decides the content of human rights?"

I reply: Secularism as a feature of totalitarianism is a non-sequitur. Freedom of and from religion by definition allows and accords value to every world view held by individual humankind. Stalin and Mao, each in their own way, held messianic totalitarian world views. Stalin could not make an ally of the Russian Church and so took every opportunity to extirpate it. Mao sought no allies in religion. He was brutally efficient in opposing Tibetan Buddhism and drew some satisfaction from destroying the Roman Catholic church in his own country. Neither leader was tolerant of individual human rights or any other expressions of individualism.

It is very difficult to find relevance and meaning in Spencer's questions quoted above.

Hi Pogi,

You do me proud :)

I suppose that both secular AND religion-based regimes can be totalitarian, as you point out. But the secular values of equality for all before the law, freedoms of expression, speech, and worship, are the cornerstones of any democratic system, even if it - socially - is oriented towards a particular religion. In that sense, all democratic societies depend on secular political and legal systems.

But to reiterate, and get ahead of complainers, this is not to say that all secular systems are democratic - as you point out. But clearly, religious systems can get in the way of any development towards democracy: any reliance on the supposed word of god or gods weakens the dependence of a democracy on the will of the people by posing another spurious authority, ultimately over and above the state, which should operate only on the will of the people, mediated by elected politicians and public services.

Of course, western democracies indirectly derive the evolution of their systems of values from Christianity, often in opposition to its popes and bishops. So far, no society has developed a system superior to democracy. As an ex-Marxist, I would say that includes 'socialism' which has everywhere degenerated into cliquism, semi- and full-blown fascism, and something like the Mafia (imagine Putin as Tony Soprano, but without the charm).

Any improvements in democracy will be based on such secular values, available to all, regardless of religious orientation.

Cheers,

Joe