Eckadimmock,
thank you for the link to the interesting article by Matthew Parris, (and Percles’ reaction to it that, I think, Parris implicitly predicted) that I did not know of.

As one can enrich one’s world view better by learning from scientists who do not let show their religious beliefs or “unbeliefs“, than from those who do, so is it also more rewarding to learn about the cultural and social make-up of an exotic (for a Westerner) world from those who do not let their a priori religion or anti-religion bias influence what they see and describe, than from those who do.

What an odd observation, Eckadimmock.

>>Pericles, the problem atheism has is that it proposes no alternative.<<

To whom is this a problem? Certainly not to the atheist.

And this is even odder.

>>If our view of life is that it is lived in a world of "blind, pitiless indifference" (Richard Dawkins) then there is no particular reason why we should prioritize human dignity, rights, or freedom of speech.<<

Surely, there is even more reason to do so in these circumstances - assuming of course that you go along with Dawkins' view.

The only difference between atheists and religionists is that we don't need an imaginary being to advise us of this, very simple and basic issue.

I don't begrudge your needing an additional emotional crutch with which to support your worldview. Unfortunately, you begrudge atheists the fact that they don't need one.

>>Europe at present has had over a thousand years of Christianity, and only relatively recently any significant atheist presence.<<

I might suggest that education has a great deal to do with this. As we learn more about the universe, we begin to realize how primitive is the concept of religion, and how it is not a prerequisite for being an acceptable citizen.

It comes largely from our increasing ability to think for ourselves, and ask questions, rather than simply accept an external authority based on an imaginary being.

So, which do you think will come first, the destruction of your religion by another religion, or by atheism?

The old saying that figures don’t lie but liars can figure, should be considered in this case. We are all members of a compulsory Anglican Church in Australia whether we like it or not, in 1899, we voted 371,000 to 141,500 to form an Anglican Republic in Australia under the head of the Church of England. The deal we did was taken to England and confirmed in the high court of Parliament, with a few minor amendments, and we still have it.

Christianity as the compulsory State religion, was ensured by s 116 Constitution, and all Christians, Roman Catholic and others were made equal. The insertion of the words The Queen or Her Majesty, present over forty times in the Constitution, ensure Christianity is the state religion, because to be Queen, the Monarch must take the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp). While similar States based upon Roman Catholic principles have crumbled and failed, the protestant Christian principles have sustained Australia but the atheist infractions on our institutions have led to a suicide rate that is unacceptable. They say that every day, five men commit suicide, over family law problems. That is many times more than get killed on the roads. Accurate figures are hard to find, but the unfair legal system introduced by the atheists and agnostics, since 1970, is the root cause of much misery.

Christianity as legal system is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Every matter involving over $20 is guaranteed a jury trial in civil disputes. Once again liars can figure, and the lawyers of Australia figure that if they like the Scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament got total control of the law, it would be better, have had a forty year trial of that theory. It is totally un Christian, to have total control of the law in the hands of lawyers. Judges and Magistrates cannot be Christian, but a Justice could, because he observed the Christian principles of the separation of powers. When we abolished two JP’s and substituted a Magistrate we went Roman Catholic, because a magistrate is a State Priest.

Phil,

It would also be interseting to include the countries' Gini Co-efficents.

Also, it would probably hold that "within" Chistianity, the past colonies, now countries, of Catholic Spain, are poorer than past colonies of Protestant Great Britain.

healer,

Christianity took hold in the death knell of the Roman Empire, to become the Holy Roman Church.

In the West, after the fall of (Western) Rome (476), Feifdom and the Christian Church led to the Dark Ages. Greek knowledge was maintained by the Muslims, some of which reached the West (via Spain) c. 1300. It was then not until the Enlightenment and the Great Divergence, Greek philosophy re-emerged stronger, when the Christian Church's role diminished and we have the Industrial Revolution.

Also, it should be remembered, from c. 1600 until the twentieth century, with the East India Companies and colonisation, Christian GB, Christian Spain and Christian Portugal, exploited other countries.

The Opium Wars were over Queen Victoria's GB, taking Opium from India to create drug addicts in China. When the China's attack to stop the trade, Christians, they were attacked by them and subdued, because GB needed to correct its trade imbalance.

As late as 1950s, Ho Chi Min tried to build alliances with the West; yet, Christian, Harry Truman, did not wish to become involved, because Viet-nam was a French colony. We know what happened then.

Sells,

I know you will have read this article.

Can you refute the data? Phil's data seem A-OK to me.

Pericles,

"Imaginary being" "emotional crutch" and "think for myself" doesn't really address the issue at all. Since you're so much cleverer than a mere theist, I'm sure you know why an "argumentum ad hominem" is invalid. (Nor have you provided any kind of alternative, a problem that Nietzsche recognized).

George,

Thanks for the observation, but leaving out nonChristian scientists would remove Newton, Pascal, Polkinghorne and Francis Collins from the scene, and we still need them.

Peter the Believer,

The Coronation Oath also requires incoming the Monarch to declare he/she does not believe in transubstantiation. Interesting because the Romans felt that the Christians of pre-Nicaea enacted cannibalism with Euchist. They thought the rite pretty sick. Here, it seems, the Catholics could be closer the original faith than the Protestants, based on this understanding* of the rite before Nicaea. That is, the actual body and blood is consumed.

Rome was tolerant of the various religions in the Republican and Imperial eras, both. Monothesism thought history has been more problematic.

One reason the Christians found themselves in strife with Rome was they would not burn incense to the good health of the Emperor, noting that they didn't have to believe (forget Hollywood). The deed was enough. Yet, now just listen the praise given in the Last Night of the Proms music and in prayers for the Monarch in church services. A full about face, from the early Christians.

* Assuming the Roman historians recorded the purpose of the rite accurately