Peter,
A bit cruel of you to use the term "Crusading Evangelism" when referring to atheists.

These two terms are for use exclusively when referring to Christians.
From Wikipedia:- "Evangelism is the Christian practice of proselytization. The intention of most evangelism is to effect eternal salvation to those who do not follow the Christian God."

So, in fact, you are the evangelist. Not us.

The Crusades are to to be blamed exclusively on Christians. Us atheists rarely kill people who disagree with them simply because of their religious belief. (yes, Stalin was a pig of an atheist)

I think you probably meant the terms in a metaphorical way but even then you are simply pointing out that some rational atheists are passionate about contradicting the silly inconsistancies, myth, lies, misunderstood ancient concepts and legends that religious believers have held as "truth" for thousands of years because it is all jumbled together in a book. One wonders if your "truth" would be found in the pages of the Q'ran had you been born in Indonesia. What about an ancient Aztec? Would you have seen "truth" as someone's heart was cut out?

Your time and energy could be better spend in trying to convince us that your "truth" as described in an ancient book has validity in fact. That you have simply nominated your beliefs as "truth" is simply not good enough for many people. I'm still puzzled as to what this "truth" is but accept that if you see something in the theological meanderings of people like Paul of Tarsus then good on ya. Please don't blame us if this "truth" can't seem to dawn on us great unwashed heathens and we simply speak out.

Sells, looking at your view of how science is trying to supersede religion I would point out science is purely one way of interpreting the physical world. "Science" is a verb, the process by which one obtains knowledge, not a body of knowledge per se. If empiricism is not your thing then so be it, but it's what modern civilisation is built upon.

Faith is the flipside. Not much point in having this knowledge without the wisdom how to use it.

Or as Einstein suggested, "Religion without science is lame; science without religion is blind".

Note Wikipedia entry re: Einstein:-

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[53] Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." He is reported to have said in a conversation with Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[54] Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[54][55] In his book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

david f,
>>Tolerance and broadening perspective are virtuous concepts but may reduce the explanation of what happened to a propaganda exercise. <<
Exactly. Therefore I do not see any point in discussing sweeping statements like “Christianity is bad“ or “Christianity is good“ (which is different from discussing particular events like Inquisition, Enlightenment, Galileo’s trial, Scholasticism etc. which is best left to specialists that I am not one of). I just object to calling Christian faith, or any other world-view, a contamination.

relda,
The question of “truth” as such is indeed not simple. The simplest is formal logical truth (e.g. if A implies B then it is true that non B implies non A, where the actual “truthfulness“ of A or B is irrelevant). A bit more complicated, but still formal, are mathematical truths, mathematical theorems. Next to it are scientific truths e.g. which physical/mathematical model best describes which part of physical reality. Much more complicated is the concept of truth where the human experience is involved, e.g. when evaluating historical events, interpreting a text, etc. The further on this scale of complication you go, the more important is the philosophy you subscribe to when considering what is truth, and the more misleading could be the naive idea of truth of the “man in the street”. An absolute truth, or Truth, is directly unattainable, and its mentioning makes sense only in a metaphysical or religious context. This is the Truth that Pilate asked Jesus about but received no answer (John 18:38).

Aristotle’s distinction between hard and easy truths that you quote is here very relevant, where the latter is what I called the naive idea of truth. The rest of your Aristotle quote resembles the story about the elephant and six blind men. I think this indeed is one valid way of looking at the “multidimensionality” of the true interpretation and appraisal of historical events that occurred in a past context we cannot recreate. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>Christianity has the ‘theory’ but unfortunately, all too often, not the practice<<
This was emphasized by Kierkegaard and it is true to a point. Jesus did not provide a timetable according to which humanity would in, say, two millennia achieve his ideal of the KIngdom of Heaven on Earth (I agree with those who believe that this is an ideal that will never be achieved only - hopefully - better and better “approximated“).

Jesus gave us just a nudge, leaving the rest to the evolution of ideas and approaches playing out the thesis-antithesis-synthesis game throughout our history. I know, there are many who would not see it this way; they just play the role of antitheses to Christianity on which it can better itself to a syntheses closer to the ideal. The same antithesis role is played also by “unworthy” clergy and Church dignitaries.

Of course, there are others whose theses are often what the Christians take as antitheses, and vice versa. They all arrive at their own syntheses to use them as new theses and the game continues. And there are those, individuals or groups, Christian, non-Christian or anti-Christian, who at a certain stage get stuck in their thesis, unable to utilize the constructive elements in the antithesis offered to them, thus failing to further develop/improve their original position.

George wrote: I just object to calling Christian faith, or any other world-view, a contamination.

Dear George:

We still differ. I regard any world-view that mainly depends on faith as a contaminant.

The Holocaust was a conjunction of two world-views based on faith, the part of Christianity which regards Judaism as superseded by Christianity and has persecuted Jews for years along with the Nazi doctrine of Aryan superiority which supported subjugating or eliminating non-Aryan people. The Nazis could reprint Martin Luther’s Jew hating sermons in the Volkischer Beobachter to support their faith. The Vatican and Hitler signed a Concordat, and the German Lutheran churches mostly supported Hitler.

The elimination of possibly 100,000,000 people by various Marxist entities was furthered by the world-view that elimination of the class enemy was a justifiable act in pursuit of the eventual classless society.

There were other atrocities during human history, but those twentieth century atrocities were furthered by world-views encompassing faith in unprovable propositions.

I regard acceptable world-views as those that involve questioning or critical thinking. This can be found in religion. Buddha recommended that people doubt all words even his. He recognized that what he was saying applied to his time and place and might not be valid in the future. This questioning attitude is found in science where any theory or conjecture is subject to re-examination.

Faith can breed atrocity. World-views that mainly depend on faith have potential for causing human suffering. I call them contaminants.