Applied christian "liberty" 101, or how christian-ISM as a power-and-control-seeking ideology, and its INEVITABLE equally benighted off-spring the materialist "culture" of death came to dominate the entire world

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel21.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

Plus check out references to the Wetiko disease or mind virus which was originally described in the book Columbus and Other Cannibals by Jack Forbes.
Also God Is Red by Vine Deloria.

The Wetiko disease/virus is of course still very much alive.

For the umpteenth time, atheism is not a belief.

As an apologist for Christianity the author has failed spectacularly. The faith is one of history's most repressive ideologies.

Christianity is indeed highly compatible with liberty. But Christianity is quite incompatible with Austrian School economics which uses dubious reasoning and blatantly false assumptions to justify policies which serve the rich at the expense of the poor.

Wow, it would take pages upon pages of posts to debunk all the misconceptions and falsehoods in this article, so I’ll just address the most glaring and fundamental error.

From the article: “This is not the case for the other major religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and New Age as well as Atheism and Humanism.”

Atheism is not a worldview and does not warrant a capital ‘A’, as the author incorrectly types it. It is the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence, or the lack of belief in a god.

Atheism is a response to a single proposition. It says nothing about where one should go from there or what else they should believe - that will depend entirely on the individual.

An all-round terrible article.

'For the umpteenth time, atheism is not a belief. '

no just totally irrational

mac,
Are you saying that the belief that no deity is real is not a belief?
Or are you claiming that atheism is not the belief that no deity is real?
If the latter, WTF do you think it is? And what proportion of atheists do you think agree with you?

Christianity is not in any way a repressive ideology. Repression has existed since (and probably before( ancient times, and Christianity hasn't always stopped leaders from being repressive - though many times it has.

_________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
Atheism is not totally irrational. It is a reasonable (though not inevitable) result of making incorrect assumptions. Compare and contrast that with Austrian School economics where both the assumptions and the reasoning are incorrect.

'Atheism is not totally irrational.'

then why do they come up with such idiotic unscientific dogmas such as the big bang and evolution. One certainly needs to stick head in the sand, close your eyes and repeat stupid slogans to embrace such nonsense.

Jesus did champion the poor the downtrodden and had plenty to say about the unethical accumulation of wealth. Starting by whipping the money changers out of his father's house and condemning the acquisition of wealth this way. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven!" If he was a conservative? Then he was a progressive conservative. And we see very few of those these days. In fact, one can argue that Christianity and conservative ideology are mutually incompatible belief systems. I'm also a lapsed Catholic but can never ever return to the fold given what the church has become and the facts behind its reinvention as a political movement rather than the church Crist is said to have established and set his seal upon it with the good Samaritan parable and code for living. Strangely, most rich folk erroneously believe that in order for there to be wealth and the wealthy there must be a cohort of poor folk and pockets of poverty? Nothing could be further from the truth and Christian evocation. Nothing wrong with Christian philosophy, just some of the organisations, evils and myths it's spawned! Alan B.

Dear A J Phillips,

Yes it is rather excruciating isn't it. I actually went to the trouble of looking the author up to see how old he was because if he was in his early 20s say, I would have been prepared to cut him some slack.

But no, old enough to know better unfortunately. However he originally hails from the US so perhaps a little lee way there. Probably would have been a good fit for ex senator Roberts for whom he apparently worked.

But while we are here I'm wondering what you thought of this observation from Stephen Fry about countries with monarchies.

http://youtu.be/eJQHakkViPo?t=3m54s

Dear runner,

You wrote;

"unscientific dogmas such as the big bang and evolution."

If they are so unscientific this should be easy for you. What scientific evidence do you have to disprove either of them?

Aidan,

The position of most atheists is that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity, deities or the supernatural. It's not a belief system, the onus of proof is on the believer. Atheists don't have to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, or that a million other superstitions are not supported by any evidence. Refer to Betrand Russell's "Orbiting teapot" What evidence is there for a deity, benign or malevolent or the supernatural?

There's no evidence for Thor either, although Germanic myths are much more interesting than Christianity. The major error that people raised in religious traditions make is that atheism is a belief system, presumably because they have no other frame of reference.

Neither consertive nor liberal political perspectives fit the teaching of of the bible well enough. Therefore in my opinion as a Christian, I think we should let our bible based beliefs effect our politics. Instead of the other way around having our political stances dictate and change our beliefs.

runner,
'Atheism is not totally irrational.'
>then why do they come up with such idiotic unscientific dogmas such as the big bang and evolution.
Firstly they're neither idiotic nor unscientific nor dogmas. They're scientific theories; accepted as such because unlike competing explanations, they fit the facts.

Secondly, what makes you think that those who devised those theories were atheists?

>One certainly needs to stick head in the sand, close your eyes and repeat stupid slogans to embrace such nonsense.
On the contrary, that's the requirement for denial of evolution! The big bang is not quite so well understood, but I've not seen any other good explanation for the cosmic background radiation being polarised.

_________________________________________________________________________________

mac,

You're shifting the goalposts a very long way there - I presume that now you're denying atheism's a belief system, you now concede it is a belief?

From the life of Jesus to the power of prayer, there's plenty of evidence for the existence of God. You may find the evidence unconvincing, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Heh, I know what you mean. I looked the guy up too. To me, the article smacked of libertarian-millennial naivety. I thought instantly of Charlie Kirk when I read it.

As for the link you provided, yes, I’ve seen that video before. I remember I had to pause the video for a moment to let what Stephen Fry had said sink in.

I’m not sure what to make of the observation, though. There are no studies that investigate the correlation that I am aware of. While it would be a mistake to conclude that there is causation to the correlation, it at least demonstrates that constitutional monarchies are not inherently a hindrance to freedom, societal health, or social welfare.

--

Aidan,

As a mentioned before, and for the reasons I mentioned before, atheism is not a belief system. It is also not a belief, until you are referring specifically to strong atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg

I doesn't sound like you have any idea of what atheism is. I'd recommend starting here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I'd be fascinated to hear how you justify claiming that atheism is a belief system.

<< From the life of Jesus to the power of prayer, there's plenty of evidence for the existence of God.>>

That’s not very reliable evidence. Multiple studies have demonstrated that intercessory prayer does not work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer), and can even have a backfire effect on those who know they are being prayed for (probably due to performance anxiety).

As for Jesus, there is no extra-biblical evidence for the divinity of Jesus (assuming an historical Jesus even existed), and the Gospels are hardly reliable evidence for a divine Jesus, as any literary scholar (and some Biblical scholars) will tell you.

http://naturalistphilosophy.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/the-gospels-are-unreliable-and-the-gospel-jesus-is-not-a-historical-person

Very boring. A quick scan turned me off. I'm surprised that those making comments actually read this. I suspect that they just saw the word "Christian", and charged in with their the stock standard views on the subject.

There is so much wrong with Christian philosophy but you simply have to open your eyes to see it.

The Baby Jesus stuff about the poor is lovely if you ignore the rest.

Jesus didn't ban slavery,

Jesus continually threatened hellfire and damnation on people - Hell doesn't exist.

Jesus allowed believers to think that anyone unlike his nutter believers rot in hell!

Jesus didn't teach about bacteria or viruses he only believed in devils, demons and spirits. Luckily people ignored these backward beliefs and found medical solutions.

Jesus pretended that prayer actually works and yet not one Christian can actually prove this ... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8181#256586

Jesus encouraged modern Christianity to lie to, and indoctrinate children with lies and falsehoods.

Jesus didn't criticise the psychopathic crimes committed against other humans by the likes of Moses and King David.

Example King David's Holocaust.

1Chronicles 20:3 And he brought out the people that were in it, and CUT THEM WITH SAWS, AND WITH HARROWS OF IRON, AND WITH AXES. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.

In fact that Bible says this lie about David....

1Kings 11:5-6 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: AND HIS HEART WAS NOT PERFECT WITH THE LORD HIS GOD, AS WAS THE HEART OF HIS FATHER.

Most Christians believe that anyone who thinks differently to them will rot in the sulfur lakes of hell, when hell doesn't exist.

Can anyone who accepts and believes such horrid thoughts against their fellow human be considered good?

Sorry but NO! You can't claim this is a good religion with good philosophies when you deliberately ignore the horrid parts in plain site within.

Good people have changed the world...stop giving religion the credit!

Aidan

AJ Philips has anticipated my replies to your comments.
I'd also add that we can't accept that a text written by religious believers is proof of the veracity of any religion.

(1) What is the independent proof, ie external to the Bible, for the existence of any deity.

(2) How do you deal with the problem that theodicy was developed to explain? It would be more logical to assume that the Christian God is actually a malevolent, sadistic bastard.

LOL Libertarians have no soul!

Dear AJ Phillips,

Well Fry does say in the clip he is an empiricist rather than a rationalist. However I should have been clearer in that it was his second observation on constitutional monarchies straight after that was a little more germane to this topic.

Fry speaks of how tightly bound religion and the state are within these monarchies yet they experience high rates of atheism while in the US where the constitution forces a large divide between the church and state the rates of 'true' believers are incredibly high.

As an aside I've tumbled back into Nietzsche's Genelogy of Morals at the moment and imagining what he would have made of Mr Trump and his voters. I think it is an easy task to identify Trump as a 'blond beast of prey'. What is a little more interesting is why the 'slave morality' which has so driven Christianity, a religion deeply infused within American culture, has been so readily captured by Trump even though he exemplifies excess and immorality.

What has happened when the person originally seen by so many Americans as speaking truth to power becomes the most powerful?

Perhaps it has in measure to do with Trump's use of social media, primarily Twitter. By broadcasting his thoughts via this medium he has brought unfiltered access, immediacy, and to a degree intimacy to this power for his followers? How seductive is that to the slave? How empowering? I'm not sure.

Anyway it is all good fun.

So it goes that three guys had an argument in a bar:

1) Jesus was just like me: Strong, blonde, muscular, blue-eyed, Arian - how could he be any less?

2) No, Jesus was a Middle-Eastern, he was slim, tanned, dark-haired and bearded just like me!

3) You don't know a thing - Jesus was black and beautiful just like me, athletic with coiled short hair.

As they argue, there enters a small Jew, somewhat hunchback, half balding, flabby muscles.

"Oh Jesus, ye say? he was a Jew of course, he looked just like me!"

- The three couldn't stop laughing...

"What, you don't believe me? Come along an I'll prove it to you!"

So the three, thinking they couldn't miss another good laugh, went along and followed the Jew, who led them through the streets into the red-lights district. Finally he reached a building, went up the stairs where the door on the 2nd-floor had a big sign: "Maria".

The Jew rang the bell, a lady opened the door, looked at him and exclaimed in astonishment:

- JESUS, HAVE YOU COME AGAIN?!

---

The author had many good and interesting things to say which I agree with, regarding religion and free choice - but then he exposed his prejudice and ignorance just like those guys at the bar, claiming that his particular religion is both the most free and the most truthful of all while putting down all others, grading them down the scale.

I am a Hindu, I have been commenting on this forum for many years and anyone who read my comments would know that I am a very strong advocate for liberty. Economically I find myself in the middle-of-the-road (between libertine and libertarian), yet I abhor statism and never compromise on individual freedoms.

I find the author's spurious and unsubstantiated claim as if liberty and Hinduism clash, insulting.

Free will is a core concept in Hinduism since thousands of years before Jesus and Christianity – free will to believe or not and to sin or not.

Atheism is a "belief" in the same way that baldness is a hair colour or that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Of the 5,001 Gods worshipped throughout human history, Christians don't believe in 5,000 of them. Atheists simply don't believe in one more.

Religion has a persecution and martyrdom complex and sees any variation in thought as a threat to their own belief and will try to rationalise its existence in every and any way possible.

Meanwhile, let's put the Thor back into Thursday.

Did Aiden just take the red pill?
"Christianity is indeed highly compatible with liberty. But Christianity is quite incompatible with Austrian School economics which uses dubious reasoning and blatantly false assumptions to justify policies which serve the rich at the expense of the poor."

I think if people say they know 100% for sure that God does or doesn't exist; that they could be right but it might also indicate mental illness.
How can anyone know for sure?

Dear SteeleRedux,

Yes, of course. I should have figured that that was the observation you were referring to, given the topic of the thread.

I’m not sure what to make of Fry’s observation there either. It’s as though democracies experience some sort of a backfire effect, in both directions, where the separation of Church and State is concerned.

--

Armchair Critic,

Who’s saying they’re 100% certain?

<<I think if people say they know 100% for sure that God does or doesn't exist; that they could be right but it might also indicate mental illness.>>

Similarly, I don’t know with absolute certainty that universe creating pixies don’t exist, but I’m happy to say that I don’t believe they do. I don’t see why a god should warrant any more serious consideration than universe creating pixies. And if someone were to tell me that they don’t believe in universe creating pixies, I certainly wouldn’t feel compelled to say, “Ah, but you can’t know with 100% certain that they don’t exist!”

Absolute certainty is a useless red herring.

You are free to believe that tiny unicorns live in your shoes. Fair enough.
However, when you tell me (or even legislate) how I must wear my own shoes in order not to hurt the mythical unicorns, it's quite a different matter.

That's nothing to do with my freedom, but only that of the unicorn-worshippers. The real meaning of religious freedom is just the freedom to oppress those who disagree with your beliefs.

It's what encouraged witch-burning and perpetuated slavery for millennia until both were overturned - not because of - but in spite of religion, which condones both practices.

They may recently have found the bodies of South American children mass-sacrificed centuries ago in order to stop the rains but nuns were still deliberately dumping the bodies of hundreds of dead children into septic tanks in Ireland until relatively recently.

Stephen Hawking said religion was "Fairy Stories for people afraid of the dark". For its abused or murdered victims, Religion IS the dark.

Stephen Hawking said religion was "Fairy Stories for people afraid of the dark".

Yeah we know Rache and spmething another professor so clearly pointed out is that atheism is a fairytale for those afraid of the Light.

Quote of the year by Rache....

"Atheism is a "belief" in the same way that baldness is a hair colour or that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

When I read that to a friend of mine we both burst into laughter!

Go to the top of the class Rache... I hope you don't mind me using that from time to time...It is brilliant!

I'm still laughing today about it! I've told heaps of people about it!

Well done!

Sorry in my previous post above regarding David's holocaust I showed some verses but I left out a key verse...

I showed you all

1Chronicles 20:3 And he brought out the people that were in it, and CUT THEM WITH SAWS, AND WITH HARROWS OF IRON, AND WITH AXES. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.

The GREAT LIE

1Kings 11:5-6 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: AND HIS HEART WAS NOT PERFECT WITH THE LORD HIS GOD, AS WAS THE HEART OF HIS FATHER.

But I failed to show you this verse...

2Samuel 12:31 And he brought forth the people that were therein, and PUT THEM UNDER SAWS, AND UNDER HARROWS OF IRON, AND UNDER AXES OF IRON AND MADE THEM PASS THROUGH THE BRICKKILN: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.

Note the words "MADE THEM PASS THROUGH THE BRICKKILN" - How do you make a corpse go through a furnace? Wouldn't you just say "and they burnt their bodies? or they put the corpses through a brickkiln?"

You can however make someone pass through a furnace if they are still alive using some sort of force...What a horrid person this David was...

The wording is very suspicious and further proves why Churches and Christians are very selective when it comes to King David and other filth they call Bible heroes.

This stuff is simply shameful, but according to 1Kings 11:5-6 above you actually believe God thought David's heart was perfect with his?

Sorry but believing God approved of such horrendous crimes as David's holocaust is a complete insult to God and a shameful reflection on you believers and your faith.

Need any more proof that your beliefs are wrong?

Opinionated2,
The Bible suggests that David and Saul were gay but Saul becoame jealous of David's association with Jonathon and later wanted a dowry of 100 foreskins from slain Philistines for David to marry Saul's daughter. US Evangelists use David as an excuse for Trump, being terribly flawed but "doing God's work".

There's some weird stuff in that book and according to surveys, atheists know more about religions than the followers.

Christians especially get the Disneyland version of their religion from Hollywood blockbusters and cute Sunday school stories and most have never read the whole Bible - just selective parts to support their own prejudices.

Rather than wandering about starry-eyed for the first several centuries, early Christian sects behaved more like ISIS - killing non-belivers and burning books.
What is now Syria was once a vast killing field where tens of thousands of "pagans" were crucified and burned alive and their temples were ground into dust or turned into stables or brothels. Much of the marble used in Roman cathedrals came from pagan temples.

Most of the current trouble in the Middle East is due to Israel claiming that "God gave them that land" (according to a book they wrote themselves) and was due to an exodus from Egypt (which historically never happened) and Christians support them because they believe it will herald the Second Coming (and Jesus will kill all the Jews for them). The Jews in turn believe they will rule the whole world from that time and the "human cattle" will become their servants.

It's an apocalyptic death cult if there ever was one and an example of the destructive nature of myth and superstition.

The bald do have a hair colour. You just need to have more than a superficial look.

Equally, the atheist does have a religion. You just need to have more than a superficial look.

Oh please, mhaze, tell us all what this religion is that atheists have, won't you?

It doesn't look like you learnt much from our last encounter.

AJP,

Scratch a theist and you'll find a myriad of different theistic beliefs.

Scratch an a-theist and you find a myriad of different religious beliefs. Here I mean beliefs that are based on faith rather than fact. A very small subset of such beliefs would include Gaia worship and eco-catastrophism in general, spiritualism, various utopic civilisation faiths like communism etc etc.

I don't and won't get embroiled in one of your endless semantic arguments here, but I use 'religion' in its widest sense eg "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices".

"It doesn't look like you learnt much from our last encounter."

oh you mean the discussion where I started off saying the deity couldn't be disproven because it couldn't be defined and you ended up showing me (after who knows how many posts and tangential rabbit-holes) how the deity couldn't be disproven because it couldn't be defined. Yeah you really got me there </sarc>

Perhaps I didn't learn anything because there was no one with anything to teach me.

mhaze,

You're using equivocation to commit the fallacy of false equivalence. That's quite a combo.

<<Scratch an a-theist and you find a myriad of different religious beliefs. Here I mean beliefs that are based on faith rather than fact.>>

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Furthermore, the definition of religion requires more than just an element faith.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

<<A very small subset of such beliefs would include Gaia worship and eco-catastrophism in general, spiritualism, various utopic civilisation faiths like communism etc etc.>>

And these are all intrinsic to or tenets of atheism, are they? R-i-i-i-ght. I take it that it's far-Left thinking you are falsely equating to atheism?

What about libertarian atheists, or alt-right atheists, or moderate left-wing atheists, or moderate right-wing atheists?

There is nothing within atheism to support or necessitate the beliefs you've listed. Your argument is dumb.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

<<oh you mean the discussion where I started off saying the deity couldn't be disproven because it couldn't be defined and you ended up showing me … how the deity couldn't be disproven because it couldn't be defined.>>

No, that never happened. You're lying again. I showed you that you were wrong by showing you how a version of deity could be disproven.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252015

No, I mean the one where you couldn't understand the fact that atheism and agnosticism weren't mutually exclusive.

We're a little slow to catch on, aren't we mhaze?

AJ Philips,

The usual strawman arguments from believers. I've often wondered if it's a deliberate tactic or if they really can't understand the concept of atheism.

mac,

Good question. Having had this debate many times over the years, I’ve found myself asking the same thing.

<<I've often wondered if it's a deliberate tactic or if they really can't understand the concept of atheism.>>

Apart from the occasional theist who has lived a sheltered life and never known anything but belief, I think most of them do it deliberately.

I think there’s a kind of envy going on.

Perturbed by the fact that there are some out there not bound by the intellectual shackles of a dogmatic belief system, they seek to drag such people down to their level by pretending that atheism is some sort of a dogmatic belief system in its own right. This is where I think the 'absolute certainty' red herring comes in (as if we ever wait for absolute certainty to act upon a belief or take a stance on a particular issue).

This becomes particularly evident when Born-Agains try to paint atheism as a religion: having been atheists once before, they simply HAVE to know that what they’re saying is complete rubbish.

The interesting thing about mhaze is that he doesn’t even believe in a god (he even acknowledged once that he was technically an atheist before going on to strenuously deny it (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252526)).

In mhaze’s case, I think it just boils down to his politics, which seem to have a whiff of McCarthyism to them.

The desparate efforts by some to label atheism as a religion comes from the same defensive delusion that the earth is only 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs were around in Jesus' time. The idea that some people are capable of free thought must be a threat.
To suggest that the only thing stopping them from raping and murdering is because of some iron age writings is the most self-damning thing I've ever heard.

Fairies, pixies, leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus, Gods - all the same, except only one offers comfort from the fear of death.

If there was no "promise of an afterlife" I doubt that any religion would survive. What's the point?

Why would the human mind - which can't grasp the true idea of infinity or imagine anything beyond 3 dimensions - even be able to comprehend the nature of the universe?

It's like a seagull sitting on top of the Opera House that can't possibly conceive the entirety of what is happening directly below it's feet.

Only hairless killer apes cursed with the awareness of their own mortality are arrogant enough to place themselves on the same level as some all-encompassing, convenient and benevolent entity because to claim to understand something is to have control over it.

"No, that never happened. You're lying again. I showed you that you were wrong by showing you how a version of deity could be disproven."

Well AJP, if that's what you need to tell yourself, then so be it. I don't feel the need to re-litigate your misunderstandings here.

But I suspect you know better. At least I hope you know better. Otherwise I've badly over-estimated your cognitive abilities. And then my dismantling of your falsely held views would be just cruel.

"The desparate efforts by some to label atheism as a religion..."

Atheism isn't a religion. Equally theism isn't a religion. Theism just means a belief in the deity. It encompasses many religions.

Atheism encompasses many different beliefs united in their rejection of a deity.

Just as there are many many religions that generically are theistic there are many many religions that are generically atheistic. Again I use 'religion' in its widest sense eg ""the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices".

As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”

That’s because you can’t, mhaze.

<<… if that's what you need to tell yourself, then so be it. I don't feel the need to re-litigate your misunderstandings here.>>

There are never any links or quotes to any of your slanderous claims because none of them are true, and you know it. You just make them up.

<<And then my dismantling of your falsely held views would be just cruel.>>

Oh, please, by all means, go ahead. Let’s see this “dismantling” in action, shall we?

No? I didn’t think so.

It’s a common ploy of yours, isn’t it, to pretend that you’re too gentlemanly to embarrass your opponents (while simultaneously slandering them). But only where claims you cannot substantiate are concerned, naturally. If you think you can dismantle a claim, you're quite happy to go right ahead and do it.

<<Atheism encompasses many different beliefs united in their rejection of a deity.>>

Such as?

Your last list was a flop. So, what else have you got for us? Or are you just going to assert it now?

‘Atheism’ is not a ‘their’, by the way. Not even if you’re trying to be gender-neutral.

<<As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”>>

Well, I don’t just believe in anything. You don’t just believe in anything. Going by their posting histories, Rache and mac don’t appear to just believe in anything. So, clearly, he was wrong. But, hey, attach a famous and pretentious-sounding name to a quote, and suddenly it becomes true. Isn't that right?

--

God exists: the only proposition of which the rejection requires absolute certainty. Acceptance, apparently, has no such requirement; and even when it’s achieved, it is never ridiculed.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

"As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”"

No he didn't.

The closest quote is when he had Father Brown in The Oracle of the Dog say “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.”

Others with an agenda similar to yours have embellished it.

If you would be so kind please refrain from attributing it to Chesterton again.

Steele, I'm sure that MHaze will be flattered that you put him in company with Umberto Ecco, who also wrongly attributed this "quote" to Chesterton. But as you can see here https://www.chesterton.org/ceases-to-worship/ it appears to accurately extract the thoughts of Chesterton, so big deal if he never said it. We could attribute the quote to every other misattributor, and the thought would still have an impressive provenance.

But who cares if it is misattribution? It is the sentiment that is important, not the person who is alleged to utter it, unless you invest him with some sort of omniscience. But you wouldn't do that because I sense that not only don't you believe in God, but you don't believe in the possibility of God. So an omniscient being, called GK Chesterton would be a huge philosophical, and evidentiary, problem for you.

In which case I can only think you are nitpicking as a diversion. Playing MHaze for sloppiness on an inessential while avoiding any discussion of the substance of his argument.

For what it's worth I think the writer is correct. Christianity is more compatible than any other religious belief, including atheism, with an economically liberal society. Not surprising, because it is Christian concepts that made that society possible in the first place. But what would I know. I'm not omniscient.

Wow, we have a link. Nice job, mhaze.

And here was my response to that comment explaining why your assertions were wrong:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286

At no point in that comment of yours did you even remotely demonstrate how I “ended up showing [you] … how the deity couldn't be disproven because it couldn't be defined.” You merely asserted it by making it look like I had been forced to concede something when in fact nothing I had said had changed. On the contrary, I had already shown how a version of deity could be disproved, which was my original point:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252196

Anyway, thanks for helping me to demonstrate that your version of events never happened. Perhaps a little less ad hom next time? It always backfires on you.

I don’t suppose we’re going to learn what these universal pursuits/beliefs/traits of atheists are, let alone why they are an inevitable result of not believing in a god and inextricably tied to it, are we?

I won't hold my breath.

GrahamY

"Christianity is more compatible than any other religious belief, including atheism"

(1) Nice try. Atheism is not a religious belief, it's the absence of religious belief.

(2) The West was governed by a Christian theocracy for 1000 years, however liberal capitalism didn't appear until the Renaissance.

Mac, atheism is a religious belief, no matter how you twist and turn, and is recognised by the UN as such. And Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither was a properly Christian Europe. It was a lot longer than a 1000 years too before free enterprise was recognised as a desirable form of organisation. It would truly have been a miracle if Christianity had immediately transformed society on the death of Christ. But Christianity is unique in ascribing equal worth to each person. The working out of that doctrine leads to free enterprise, and democracy, as we know it.

Dear GrahamY,

I'm not sure pointing out that a quotation was incorrectly attributed was worthy of your lengthy response but each to their own. However I will acknowledge my post was given impetus by mhaze mischaracterising his exchange with AJ Phillips, something perhaps more worthy of attention.

Be that as it may your link hardly made the case that mhaze's misattributed quote was somehow the complete essence of Chesterton's sentiment. I think that is a stretch.

It uses two of his quotes. The first; “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.”

Although they place a full stop after 'sense' the full sentence reads; “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can’t see things as they are.”

Father Brown's reason for this? “... all because you are frightened of four words:“He was made Man”.”

Which is essentially asserting that the little superstitions are dross because there is an overarching, bigger superstition which supersedes all others.

Cont..

Cont..

The second, “You hard-shelled materialists were all balanced on the very edge of belief — of belief in almost anything.” is speaking directly to the case at hand. While it might be asserted that Chesterton believes this universally he certainly doesn't fully state it elsewhere. Also remember these were the words of a character. Other of Father Brown's utterances include;

“If ever I murdered somebody," he added quite simply, "I dare say it might be an Optimist.”

“But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren’t a priest.” “What?” asked the thief, almost gaping. “You attacked reason,” said Father Brown. “It’s bad theology.”

“When will people understand that it is useless for a man to read his Bible unless he also reads everybody else's Bible?”

Chesterson was fun reading in my early 20s and it has been good revisiting but he always has been pretty self-contradictory.

Verdam from The Miracle of Moon Crescent makes the point nicely;

“Father Brown believes the holy donkey had six legs and the house of Loretto flew through the air. He believes in hundreds of stone virgins winking and weeping all day long. It’s nothing to him to believe that a man might escape through the keyhole or vanish out of a locked room. I reckon he doesn’t take much stock of the laws of nature.”

Steele, that is all pretty tiresome and irrelevant. The quote stands on its own, whether Chesterton actually thought it, or even believed it. You're just trying a diversion because you can't win the argument. It's got almost nothing to do with the contention in the article. And fancy criticising me for a lengthy reply and then more than doubling the length of mine in yours!

Graham,

I’m disappointed. I gave you enough credit to assume that you had worded that badly, and even thought mac may have been a little quick to the punch there.

“Christianity is more compatible than any other religious belief, including atheism, with an economically liberal society.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19729#349378)

Myself and others have explained why atheism is not a religion, a belief system, or even a belief (unless you’re talking about strong atheism, per the diagram I linked to earlier).

Then along you come, and, in an apparent attempt to do nothing more a little heel-digging, claim that atheism is a religion without providing any reasoning whatsoever for your claim. Not even mhaze is silly enough to make such an absurd claim. That’s something runner would say.

Personally, I think you Christians are just stroppy, and perhaps a little envious, because having no religion gives atheists more room to move as individuals, without the shackles of a dogmatic belief system.

But, please, tell us all why atheism is a religion. Show us all how baldness can indeed be a hair colour.

Understand, however, that if you re-define ‘atheism’, I don’t gain a religion, I lose a label.

--

Dear SteeleRedux,

I appreciate your noting of mhaze’s misrepresentation of our past discussions. It seems to happen every time we clash swords and it’s something that really starts to grind me down. To see that it at least doesn’t go unnoticed is a relief.

Dear GrahamY,

Yes, your admonishment to me was more than double the words of my admonishment of mhaze and my subsequent reply was twice as long again, almost as if a point was being made.

Next to contend that “The quote stands on its own, whether Chesterton actually thought it, or even believed it.” is rather fraught. It was already a rather trite quote but without Chesterton's ownership I feel it becomes even more superficial. But that is just my opinion.

As to the the article I thought I had already addressed it, I felt it was an amateurish piece with few if any redeeming qualities however I did go on to reference Stephen Fry's clip, although granted that the point may have been a little oblique.

What he states is that empirically the most successful liberal democracies appear to be those where religiosity is greatly diminished for instance the Scandinavian countries or England yet he notes the place of the Church within the ruling structures. It is interesting of course that the USA where there is a strict separation between Church and State there are high levels of religiosity and it is a big call to ever claim it is an exemplar of liberal democratic values.

Admittedly this point had less to do with the toxic Libertarianism of the type the author was trying to justify and promote and could be seen by some as a diversion. Yet it certainly focused on the impact of religion, particularly Christian by default, on our democracies.

Finally mate can we get real for a moment. We are Aussies here. What do you really think about a bloke who calls a matrix he cobbles together after himself? Surely he is either taking the piss or is being a typical big noting Yank. If it is the former then he got me good but my bet is it's the latter.

GrahamY is letting his beliefs get in the way of logic...It's his site he can do that if he wishes.

Some believers who are in themselves good people give credit to God...they're delusional but good people. It's a mistake, but hey if they want to give God credit for their niceness so be it.

I prefer to be more generous than that and appreciate the goodness in the person not their chosen deity.

Call me old fashioned but I think it's time we were a bit more honest than religions and the religious allow.

SteelR did nothing wrong. Rache summed up the early Christian religions and the Catholics turned oppression into an artform through the many inquisitions.

The believer mind wants to dump Stalin on Atheism as their example so we should be allowed to dump Catholism and Christianity on the later Roman Empire, the crusades and Hitler.... http://tinyurl.com/y7kp5bkb

With all the kids having been abused in religions and covering up of the crimes one should hardly say liberty in the same breath as Christian. The Royal Commission was quite conclusive wasn't it?

As Christians wrongly and bigotedly believe non-believers rot in hell....one should hardly claim a Christian liberty, should they?

As the Christian religion through Paul taught and encouraged the oppression of women for a further almost 2000 years where is the liberty in that? News recently https://tinyurl.com/ybx2vmgh

Modern believers are just 100 years behind the times in logic, knowledge and human advancement.

They, in most things if not everything, including their charities, have a hidden agenda to manipulate and indoctrinate...so where is the liberty in that?

Sorry but some of us are a bit smarter than to accept religious piffle keeping most believers blind to the facts.

Entrenched lies and indoctrination are hard to break down even when the victims/parishioners are presented with facts.

The question is....Is covering up your religions crimes against women and children and scaring people/children who don't believe in Jesus with rotting in hell providing liberty?

Christian Liberty history doesn't support the concept...sorry!

//But Christianity is unique in ascribing equal worth to each person.//

No it isn't. One does not need to be Christian to believe that all men are born equal, and holding that belief is not considered sufficient to make one a Christian.

Also, it took quite a while for Christians to cotton onto that idea... and there's a few firmly in the nutjobs & extremists camp that still don't believe it.

AJP,

This is absolutely the last I'll post on this piece of AJPian lunacy. Hereafter you'll have a free kick to make up any reconstructed scenario to salvage whatever pride you need.

In the previous thread I originally opined what I thought was an uncontroversial position that the deity can't be disproved (or proved for that matter) using logic.

You then asserted that "The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit using logic."

While I never disputed that you could imagine a particular type of deity and the seek to discredit it, I pointed out that that didn't disprove the deity overall. eg "So then you’ve ‘disproven’ the existence of a God that has the same values as you ie you’ve discredited that type of God."

After some to and fro you asserted that "No, I have rebutted you by saying that the god can be disproved".

But then I started pointing out that you're understanding of "The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god" isn't the only potential understanding and all you'd disproven was a god of your own design.

When that finally sunk in we got this from you:

“Deities can be disproven, depending on how they’re defined.”

and

“there are some deities that can be disproven.”

This was of coarse my very original point and it'd only taken christ-knows how many posts for you to recognise it.

On a more general note, I think the problem for you here is that you have this conceit that your understanding is THE understanding. That, for example, the way you define a word such as omnibenevolent is the only way it can be defined. It seems that it was only after I started showing you other authorities that had differing definitions that you started to see the light. Equally you assume that your definition of the deity is THE definition and that discrediting that version is all that's needed to disprove 'the deity'.

That you finally saw the light there, is, hopefully, some sort of break-through.

FIN

SR,

We've been down this road before. Agreed, Chesterton probably didn't say it. But the sentiment is widely attributed to him...so. There are many 'quotes' like that.

When I see someone who wants to concentrate on the periphery of an issue rather than the substance, I see someone who is incapable of addressing the substance.

________________________________________________________________

"Atheism is not a religious belief, it's the absence of religious belief."

No atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. But there are plenty of religions (as defined) that don't have a deity. I've mentioned a few that I'd venture many here would adhere to such as eco-catastrophism, but there's other example such as ancestor worship, many forms of shamanism, some forms of Shinto and Confucianism.

Humans are tribal creatures and seek the protection of the group. There is no particular reason for Christians to form congregations (Christ having specifically given them licence to worship alone) but they do because that's the human thing to do. Equally, atheists, despite their own self-image as individualistic free thinkers, seek the herd, be it through green groups or various anti-religious movements. Its one of the reasons social media is so successful in that it allows one to join the herd. #MeToo isn't a religion but feminism, in its current forms, is. #MeToo only works because of reinforcing memes from the overriding religion.

I haven't specifically addressed the issues of the confluence of liberty and Christianity as raised in this article since I'd already recently been down that road here and found the group rather adverse to going there.

But just for fun I'll mention the questions I raised in earlier threads which I think go to explain why Christianity spawned liberty and freedom and progress and scientific endeavour and why the slow demise of Christianity threatens all those advances....

Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to actively work to eliminate slavery was Christian?

Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to even conceive of human rights was Christian?

Why was it that the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Christian West?

Why did democracy arise in the Christian west?

Why, if Christianity caused the Dark Ages, was there no Dark Ages in the Christian East?

While not myself a Christian, I remain convinced that the key to the West's freedom, liberty, economic and scientific success was and is the confluence of Greek and Roman culture and Christian values and loss of these spells the demise of Western culture to be replaced by something far worse.

mhaze,

I can understand why you would want to pre-emptively bow out now.

<<This is absolutely the last I'll post on this …>>

After all, you wouldn’t want to have it look like you were sent packing now, would you?

<<In the previous thread I originally opined what I thought was an uncontroversial position that the deity can't be disproved … using logic.>>

Indeed you did.

<<You then asserted that "The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit using logic.">>

Not just asserted, I soon demonstrated that to be the case. Disproven, too.

<<While I never disputed that you could imagine a particular type of deity and the seek to discredit it, I pointed out that that didn't disprove the deity overall.>>

No, you never said “overall”, or anything to that effect. You just kept referring to this vague concept you labelled “the deity” and never really clarified what you meant by that, despite my requests that you do:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286

If you were referring to every single possible god imaginable, then, so what? At no point had I claimed that every single possible god imaginable could be disproved. I only claimed that one version could. But I don’t think even you really know what you were referring to. I think “the deity” was a deliberate attempt on your part to keep things as vague as possible for maximum wriggle room and confusion.

<<After some to and fro you asserted that "No, I have rebutted you by saying that the god can be disproved".>>

Yes, the god I described. There was no to-ing and fro-ing. You are making that up. My position remained consistent the entire time.

<<But then I started pointing out that you're understanding of "The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god" isn't the only potential understanding …>>

Yes, and I explained why this was irrelevant:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252253

<<… all you'd disproven was a god of your own design.>>

No, the deity that I disproved is the deity that most believers in the Abrahamic religions, and the OP, believe in.

Continued…

…Continued

I already explained this to you at the time:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252406

<<When that finally sunk in we got this from you:>>

No, that was me repeating what I had implicitly stated from the outset:

“The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to [disprove] using logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

I had to remind you of this multiple times:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252344
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252917

<<… you assume that your definition of the deity is THE definition and that discrediting that version is all that's needed to disprove 'the deity'.>>

No, at no point did I make either of those assumptions. How could I have? You never explained to what exactly “the deity” referred, and you still haven’t. Do you mean the concept? Do you mean every conceivable version of a god?

It’s just lie, after, lie, after lie with you, isn’t it mhaze? Nothing beats this doozy, though:

mhaze: "… people who think that the nuclear family only came to prominence in Australia around 1940 monumentally fail that test” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243942)

AJ: “I have now quadruple-checked my source, and before the 1940s, extended families were a small majority.”

mhaze: “So far you've offered no evidence other than a link to advertisement for a book which I found at Mitchell and which said nothing of the sort of what you claimed.”

AJ: “The information to which I refer starts at page 168 of the book. Here, I’ve uploaded a scan for you:

http://i.imgur.com/2Eav0GI.jpg”

mhaze: “No, no. Previously you told me that the book had several pages of information that supported your assertions.”

AJ: “Firstly, no I didn't. That was with regards to something else: … Secondly, since when did, ‘only one page’, mean the same as, “... nothing of the sort of what you claimed”?”

The mendacity continues.

<<No atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. But there are plenty of religions (as defined) that don't have a deity.>>

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that “the atheist [has] a religion”. Try again.

//Equally, atheists, despite their own self-image as individualistic free thinkers, seek the herd, be it through green groups or various anti-religious movements.//

He's right you know, atheists are social animals and they do like human contact. During my atheist phase, I belonged to my local gaming club - obviously anti-religious, because we played Dungeons & Dragons. I'm sure mhaze is the sort of person that would attest to the wickedness and depravity of fantasy RPG... seems like the sort of nutjobbery he'd buy into.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATUpSPj0x-c

But the D&D palying pales into insignificance when compared to the other organisation I belonged to the - that well known anti-religious and subversive far left group who are pretty much the Hitler Youth of the Green movement.... The Scout Association of Australia.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote; “Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to actively work to eliminate slavery was Christian?”

Because it isn't true and is typical western, Christo-centric codswallop.

For instance slavery was officially banned in Japan in 1590 yet the Church of England was still branding its slaves in the Caribbean “C of E” over 250 years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

There are other examples too.

You wrote; “Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to even conceive of human rights was Christian?”

Confucius was saying 'What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others” 500 years before Christ.

You wrote; “Why did democracy arise in the Christian west?” It didn't. Unless of course you wanted to assert that Athenian democracy was Christian inspired.

And on we go.

Thanks for that, SteeleRedux. Toni Lavis’s point was apt, too. mhaze’s list of questions are essentially a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

For the most part, Christianity has lagged progress and biblical re-interpretation was done post hoc to support it. We still see this happening today.

The only virtue of Christianity (if we can even call it that), is that the Bible contains enough contradictory claims and standards to support any idea, or at least not act as enough of a hindrance to progress to stop it entirely, but cherry-picking is always necessary to at least some degree.

People who claim that Christianity was the bedrock of civilization, or the foundation of liberal democracy, tend to assume a lot (not the least of which is the assumption that correlation implies causation) and make little to no attempt to consider the influence other factors as well. All of which is still largely useless for so long as we can't redo history a few times over to control for all factors.

Even if they’re right, though, Christianity hardly deserves a pat on the back for what amounts to dumb luck. But, what ultimately matters, in my opinion, is the truth of the fundamental premises.

--

mhaze,

I got so carried away reminiscing there that I don’t believe I’ve sufficiently addressed your claim that “the atheist [has] a religion.”

<<Equally...>>

What part of the False Equivalence fallacy do you not understand?

You made a fairly mundane observation (i.e. that humans are a social species) and then label all efforts to satisfy this drive ‘religion’ by appealing to the broadest possible sense of the word, when no one else here has used the word in that sense (there’s the equivocation).

Worse still, all of the social phenomena you mention (All left-leaning, co-incidentally. No bias or anything, eh?) are the inevitable result of being human, not of being an atheist specifically. Indeed, most are not even exclusive to atheists and may attract theists too.

Your equating of theistic and secular groups/initiatives/pursuits is false, and your reasoning for doing so is suspicious.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/97/Faulty-Comparison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Dear Graham,

«For what it's worth I think the writer is correct. Christianity is more compatible than any other religious belief, including atheism, with an economically liberal society.»

The author did not provide any reason, example or evidence for Hinduism to be incompatible with an economically liberal society.

Unlike the author's broad-brush and blind bias, free will IS a core concept in Hinduism.

Do you have any hint even, why Hinduism may possibly not be compatible with an economically liberal society?

Just to expand on why your motives appear suspicious to me, mhaze...

The following site describes the False Equivalence fallacy (or ‘faulty comparison’, as they call it) as:

“Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.” (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/97/Faulty-Comparison)

The two things you have been comparing are secular phenomena and religion.

So, going back to the above description, the question is: has your faulty comparison been employed to make Christianity not look so bad (i.e. make it look more desirable than it really is), or has it been used to drag atheism down to the same level (i.e. make it look less desirable than it really is)? Or perhaps it’s a little of both to bring each one closer to the centre?

I don’t expect an answer to that, of course. I’m sure you’d only try to pass your comments off as a sincere observation. The fallacies in your posts, however, suggest otherwise. So too does your desire to apply a word, which has so much baggage, to everyone on the planet,* thus rendering it meaningless and redundant since we already have more-accurate and less-loaded terms to describe those other phenomena.

Incidentally, all the secular things you list are left-leaning. Do you actually believe that only left-wing beliefs/groups/doctrines/activities are akin to religion, or is that just your politics showing?

*http://imgur.com/LBo0WK3

A J Philips,

I doubt that we will ever get believers to acknowledge the fact that atheism is not a religion. They can accommodate heretics and infidels in their religious universe, however a philosophical approach that claims that there is no evidence for their world view is far too threatening.

If non-belief is a belief as these loonies argue then the following must be true.

Non-hitting is assault.

Non-swearing is potty mouthed behaviour.

Non-violence is violence.

Not knowing is knowing.

Because their whole religion is such a crock they have to come up with ridiculous arguments to match their ridiculous lack of knowledge.

But there is a lessen in it for Atheists... The word Atheists makes you a target for their stupidities.

The real thing non-believers should say is "I see no evidence for the existence of a God."

"I definitely don't see it in the followers of those Gods"...lmao

If believers are made in God's image, God can't be the sharpest tool in the heavenly shed...lmao

SR,

Now let me get this straight.

In one civilisation there is an up-swelling of revulsion against slavery led by leading members of the religion. That leads to not only a banning of all slavery in that place but a world-wide effort to ban slavery in all places where that civilisation holds sway. Enormous military, diplomatic and strategic efforts are put in place to halt all slave-trading and in some places wars are fought in part to end slavery.

In another civilisation, one bloke for strategic purposes outlaws one form of slavery in his kingdom while allowing and encouraging other forms. Additionally that bloke, 6yrs after banning slavery invades a neighbour and carries back to his homeland 10s of 1000s of (ahem!) slaves. That same civilisation, a few centuries later invades its neighbours and forces over 100000 women into sex slavery.

And you think these are equivalent. Do you realise how pathetic your argument looks when you have to delve this far into the bottom of the barrel?

Then we have one civilisation that invents and exports to the world ideas like universal human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, rule of law, women's right and a plethora of other advancements. OTOH we have a bloke who effective said, "Be excellent to each other" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_yJFLvmjJY).

And you think these are equivalent. Do you realise how pathetic your argument looks when you have to delve this far into the bottom of the barrel?

Athens wasn't a democracy, at least not as we think of one. Two things with the same name aren't necessarily the same. For a start women were excluded. And at least 35% of the population were slaves who were excluded. And it wasn't representative but required attendance so large parts of the agricultural workers were effectively excluded. Out of a population of 150000 maybe 5000 were able to exercise any real power. Still a spectacular advance on other political systems at the time and unique in the ancient world (except arguably pre-imperial Rome) but not a democracy as we know it.

“I'm sure mhaze is the sort of person that would attest to the wickedness and depravity of fantasy RPG... seems like the sort of nutjobbery he'd buy into.”

Well it’s certainly easier to make up my views and then disparage them than to actually address anything I’ve said.
As to D&D, in my youth I was into war-gaming, using rules developed by the British army to train their officers. Re-examining history by recreating things like Waterloo, Cannae and Barbarossa. Reality based gaming. As such we looked down on D&D-ites as mere fantasist as against we realists. Funny how that extends into adulthood!

“Christianity hardly deserves a pat on the back for what amounts to dumb luck.”

The level of historic illiteracy required to allow someone to utter such a sentence is astounding. Yeah, the industrial revolution, the invention of human rights, freedom of speech, rule of law. Mere luck that they happened in the Christian west. Coulda happened anywhere really – upper Congo, outer Mongolia.
It wasn’t luck. It was the confluence of a differing forces combined with the inherent traits of the population that caused the ascendency of the West. Christianity was integral to that.

““Nescire autem quid antequam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum. (To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.)” Cicero. (I included the Latin to better accommodate SR’s sensibilities.)

“..has your faulty comparison been employed to make Christianity not look so bad (i.e. make it look more desirable than it really is), or has it been used to drag atheism down to the same level (i.e. make it look less desirable than it really is)?”
Or none of the above. We all have beliefs based on faith rather than clear evidence. We all convince ourselves that the evidence for those beliefs is good enough to justify the belief. For theists it’s the deity (and possibly other things). For atheists it’s something else. Just as theists aren’t necessarily part of a religion, some atheists won’t be part of a religion.

Dear mhaze,

Oh come on mate you could have done a lot better than that.

Confucius didn't tell slaves to obey there masters or even going so far as to say if the escaped they should return to their servitude, Christ did. Besides which Confucius spoke of a free conscience, of equality before the law, and free speech and ideas.

Britain outlawed slavery only to commit genocide in places like Victoria a few years later.

Women didn't get the vote in Christian democracies until well into the 20th century but there were quite a few older cultures where it was part of the law;

“Marie Guyart, a French nun who worked with the First Nations peoples of Canada during the seventeenth century, wrote in 1654 regarding the suffrage practices of Iroquois women, "These female chieftains are women of standing amongst the savages, and they have a deciding vote in the councils. They make decisions there like the men, and it is they who even delegated the first ambassadors to discuss peace."”

If Athens wasn't a democracy then neither was Christian Switzerland until 1971 when women got the vote. Really piss poor argument from you on this one.

There is nothing special about Christian democracies or anti-slavery doctrines only that they were instituted by countries which had at the time high levels of global power.

That’s not what I suggested, mhaze.

<<Yeah, the industrial revolution, the invention of human rights, freedom of speech, rule of law. Mere luck that they happened in the Christian west.>>

Christianity did not arise with such things in mind, and, with immoral and problematic doctrines such as substitutionary atonement, things could have easily gone the other way in different circumstances.

That’s where the dumb luck comes in.

<<Coulda happened anywhere really...>>

I never suggested anything of the sort.

<<It was the confluence of a differing forces combined with the inherent traits of the population...>>

Yes, climate and resources included.

<<Christianity was integral to that.>>

Integral as in ‘built-in’? Yes. Integral as in ‘civilization could not have possibly arisen otherwise’? I am yet to see that justified. And until it is, who cares?

<<We all have beliefs based on faith rather than clear evidence.>>

That's a False dilemma. Faith and clear evidence are not the only two options. There is an entire spectrum of degrees of evidence.

I have trust that has been earned and I will grant trust tentatively, but I don’t have faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something. If you can show me a belief I base on faith, I’ll stop believing it.

<<We all convince ourselves that the evidence for those beliefs is good enough...>>

If we’re convinced we have evidence, then it’s not faith. Faith, in the context of religion (unless you want to equivocate again), necessarily lacks evidence:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

Show any reasonable person that there is no evidence for a belief of theirs (contrary to what they thought) and they will abandon it. Faith-based beliefs, by definition, do not need evidence.

<<For theists [the faith-based belief is] the deity...>>

Correct.

<<For atheists [the faith-based belief is] something else.>>

Or there isn't one at all. If there is, though, it wasn't determined by their atheism.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/97/Faulty-Comparison

But even if we WERE all hopelessly condemned to holding faith positions, atheists would still have one less belief requiring faith, and more freedom to choose where it is placed.

mhaze,

I re-read what I had said earlier about dumb luck to see if your misunderstanding was the result of sloppy wording on my part. Mostly because that’s the type of misunderstanding you would later interpret as a to-ing and fro-ing or a supposed attempt to re-frame debate.

“Even if they’re right, though, Christianity hardly deserves a pat on the back for what amounts to dumb luck.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19729#349416)

Phew! What a relief!

I had preceded my comment with, “Even if they’re right, though…”

Even if they’re right? Even if who’s right? And about what? Luckily, that was explained in the preceding paragraph:

“People who claim that Christianity was the bedrock of civilization, or the foundation of liberal democracy...”

Yep, all appeared to be good at my end. So, what went wrong then? I went back to your post to see if there were any clues, and that’s when I saw it:

http://imgur.com/a/UAq6HLk

Oh boy.

Even creationists put ellipses when they omit a context-providing section of a quote they’re mining. Surely, I thought, mhaze isn’t more dishonest than a creationist!

Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, I copied and pasted your post into MS Word for a word count. Perhaps you’d run out words for that post? That wouldn’t explain the missing ellipsis, but I thought I’d check anyway.

343 words. *Tsk, tsk* You could have fit it in.

Oh, the lengths we have to go to when the person with whom we are dealing cannot be trusted to debate honestly!

As you said to Toni Lavis:

“...it’s certainly easier to make up [another’s] views and then disparage them...” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19729#349437)

At least Toni Lavis is joking around when he does it, though.

<<The level of historic illiteracy required to allow someone to utter such a sentence is astounding.>>

Yeah, you’re telling me!

You know, you might actually do a little better in debates if you stopped assuming that everyone else is so stupid and uneducated.

A final thought, mhaze.

When I provided a list of possible motivations as to why you falsely equate atheism with theism, you replied with:

<<Or none of the above.>>

However, everything you say continues to suggest that your motivation is one of the possibilities I listed or a combination thereof. In fact, your very next claims (addressed in a previous post of mine) suggest that the third possibility was correct.

But first there was this:

“...atheists, despite their own self-image as individualistic free thinkers, seek the herd...” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19729#349407)

The above suggests that you want to drag atheism down to the same level as theism by suggesting that atheists are equally bound by in inescapable drive. What you failed to realise, however, is that the atheist’s starting point makes them less likely to seek a herd, and does not influence where they go from there should they do so. Therefore, to paint atheists as equally religious is patently absurd.

In your latest response, you have seemingly sought to get around this by claiming that we all hold a faith-based belief of some sort (a rather pessimistic view of humanity, if you don't mind me saying so):

“We all have beliefs based on faith rather than clear evidence. We all convince ourselves that the evidence for those beliefs is good enough to justify the belief. For theists it’s the deity (and possibly other things). For atheists it’s something else. Just as theists aren’t necessarily part of a religion, some atheists won’t be part of a religion.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19729#349437)

This isn’t necessarily the case for atheists, though, and even if it were, their faith-based positions would not be (and are not) determined by their atheism.

So, whichever of my listed motivating factors applies, it’s at least one of them, and your attempt to explain why your false equation wasn’t false only confirmed this.

Your argument is similar to Jordan Peterson’s claim that everyone is religious (debunked in the video linked to below), and employs the same fallacious tactic of equivocation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMhP59FnXgw

//Well it’s certainly easier to make up my views and then disparage them than to actually address anything I’ve said.//

Like you do with atheists, you mean?

I notice you've avoided addressing my comments about being a member of the Scouting movement whilst being atheist. What's the matter, mhaze? Did the Scouts not fit in with your one-dimensional stereotypes of things atheists like?

Your breath-taking lack of insight is a never-ending source of hilarity, mhaze. Keep up the good work.

//in my youth I was into war-gaming, using rules developed by the British army to train their officers. Re-examining history by recreating things like Waterloo, Cannae and Barbarossa.//

Wow, you must be fun at parties.

//As such we looked down on D&D-ites as mere fantasist as against we realists. Funny how that extends into adulthood!//

Awww, that's so cute. Mhaze thinks he's a realist, guys. XD

//OTOH we have a bloke who effective said, "Be excellent to each other"//

Yet people all over the world still love Jesus... go figure.

//Athens wasn't a democracy, at least not as we think of one... For a start women were excluded.//

By that argument, the West won't be a democracy until it implements universal suffrage.

Prisoners can't vote. I guess we're not a democracy then, mhaze?

//Do you realise how pathetic your argument looks when you have to delve this far into the bottom of the barrel?//

Umm... you do realise that the Scandinavians beat them to the punch, abolishing thralldom well before the idea occurred to your beloved Englishmen?

Never mind, your highly selective and one-eyed reading of history is nearly as amusing as a History channel 'documentary'. Carry on.

Yuyutsu, Hiduism may have a doctrine of freewill, but it doesn't accept that each individual has the same inherent worth. Christianity does, and so does the modern doctine of human rights, which arises from Christianity. And it is that doctrine, as much as freewill, which gives rise to a liberal/free society. Being free to act, can be the freedom to act in unfree circumstances. People's worth has to be respected for it to be a free society.

Steele, cherrypicking a few examples of slavery having been repealed in certain circumstances doesn't take away from the fact that it was Christians who spearheaded the abolitionist movement on the basis of Christian theology. Misquoting Jesus won't get you around that - the references you make are to Paul.

It really is beyond dispute that Christianity gave rise to the modern western world, universal human rights, and the rules based system of exchange we call the free market. There is nothing else that can be said to do so. It certainly wasn't atheism.

As for atheism not being a religion, that too is absurd. The suffix "ism" gives it away. It is not the default position for humanity, but a system of thought which has the central irrational tenet that there is no god. That is as irrational as saying there is a god. Neither is susceptible of logical proof. We're both in the same boat, whether you like it or not. Although I suspect my concept of God is more rational than your concept of a lack of God.

How could it be, Graham?

<<It certainly wasn't atheism.>>

Atheism has nothing to say about rights, rules, or markets. It is simply a position with regards to a single proposition. Where one goes from there is entirely up to the individual.

<<As for atheism not being a religion, that too is absurd.>>

You have still not provided any reasoning to support your assertion here. You are just digging your heels in again.

<<The suffix "ism" gives it away.>>

The -ism suffix does not necessarily denote religion. It may denote as little as a mere state:

“a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs (baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.” (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ism)

<<[Atheism] is not the default position for humanity …>>

Perhaps.

Philosphically and rationally speaking, however, atheism is the default position. Disbelief is always the default position for any given claim. We don’t just go around accepting every claim we hear and then wait for evidence to the contrary. If that were the case, then we would end up holding all sorts of contradictory beliefs.

<<[Atheism is] a system of thought which has the central irrational tenet that there is no god.>>

Wrong.

Firstly, atheism isn’t a system of thought. A system of thought, by definition, would require multiple tenets. Atheism, on the other hand, only has one: disbelief.

Secondly, the positive assertion that there is no god is specifically strong, explicit atheism. I’ve already been through this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

<<[Stong atheism] is as irrational as saying there is a god. Neither is susceptible of logical proof.>>

That would depend on what kind of a god you were talking about.

<<We're both in the same boat, whether you like it or not.>>

We? Who here has asserted that there is no god?

<<Although I suspect my concept of God is more rational than your concept of a lack of God.>>

Oh, please, tell us how you figure that!

Dear Graham,

«Hiduism may have a doctrine of freewill, but it doesn't accept that each individual has the same inherent worth.»

This depends on how you use the term "individual":

According to Hinduism, our individuality is an illusion: yes we seem to be separated islands, but this is due to ignorance and in truth and essence we are not separate - indeed we are God and as such we are all the same thus necessarily equal, with the exact same inherent worth. Christianity says that men and women were created in the image of God, but Hinduism goes further and doesn't stop at humans alone.

So much for our true identity. If however one refers as "individuals" to the humans which we mistakenly assume ourselves to be, then no sophistication or theology is even needed to see that these are not equal: one can easily observe that some humans are shorter others longer, some fatter others thinner, some intelligent others fool, some very capable others limited or disabled, etc. etc.

In that sense, though we all have the same inherent worth, our respective lives do not have the same worth.

Still, I cannot see how human inequality must be incompatible with a liberal/free society. In other words, I disagree that your condition:

«People's worth has to be respected for it to be a free society.»

is a necessary condition so a free society cannot exist without it - other foundations for a free society are quite possible and the Hindu concept of reverence for the one God which you truly are and everyone else truly is (even while the worth of our persons differs), is one such foundation.

Regarding human rights, I am not in a position to decide whether or not they are derived from Christianity, nor do I even wish to discuss whether they are good or bad, but clearly they are incompatible with a liberal society, for in order to give rights to one individual, other individual(s)' freedoms must be restricted.

Dear GrahamY,

Yes it has been a little while since I have delved into the NT and I should have checked rather than relying on memory. It doesn't change the fact that this was indeed Christian teaching.

As to the early 'Western' Abolitionists to be accurate it was the Quakers, who many judge to be borderline Christians at best, that drove the movement in Britain. There was little appetite for it initially among the more mainstream Christian denominations.

You state;

“It really is beyond dispute that Christianity gave rise to the modern western world, universal human rights, and the rules based system of exchange we call the free market.”

I'm sorry but it most certainly is in dispute. It was Christianity which tried to eradicate other forms of classical thinking, particularly some of which were luckily preserved by Muslim scholars and return as foundational material for our now 'enlightened' ways.

But one only has to look at arguably the most Christianised nation and reflect on its highest incarceration rate in the world to see the dystopia which lurks beneath, waiting for its opportunity to consume.

To me nurturers of human rights through history in the West lie have been the Jewish people, particularly their intellectuals; thinkers, philosophers, writers and poets. They drove the historical socialist movements that sought to insulate mankind from the ravages of the marketplace and Christianity tried to wipe them out for their troubles.

And for a bit of fun the suffix ism in atheism is not the pivotal addition rather it is the prefix 'a', meaning "not," from Latin a-, short for ab "away from".

So atheism is not a theism of any description.

A religion requires the acknowledgement of a deity (or dieties), an agreed doctrine, specific rituals to be followed and typically an organisational structure with some sort of figurehead.

Atheism has none of these. It is a collection of free thinkers who simply refute the existence of a supernatural force.

Buddhism, which has no God, considers our origin as irrelevant and has a reality that is based on perception rather than faith - is also technically not a religion because it has no God, but is a belief system or philosopy.

Atheists by definition also reject Buddhism.

Dear Rache,

A religion requires none of the elements you mentioned:
So long as a path leads to God - it is a religion; and if a path does not lead to God, then it is not a religion even if it contains all these elements.

Buddhism does not mention God, but on the assumption that when practised properly it leads one to God anyway (even while this is not consciously recognised and acknowledged by Buddhist practitioners), then it is a religion.

Same for atheism: if it helps some people to come closer to God (and I can envision such circumstances), then for them it is a religion (or at least a part thereof).

AJP thinks I'm a McCarthyist indicating he hasn't the faintest idea what it means. (Hint: I've not got a McCarthyist bone in my body, but I am a McCartneyist or at least I was Yesterday and probably will be on Another Day).

SR thinks the assertions that Iroquois women had some power within their group (Margaret Mead style assertions) proves that Athens was a democracy...or something.

Toni thinks prisoners can't vote which makes this form rather redundant ... http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/pdf/forms/prisoners/er016pw-nsw-0416.pdf

Yet they all and their like preen themselves on being so much more intelligent than those dweebs who believe in sky fairies etc. Which is why they get oh so very upset when its pointed out that they have their own set of non-evidentiary beliefs.

__________________________________________________________________

On a similar vein, while doing research on another project, I came across this notion:

" Sigmund Freud was a dreadful physician but a brilliant salesman who understood all too well what the world wanted to buy. After two centuries of the Age of Reason, he grasped that a world that had given up its religion wanted permission to be irrational once again. The world wallowed in hysterical misery; he offered to replace it with ordinary unhappiness. Thanks to scholars like Crews, we no longer believe in Freud, even if we remain, unwittingly, under his thrall.
Freud wasn't looking for a new cure, but a new cult. He and his followers did lots of harm and negligible good, but they made hay out of the misery that modern liberal culture inflicted on its sufferers."

NB cult.

Gawd! Are you STILL here, mhaze?

<<AJP thinks I'm a McCarthyist indicating he hasn't the faintest idea what it means.>>

No, I said your politics “seem to have a whiff of McCarthyism to them.” At the time, I had in mind your 1950s view of atheism (obviously influenced heavily by your politics), which has you identifying as an agnostic instead (often a sign someone having difficulty distinguishing atheism from communism), and your moral panic over same-sex marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Later_use_of_the_term

Sheesh! That comment was I while ago now. How long did it take you to fish that one out? I guess you needed something, eh? Even if it was something I didn’t really say.

"Well it’s certainly easier to make up my views and then disparage them than to actually address anything I’ve said" - mhaze

<<Yet they all and their like preen themselves on being so much more intelligent than those dweebs who believe in sky fairies etc.>>

Yeah, I figured you were trying to suggest I was stupid. Ad hominem is often a last resort of yours, isn’t it? Pretend your opponent has made a mistake they should feel mortified about and hopefully attention will be diverted from the fact that your argument failed.

Now, where have we seen that before?

No one here has commented on the intelligence of theists. You're paranoid.

It’s funny, don’t you think, how someone who once wrote off IQ scores as “ridiculous” and “subjective” now suddenly thinks that one’s knowledge of McCarthyism, or a failure to note that prisoners serving less than three years are still allowed to vote, is enough to draw conclusions about one’s intelligence?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18530#330010

You're really scraping the barrel here, aren't you?

<<Which is why they get oh so very upset when its pointed out that they have their own set of non-evidentiary beliefs.>>

Who here is getting upset? And what are these “non-evidentiary beliefs”? I even challenged you to point to one held by myself, and still you merely assert that I do with no specific examples.

//Toni thinks prisoners can't vote which makes this form rather redundant ...//

Oops, didn't split my hairs finely enough for the liking of mhaze. Mea culpa.

Correction: prisoners serving a full-time sentence of three years or more can't vote.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Prisoners.htm

But my point about the us not having universal suffrage still holds valid.

Isn't pedantry fun?

//Yet they all and their like preen themselves on being so much more intelligent than those dweebs who believe in sky fairies etc.//

Umm... in case you've missed the memo, I'm one of those dweebs who believes in etc.

Just because I disagree with your daft arguments concerning one particular religion, it doesn't follow that I'm not religious.

Yay! More pedantry!

//Which is why they get oh so very upset when its pointed out that they have their own set of non-evidentiary beliefs.//

I'm not upset by the claim that I hold non-evidentiary beliefs, mhaze. I believe that we are not alone in the universe. I believe that existence is not a hologram, and that we're not in some advanced Matrix-style computer simulation. I believe I'm not a brain in a tank. I don't have any evidence whatsoever to support these beliefs, but I believe them all the same.

What's in dispute are your one-dimensional caricatures of atheists as loony left extremists. We're all still eagerly waiting for you to demonstrate those claims. But I don't think anybody will be particularly upset if you don't... more quietly amused than upset, I suspect.

//Sigmund Freud was a dreadful physician but a brilliant salesman who understood all too well what the world wanted to buy.//

Yep, Freud was a clown. No argument from me on that one. It amazes me that anybody still pays him any heed: he was no scientist; he wasn't even a good philosopher. He just pulled a bunch of nonsense out of his fundament, and people lapped it up. I don't get it.

Mind you, it is amazing what crap some people will buy into. Have you met a conspiracy theorist?