Dear ttbn,

With the Inquisition in which people were tortured and persecuted for questioning Christianity, the slaughter of Christians who believed different versions of the religion, the Crusades which were not only against the Muslims but also slaughtered Jews, Byzantine Christians and Albigensians, enslaving people, the Holocaust in which the Nazis committed genocide in a country which accepted it due to centuries of Christian hatred for Jews you now claim a Christian ethic of religious freedom. What evidence is there for such an ethic? Some other religions are as intolerant as Christianity and have learned from Christians. Christian European powers have dominated the world. Now many of those former colonies have thrown off the yoke of the Christian powers and are following the Christian pattern of intolerance. Christianity and Islam are siblings in intolerance. Many enlightened people are rejecting religion altogether.

Some very intelligent, rational people did follow Christianity. Geniuses like Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare and Leonardo Da Vinci could not have held the positions that they held if they openly challenged Christianity. Christian universities were not open to non-Christians through most of history, and the torture chamber and the stake were the destination for those bold or foolish enough to question Christianity. Scientists such as Hypatia, Servetus and Bruno were murdered by Christians.

Our freedoms are not based on the Christian ethic. Questioning of the power of the church was the inheritance of the Enlightenment which influenced western governments to loosen the bonds of the church and allow freedom of religion. The men who wrote the US Constitution that mentions neither God nor Christ and enshrines religious freedom were men of the Enlightenment establishing a secular state. The secular state curbed the tyranny of Christianity. Now Christianity claims credit for freedoms which it opposed. One must laugh.

With a virgin having a baby, God in three parts, life after death and other nonsense what is Christianity but superstition? That’s an accurate description not an insult.

Many including me fear Christianity. I fear its return to power in our secular state. I don’t want the Dark Ages back.

OK, David. I'm not trying to change your mind. I just think that all people need to hear how they look and sound to others occasionally.

A lot of these comments seem fairly tangential to the discussion, if not completely irrelevant. Not to name any one person.

But back to the point West raised.

What do people think should be Australian Government's policy towards these countries:

Indonesia

Papua New Guinea

West Papua

Malaysia

Sri Lanka

Myanmar

Vanuatu

Solomon Islands

and how should Aussie kids be educated on these cultures and languages? If they learn anything apart from how to play "Fortnight" and similar!

david f.

<<With a virgin having a baby, God in three parts, life after death and other nonsense what is Christianity but superstition? That’s an accurate description not an insult.>>

You committed a Strawman Fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning. Instead of dealing with the issues one at a time, you substitute Christianity's actual position and arguments with your own distorted version to misrepresent the true position of Christianity. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

We can't have a rational discussion when you engage in such irrational thinking.

How about asking can Australia be a good friend to its neighbours ?
Can selling out to them be a sign of good friendship or just callous greed ?

david f.

A presupposition is 'a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action' (Lexico/Oxford Dictionary 2019. s.v. presupposition).

<<your image of all-pervading superstition>>

That's your presupposition and not something based on evidence.

<<What happens at death is that like the other animals our life is ended>>

When I go into the butcher shop I don't have the option of choosing homo sapiens rib fillet. Why not if we are animals?

Again, you feed us your presupposition on human beings being like 'other' animals and that at death life ceases. You provided not a shred of evidence to support your theory. Surely that goes against your atheistic approach to life of basing your decisions on data.

Based on the evidence from the reliable Scriptures, you'll have a very different view one minute after your last breath. See: http://www.koorong.com/search/product/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-the/9780805464375.jhtml

<<I go by evidence>>

Yep! You use a filtered view of evidence. You have ignored the historical evidence in support of God's actions in history. As for the evidence of God in the universe, you throw that onto the untruth heap of 'I go by evidence'.

<<There is no evidence that religious concepts exist any place other than in the human mind>>

That's your presuppositional, censored world and life view speaking.

<<There is no evidence that religious beliefs are any more than superstition>>

Of course you'd reach that conclusion because you are not open to ALL of the evidence in our universe. Again religious beliefs = superstition is your presupposition.

You begin with anti-religious presuppositions and conclude with such a view. That's called a Begging the Question Logical Fallacy (Circular Reasoning), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

It's erroneous reasoning and we can't have a reasonable discussion when you use such a tactic.