…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