Greetings Loudmouth. You write: "I suppose that both secular AND religion-based regimes can be totalitarian, as you point out...." I feel I must offer a profound apology for failing to express my opinion unmistakeably and clearly. I was hoping to demonstrate that a totalitarian secularism [adhering strictly to a dictionary definition of "secular"] is a contradiction in terms, that an undemocratic secularism, as suggested by Spencer, nurtured by a Stalin or a Mao makes no sense.

Secularism at its very foundations is built upon mutual respect and tolerance for individual opinion, an unhindered freedom of and from religious thought. This leads inescapably to the conclusion of strict separation between church and state.

Neither Stalin nor Mao were messianic atheists in the same way they were messianic totalitarian leaders. To them, religion was an anachronism that supported privileged and aristocratic regimes which were anathema to social equality [basically, a sharing of wealth with a former proletariat in a soon to develop strata-less society.] In a way, atheism attached itself to their regimes rather than it becoming a new "religion" to replace the old. If anything, they sought to make the state the new church. The submersion of the individual within the state thoroughly excludes any considerations of secularism.

Actually, I'm uncomfortable accrediting Stalin with so much historical forsight. That credit really belongs to Lenin, imho.

Anyhow, let me apologise again for not making myself clear. And I confess to some trepidation in disserting on elements of Marxism in the presence of an ex-Marxist. Please feel free to correct any misperceptions on my part.

That's like saying baldness is a hairstyle and abstinence is a sexual position. The dictionary defines religion as belief in deities. Non religious people do not believe in deities. Of all the mysteries ever solved throughout history none have ever been found to be magic. Religion has as much supportive evidence as the flat earth theory or horoscopes. Any other nonsense belief system making such unsubstantiated wild claims would be dismissed as a scam and its leaders locked up. Atheists are the only sane people on earth. Please do not try to lump us in with the crazy people who believe in mythology for no rational reason. http://www.AustralianAtheists.com

Pogi,

You wrote: <<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 have confirmed what a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley for 30 years, Phillip E Johnson, concluded: 'One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs' (1998).

You are sceptical of the views I wrote because or your own contrary set of beliefs.

Spencer

Dear AA,

«The dictionary defines religion as belief in deities»

Yes, but the dictionary is wrong.

It seems that these "enlightened" dictionaries were purposely written in order to denigrate and ridicule religion and the religious, whose values differ from the authors'.

Firstly, the term "believe in" is very vague.
Many atheists (and sadly some theists too) seem to consider "believe in X" as equivalent to "believe that X exists": this is probably due to their prejudice of valuing existence, paying it so much importance, even basing their life-decisions on whether certain things exist or not.

This is neither necessary nor rational, it's just a specific value-system.

There can be many other interpretations for "believe in" and so it is quite possible for people to believe in deities, yet not that they exist. If this doesn't make sense to you, then it is only because you, having been brainwashed from the cradle by the European "enlightenment" philosophy, are so fixated on existence as the be-all-and-end-all unit of measurement.

Now suppose you fixed this dictionary definition, now claiming "religion is the belief in the existence of deities".

False: some religious people (such as myself) do not believe in the existence of deities (of which some do not even incorporate deities in their life), while others who are not religious (paedophile priests for example) do believe in the existence of deities.

Sadly, after being bombarded for a few centuries by the ideas of the European "enlightenment" movement, some religious people too buy those faulty dictionary-definitions.

Yuyutsu,

You don't like the idea that religion is defined as 'belief in deities'. In fact, you state it is a wrong definition.

'Believe in' is a legitimate way to describe what one does in relation to God or other deities. We see an example of this in the NT Book of Acts, chapter 16. The context involved the prisoners, the apostle Paul, his friend Silas and the other prisoners in Philippi. While Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God around midnight and the other prisoners were listening, there was a great earthquake that shook the foundation of the prison, the doors were opened and prisoner bonds were broken.

When the prison jailer (person in charge of the jail) woke to see this, he was so distraught that he drew his sword and was about to commit suicide. Paul shouted, 'Do not harm yourself, for we are all here'. The jailer's response was to call for lights and he fell down trembling at the feet of Paul and Silas. He exclaimed, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'

Their response was, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household' (Acts 16:31). 'Believe in' is the Greek, pisteuson peri, meaning, 'believe upon/in'. It could have been pisteuson eis (i.e. believe into). The meaning of 'to believe' in NT terms means to put all of a person's trust and confidence in the Lord Jesus. By this kind of trust of the inner being (the heart) of a person, he or she throws the personality into Jesus' arms for deliverance from sin and to receive eternal salvation.

Epi, the preposition, is used to indicate this trust is to rest on Jesus. This is what the jailer had to 'do' to be saved.

Thus, 'believe in' God is a legitimate way of describing one's commitment to God.

Spencer

Yuyutsu,

We already sorted all this out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0#200237.

<<It seems that these "enlightened" dictionaries were purposely written in order to denigrate and ridicule religion and the religious, whose values differ from the authors'.>>

And as soon as I pointed out that many of the Enlightenment thinkers were Christians themselves, you dropped this claim faster than one could say "mental gymnastics".

A discredited claim does not grow its validity back over time. Your claim still remains discredited.

As I pointed out to you in the discussion linked to above, words do not have intrinsic meaning, words have usages and we apply meanings to them.