Sells,

Did you cut and paste this from a pamphlet? This is the blog version of spam.

Peter, Peter, what will we do with you? You are nothing if not persistent. Look, you are obviously a devout chap and (apparently) capable of holding down a regular job as well but puuuleeeaaase, spare us the pontification.

The 2nd last para is a bit of a giveaway isn't it? Put the fear o'God into those sinners and they'll surely put their evil ways behind 'em.

Mate, pathetic fear mungering is probably what drives most folks away from your "path of righteousness". The mystery of death is not the exclusive domain of religion, let alone Christian religion.

You go on and believe what you want but spare the rational the task of having to read this sort of pap.

PS. try doing some community volunteering, actually HELP someone, don't just pontificate from on high.

So, if you're not a church-going Christian, you're not fully human?

What a profoundly arrogant piece of tripe.

A bit too soon after the latest 'revelations' concerning the true mind of the Vatican and its servants, don't you think Peter?

'Making a difference' can be done in any organisation at all, and might best be done in a secular manner in order to benefit the widest range of people possible.

The tribalness of Christians, and all other religions, does not really benefit us much as a community.

As I left home today I heard a snippet from the ABC RN Health Report...and I may well have missed the point since it was only a snippet, but a Christian was being interviewed by Norman Swan as he explained how non-believers seemed to make marginally better doctors (GPs I assume) than believers....worth listening to in full when I get home.

Maybe Peter is thinking of encouraging us all to 'go to Houston' and join Hillsong?

Or the Brethren and their all embracing 'lurv' for their fellow 'man'?

Then there is the German Bishop (I think) who is blaming all the worlds ills on 'feminism' and demanding we retreat several centuries back to the good auld days when the Church set the rules and all our lives were 'complete'...just a tithe, a few offerings at Harvest Festival and Bob's yer uncle...a stairway straight to Heaven.

Join your Church Peter, and do 'good works' by all means... there are many of us battling the ignorant, the dangerous, the deluded, the mad, bad, and ill who belong to a wide range of 'good works' organisations you are spruiking for here.

I prefer to cut out the "middle man" and go straight to attempting to be a good and contributing member of our community.

I'm with Shal but would add;
If you join a church you can get your mental and even physical and sexual abuse for 10%, or free if you are a poor child in a large family.

Foyle,

LOL

"So, if you're not a church-going Christian, you're not fully human?" Clownfish

There have been about eighty billion homo sapiens living or have lived. Say, three billion are or have been (dead) Christians, by Peter's reckoning the vast major are without Christ and not fully human.

I suspect Peter feels that to be without a belief in Jesus is to be without context, purpose or feeling. For billions of non Christians this is not the case, I suspect.

Peter,

Payment for Baptism was a means to pay for Herod the Great's palaces. Herod was appointed by Juluis Caesar and delegated baptismal activities.

Of course, there are constructs outside science, but that does not mean there is a God, be it Zeus or Jesus.Because something is hard to qualify using scientific method, the gap does not have to be filled by an appeal to mysticism.

Eighty billion homo sapiens?

I find this pretty hard to believe- where'd you get that from

I guess you mean well Peter. However,being baptised and joining a church does not necessarily transform an individual into a human being of worth.

Other posters have nominated a few of the drawbacks and I would add that a good look at the religious individuals around the world who rule our societies and claim to be 'human beings'fail the test miserably .

The dogmas they espouse create tensions,disunity and distrust that invariably lead to conflict, death and destruction.
Churches don't have a franchise on the parting phrase, Go in Peace, Goodwill to all.

It may be even more than 80 billion Trav:

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx

Oliver was probably just being conservative.

Now, how many Christians (that were "true" christians of course, not those nasty types that purged the Jews and started the Crusades and Inquistions and stuff) have ever lived?

Actually, to Sells defence, he did say "authentic" human not "fully" human. I guess I'll just have to live with being a non-authentic human.

But what it really gets down to is: My pan-tribalism is better than your pan-tribalism. So there.

Oh and Sells, you mixed up psychologist and psychiatrist, swap 'em around and it makes more sense.

Sells

A fine article, with a proviso later. But first an observation.

Just as the secular adherent has to filter out the religious fundamentalist for serious discussion to happen we people of faith need to do likewise with the anti-religionists who fill the more ugly ranks of the otherwise worthy secularist legions. They yet again seem to be overrunning your citadel of fine faith talk.

How sad they display the same ignorance and intolerance they themselves condemn of the religious fundamentalists.

Perhaps we should attempt to look behind the behaviour.

You say "join a church, be baptised". I figure, through small glimpses of wording and sentiment, that most of your critics are older men ( I am willing to take a hit on this) who have been baptised but have "moved on" leaving a residual, in their self proclaimed enlightened minds, a knowledge of Jesus and his Church learnt over 40 years ago. A lot has happened in that time and they deny themselves the richness of it.

However I suggest the remedy is not to act. If a seeker walked into my Church at times it would be, I am afraid to say, a deja vu situation. Nevertheless there are many paths.

Rather than act, be still, read Scripture, seek exposure to prayerful existence without pressure**, and reflect. With contemplation will come the act from within and thence begins the real battle of the will. Such act will be discerned, real and deliberate by a loving person attached to Jesus, the Risen Lord. A person yet to experience the Dark Night of the Soul but on the way to wholeness in living an assertive life of service. It's not a bad life! - to use an Australian colloquialism.

Cheers

** My little journey has been nourished by the stillness and informative talks on things spiritual by the Carmelites at Varroville - Sydney.

Sells:

"Those who choose other masters than Christ are deemed, in the Bible, to be the living dead."

For a start, that would mean Jews and Muslims whose religion stems from the same foundation as Christians are "walking dead."

All other followers of all other religions are "walking dead".

What happens to people who don't choose any masters? Are we still alive and human?

Also, I have been baptised, but I don't believe in a deity, so does that make me half human?

What about the volunteer work I do? People I have helped? Injured animals I have nursed back to health? Dutifully recycling all my household waste?

Does being a responsible, decent caring person count for nothing?

If you accept Christ as your master, then none of the above matters? I guess that must be true, because very few paedophile priests have been brought to trial under common law. Father Kennedy is condemned for being inclusive, but priestly paedophiles get transfered. But they're human beings - their master is the Christian god.

Sells do you have even the faintest inkling of why so many HUMAN BEINGS find you offensive?

The part that you miss, Sells, is that religion can have precisely the same stones thrown at it, as you throw at the rest of the world.

"Specialisation and intensification", as you describe it, are also features of, indeed critical identifiers of, religion in the twentyfirst century.

I stand to be corrected on this, but do we not have more religions active in 2009 than at any other point in history?

It is a reasonable premise that this "specialisation and intensification" that you identify in doctors, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists etc., is a direct result of the global increase in the accessibility of information, combined with the freedom of individuals to make independent purchasing decisions.

I suggest these are the identical forces that have an impact on religions, and that have caused the religious groupings and "specialisations" to blossom in the last couple of centuries.

The giveaway, of course, is the number of times that we are able to seamlessly substitute the word "religion", and still find the ideas logically complete.

For example:

"The specialisation and intensification of specialists who deal with various aspects of the human have a tendency to blur what being human is"

...can be equally convincing in the form...

"The specialisation and intensification of specialists who deal with various aspects of religion have a tendency to blur what being religious is"

Amen to that, Sells.

A more constructive target for you would be the commodification of religions, forever compartmentalising their differences in ever-increasing fine detail.

A bit like the features of your Credit Card.

Is it linked with a Rewards Programme? (Is there a heaven/paradise incentive?)

Are there penalties, e.g. if I don't make repayments on time? (Will I go to Hell?)

How does the interest rate compare? (Do I have to spend my life doing it, or will just Sundays be OK?)

Having failed with your initial assertion, the rest, I'm afraid, is mere puffery. It leaves you exposed particularly when you appear to arbitrarily decide half way through that Christianity is the only religion.

Your own - specialist - version of it, of course.

Trav,

Bugsy is correct.My citation was conservative given a quick review over the Internet and Bugsy's excellent link. The eighty billion homo sapiens is from an old copy of the Guiness Book of records. I remembered it.

Sells,

On Community:

"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Genesis 17:14

On Specialisation:

If Jesus meant the Catholic Church under St. Peter (the Rock) to be a house undivided, he would now be profounded disappointed. The Western and Orthodox Christian Churches and the Catholic and Protestant Churches are specialised against each other on doctrine.

fractelle:

"Sells do you have even the faintest inkling of why so many HUMAN BEINGS find you offensive?"

yes, of course he does. he's a stirrer.

pericles:

"...you appear to arbitrarily decide half way through that Christianity is the only religion."

this is the hallmark of sells's articles. every one is addressing some modern malaise. and then, when all hope is lost, the white knight of Christianity comes riding in to save the day.

alas, sells never ever ever ever begins to explain how christianity saves the day. it just does: dip yourself in a tub, and all will be somehow be well.

Sellick's modus operandum has become pretty clear over the years:

1) Pick something -- call it X -- that some Christians are good at.
2) Conveniently ignore the facts that a) some Christians are no good at X and b) some non-Christians are very good at X.
3) Patronizingly 'explain' why only a 'true' Christian can actually be good at X.

So far we've had painting and art; now the same method is applied to being human. I wonder if Sellick was channelling Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who recently claimed on radio that atheists are 'not fully human'. I know that the absence of rational responses tends to bring forth irrational ones, but I had thought that Christian invective against us wicked atheists had already reached the bottom of the barrel. Obviously I was wrong. But it's nice to see that very few of the OO readers who can be bothered to respond are taken in by this balderdash.

PS: readers who want to find out about some of the other things that religious believers are good at can find a depressingly long list of them at

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard

Pericles is at bit again. Oh dear. I read all the sad little posts by people who don’t understand, and the technical posts of those who want to be technocrats, but to really live in freedom, a person has to turn his back on the State Church as master, and recognize Almighty God as the only being to whom allegiance is owed. This is the magic of Jesus Christ. There is a great Christian revival taking place, and the old exploitative Churches, are falling by the wayside, being overtaken by the new wave of Pentecostal Churches, that teach the scriptures every bit as faithfully as the Anglicans, of whom Peter Sellick is a good example.

One of these Pentecostals in Sydney, has a conference in July, that caters for over 20,000 delegates, and held services twice a night for different crowds, of locals, with an aggregate attendance of over 160,000 last year. It’s held at Olympic Park, and the keenness with which people flock to hear the Word of God preached, is truly humbling. It draws 4,500 volunteers to help run it, and is amazing. It attracts delegates from all around the world. The only bigger Christian event in Australia was the Pope’s visit, and even in that it’s music arm had a place.

There are Pentecostal Churches in the Anglican communion and those who would be Roman Catholic and some freely move from one to the other. There are some very good continuing Presbyterians, and Baptists, and all are welcome at that conference and attend, for inspiration, and good teaching.

We have a choice, accept Almighty God as master, or the State. Since 1970, we have not had a choice, and can no longer freely elect to be Protestant Christian or Roman Catholic. The universal apostolic catholic Church, that Anglicans pray for in their services, is in fact the universal State Law Church legislated into existence, without any apostolic flavor, by successive governments since 1949.

For an article on that, go here; http://stripe.colorado.edu/~schlag/SchlagCalLR.pdf . A Professor of Jurisprudence saying what needs to be said. Law as a God

Peter the Believer.

I suggest that you change your moniker to Peter the Human, so that way all us "living dead" will know whose brains we should eat.

Peter Sellick - OLO's monthly troll. (see I am aware of this Bushbasher).

BUT

For the umpteenth time, there are many Christians who can write about their beliefs eloquently, in an inclusive rather than arrogant manner and without insulting everybody. If we have to have a monthly sermon, why not Father Bob? I'd even settle for Tim Costello. If I was still a Christian, Sellick would convert me to atheism.

Thank you Jon J. That's a fascinating web site

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard

I have already bookmarked it. As you say, "depressing"

It is amazing how many of these self righteous humans think that because they are blessed, they can commit all kinds of crimes without guilt.

The abuse of thousands of young boys in Ireland is a prime example.

I don't find monkeys acting that badly.

Would you send your children to a Sunday or religious school where this nonsense is taught?

It is obvious that Sells has totally identified with his socially indoctrinated meat-body personality and has thus based his "religion" and world-view altogether, on his identification with his meat-body.

Such is a terrifying situation to be in.

And as such he has hardly even begun to understand what we are as human beings, and what true human maturity really is.

This set of essays provides an Illuminated Understanding of what we are in Reality & Truth.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-life.aspx

Plus these two related essays too.

http://www.dabase.org/unique.htm

http://www.dabase.org/dualsens.htm

Sells
Have to admire your persistence, resolve and faith if nothing else.

This article is not as neegative as some of your other works. I was quite elated with the tone until we started getting into the living dead. Oh dear...here we go again.

"It is a conceit of the modern age that we can exist without some identification with something outside of us. If this is true, it is not a matter of whether we seek identity outside of ourselves but what we use to create that identity."

Yes, but if the thing we seek outside of ourselves does not exist it is just another human construct. Where does that leave our identity?

The identification we seek outside oursleves comes from other people, from nature, other living organisms...there are many things.

How can being devoted to a God or other icon mean anything better for mankind in terms of identity? Shouldn't our focus be directed towards other real beings so that we may be of service to them whether they be our families, our friends, our neighbours etc.

There is nothing wrong in striving for ways to we can live more authentic lives - for some this may include religion.

To view others as the 'living dead' is hardly conducive to your claims of a more authentic life.

Recently I became interested in the teachings of Theosophy and like the ideals of inclusiveness and its embracing of different schools of thought - religion, philosophy and science - towards a higher, or divine, wisdom.

From wikipedia:

"The three declared objects of the original Theosophical Society...as follows:

First — To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.
Second — To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and Science.
Third — To investigate the unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man."

Sells, surely there is much more to be gained from inclusiveness, an open mind and in the spirit of learning while we all strive to live more authentic lives.

http://www.austheos.org.au/default.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

Ho Hum: << Would you send your children to a Sunday or religious school where this nonsense is taught? >>

Indeed.

I don't think he's ever actually admitted it here, but I suspect strongly that what Peter the Bombastic publishes at OLO every month is simply his latest sermon from St Andrew's at Subiaco, recycled in a more public forum so that he can stretch the sanctimony out as long as possible.

Personally, I think his sermons would be more productively recycled if he shredded them and fed them to the worms, but we're not under any compulsion to read the manure, are we?

Mind you, it is quite novel to be referred to as "non-Human". What a twat.

Hi I am Jayson and this is my first time here in this forum. I have eating disorder since I entered

college life. Being far from home, far from my parents, in which nobody takes care of my food, for

breakfast,lunch and even dinner. Certain things came up my mind, specially about my health. But

having an eating disorder didn't really stop me from doing anything I want, and even urge me to do

something better for myself. Can you imagine someone being gratefull from having such disorder like

mine? Well, you need to read this story I'm about to give you, I am quite inspired and I know you

will too..

thankgodforebooks(dat)com/eating-disorder(dat)html

I am amazed at how nasty people get when confronted with Christianity. I am also amazed that people confuse Roman Catholic Christianity, which is a belief based on fear, with the Protestant Christian variety promulgated by the likes of the Anglican communion and Hillsong and its associated churches throughout Australia. One is a loving caring community and the other has a lot to answer for although many many members of the Roman Catholic Church are lovely people.

What really annoys me and gets on my goat is that we are now governed by the Roman Catholic model. For almost 60 years now, we have been afflicted by the closure since 1953 of the High Court by Menzies, and because it is closed, we have no redress for the imposition of Roman Catholic rule.

The Constitution has been rendered inoperative by that closure, as the High Court is now inaccessible as of right. The Constitution may say that the High Court has original jurisdiction, to grant a Writ of Mandamus, prohibition or an injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth, in S 75, but it might as well be sitting on the moon, for all the good it is. The High Court Rules 2004 in Regulations 6.06 and 6.07, directly contradict S 45 Trade Practices Act 1974 and are a prime example of exclusive dealing, and it will be a measure of Kevin Rudd’s government, if they allow these wicked people to continue in office.

The High Court should issue a mandamus to every Judge and Magistrate to stop judging, and get off the railroad to hell that they seem to like, and conform to the Gospels, our beloved Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second agreed to uphold, in the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp). In 1953. Menzies said he loved Her, but he caused Her to be brought into disrepute, by ruining the High Court. A prime example of man’s inhumanity to man, is the act of judging a fellow human being. So many of the nasty posts here, are examples of that. Judge not that ye be not judged

Articles like this should be banned, they give false and misleading connotations the psychologically gullible will tend to cling to, because of their inability to take rational control of their minds.

The article makes little sense, is irrational in it's connotations and how it determines outcomes. It's sociological view is completely opposite to reality and dangerous, it paints a false picture of our societies, the reasons for the way they are and not even good apologetics. A psychological analysis of this article reveals a disturbed mind, trapped in fantasy, very confused and afraid of reality.

The rationalists are getting emotional again, it seems.

I find it bizarre that people continue to blame a worldview for the bad actions of it's adherents. This is more of an emotional reaction to their deeds than a logical thought process taking place, clearly.

Perhaps we should look at the deeds of those who were without God- Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler* etc? Should we therefore conclude that atheism is morally abhorrent?

*who denounced the Catholicism of his younger years and routinely ridiculed Christianity, see the book Hitlers' Table Talk.

stormbay, all of this may well be true:

>>The article makes little sense, is irrational in it's connotations and how it determines outcomes. It's sociological view is completely opposite to reality and dangerous, it paints a false picture of our societies, the reasons for the way they are and not even good apologetics. A psychological analysis of this article reveals a disturbed mind, trapped in fantasy, very confused and afraid of reality.<<

In fact, I would be inclined to agree with most of it.

But far from seeing these as reasons that "Articles like this should be banned", I consider them to be the major justification for their publication.

Banning stuff like this would surely indicate that there is something to hide, or hide from.

On the contrary, the more places we can see these views laid out in front of us, the easier it is to point out - even to the "psychologically gullible", as you describe them - the flimsy nature of their foundations.

Imagine a world in which the Sells in our society were forced underground. It would provide their views with a dangerous form of legitimacy - that of the suppressed martyr.

Relax and enjoy, as I do, the regular feed of religious fol-de-rol, and allow it to nourish and sustain your own, saner and more constructive, view of the world and its people.

Chill.

Pericles, sadly these people, as an extension of their deluded state, insist that they are being persecuted, just like their mythical hero, and that the world is in the grip of 'aggessive secularism', which they mistake for atheism whenever they get the chance.

Poor George Pell, Bishop Tom Frame, and the mad crew at the ASL, all believe that they alone have the answer, oh, I nearly forgot Danny Naliah, the guy who blamed the Victorian bushfires on the abortion laws in that state, which involves complete subjugation to the 'elders' of 'their' Church.

Each of these people, and the crews they seek to represent, do indeed feel they are as you described them 'not being' here:

"Imagine a world in which the Sells in our society were forced underground. It would provide their views with a dangerous form of legitimacy - that of the suppressed martyr".

As far as they are concerned, they are living below the streets of Rome every day (which must be hard for St. Peter the Vatican Unbeliever)and are being hunted down by EVIL SECULARISTS

Oh Pericles, what a pompous person you seem to be. Ticking off one of your less relaxed comrades and then indulging in your own egregious trivialising of a long tradition and faith containing a founding story of every freedom we have to live and enjoy. Such behaviour is both hypocritical and demeaning of the name of an Ancient Greek Statesman.

A hardened heart was a condition warned of through the Scriptures that brings a loss of joy; a joy in peace that itself emanated from the fundamental Hebrew story of God's love that finds its fullest expression in Jesus Christ as the New Covenant.

Now you cannot write off the above as religiosity as it is simply stating a fact of religious history that has long been with us. You of course do not accept it as it is essentially a life-faith state of being. However yours and my stories are enmeshed in it - faith or no faith.

In fact Sell's work would find its fullest benefit if read and considered by his fellow people of faith. His is a call back to the roots. It is a mark of the faithfuls' passivity borne through ignorance and/or self satisfied comfort that too few participate.

The thoughts propounded in the Post Secular age movement place real pressure on the likes of Pericles to grow up and be real citizens.

Trav,

1. As an adolescent Hitler maintained the Jews invented Christianity. However, Hitler was a Christian in adulthood:

“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.” (Mein Kampf)

“Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (Mein Kampf)

“In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity.” (Stuttgart, 1933)

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction … all character training and religion must be derived from faith.” (Vatican Concord 1933)

2. Given Stalin’s cruel deeds no one could reasonably call him a secular humanist. The secularists, who post here, would not own him.
Even Stalin falls short of the Christian Tsar Ivan, whom unlike the heinous monarchs of the Christian inquisitions, personally participated in torturing people. He created a special order of monks to torture people. Mass was followed by “extended orgies of sex, rape and torture by the Christians … Ivan would rise and read sermons on Christian virtues”.

3. Minh Hai (Pol Pot) like Christians persecuted Muslims. Even before the murderous Christian Crusades, Christians quashed other believers in gods.

After Constantine, Christians were like today’s Taliban, destroying other society’s cultures. In between their activities in the Opium trade and the slave trade and witch hunts, Christians destroyed many Islander cultures too.

Hey Oliver,

[As an adolescent Hitler maintained the Jews invented Christianity. However, Hitler was a Christian in adulthood:]

.....And you proceed to supply quotes from Mein Kampf, conveniently ignoring the later source I gave (Table Talk, mostly quotes from the 1940's) which outlines what Hitler really thought, outside of the propaganda and politics of it all.

[Given Stalin’s cruel deeds no one could reasonably call him a secular humanist. The secularists, who post here, would not own him.]

Given the Irish priests cruel deeds no one could reasonably say that they follow Christian teaching. The Christians, who post here, would not own them.

Touche.

[Minh Hai (Pol Pot)]

Was an atheist.

Stormbay, go away, come again another day, when you've got something to say, which makes some kind of sense. For someone who rants about "psychobabble", you do a lot of it yourself. And once again, you provide little if any justification for your comments, outside of the standard "sociology says X" or "cultural anthropology says Y". I see you still aren't applying your discipline very well to other areas, and your posts have still got that militant smell about them.

Forgive me for prying, but your vitriol is so overcharged that I can't help but wonder if you've had some especially bad experiences with religious people in your life. If you have, I feel for you. Seriously

Peter the Believer, Trav, Boxgum,

Do you approve of Sellick referring to all nonChristians as the "living dead"?

"Those who choose other masters than Christ are deemed, in the Bible, to be the living dead."

Are you so arrogant as to support Sellick when he commands nonChristians to:

"join the community whose being is found in Christ and raise your children in that community."

How would you feel if the Dalai Lama made the same claims about you? Would you not be offended?

Or Keysar Trad?

Or anyone tell you that because of your beliefs you are damned?

Is there not one among you who is prepared to accept that humans come in all shapes, sizes, colours, genders and beliefs?

Peter Sellick

Who are you to dictate to anyone? Who are you to judge? Who are you?

Oh, boxgum...

>>Oh Pericles, what a pompous person you seem to be...<<

"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gi'e us
To see oursels as others see us" R. Burns

>>The thoughts propounded in the Post Secular age movement place real pressure on the likes of Pericles to grow up and be real citizens.<<

I challenge you, boxgum, to find a sentence in my post that out-pompouses that one of your'n.

What, pray tell, is the "Post Secular age movement", when it's at home? And why do only Post and Secular deserve capitals?

In what form, o wise one, does it "place real pressure" on my goodself? What, in your view, constitutes a "real citizen" anyway?

Just bluster. Pompous bluster, at that.

Oh, and a touch of classic Christian arrogance to go with it.

>>...trivialising... a long tradition and faith containing a founding story of every freedom we have to live and enjoy<<

Freedom is not the sole prerogative of Christians, boxgum. In fact, I would characterize Christianity as a form of mental slavery.

Nor, I need to assure you, is happiness.

>>....a joy in peace that itself emanated from the fundamental Hebrew story of God's love that finds its fullest expression in Jesus Christ<<

This is your personal view, and as such I have no quarrel with it. If you feel the need to believe that joy can only be found in this manner, that is a matter for you alone.

However, to imagine that non-believers have no "joy" is a particularly nauseating conceit.

>>Now you cannot write off the above as religiosity<<

I can. It is.

>>Sell's work would find its fullest benefit if read and considered by his fellow people of faith<<

Now that is a statement with which I fully concur.

Hello Trav,

I gained from your early post a claim Hitler denounced Catholism in his youth. He was an alter boy.

I haven't read of table table in any history or seen reference to it in any TV documentary. However I did check the Internet and certainly saw secondary references to matters contrary to his historical verifiable remarks.

I see little reason why Hilter would have been a closet atheist. He admired the strength of the Jesuits and would have seen the Jews in opposition to Jesus. Of course, Jesus was not a Christian. However, he ministered to the Gentiles. He usually spoke is mind publicly.

Regarding one's memberships, all secular humanists I know do not below to Stalin's association, yet Christians, harsh Irish Priests, Ivan the Terrible, and the many, many mass murders we know throughout history do belong to The Chistrianity Association. Christians are necessarily affiliated with other Christians, who have committed horrific crimes.

From the little I know about Pol Pot, his main aim was to take civilzation back the year zero. Like the Christians, he was a mass killer of Muslims

I get a little tired of people saying Hitler was a Christian. He probably murdered more Christians than the Romans. As far as I know it is about 500,000 including Bonhoeffer.

Living dead, the difference between a citizen and a subject, is probably the baptismal font. Citizens are owned as slaves by a State, whereas a subject is a freeman under Almighty God. The Magna carta was enacted for Freemen, not slaves, and the New Testament Gospels make freemen, of erstwhile slaves. That is why I love Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. They should print the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) in the Constitution.

I am also getting a bit ticked off at the lumping of Continental European Christians, with the English Protestant Christians. The difference was that the English, except for a few episodes where the King was a closet Roman Catholic, had adopted the New Testament as their Constitution, from 1215, and as legislation from 1297 in the Magna Carta. The Protestant Christian concepts of individual freedom to both worship and go about their daily affairs free of molestation by the State, were central features of their system of government.

When a State gets Judges and Magistrates like Hitler did, Stalin did, Mao did, and Mugabe has, and Australia has since 1953, then it is on the slope to totalitarianism. The humanity guaranteed by the United States Constitution, is reflected in the institution of universal jury trial. It was a total breakdown of Christian democracy, in Ireland that allowed so many kids to be molested and assaulted. This happened in a republic remember.

The Irish and Italians had a healthy disrespect for Priests. That was how they survived and it was only the hatred for England that fuelled the Roman Catholic domination of Ireland. Now the English are gone, Irish literature reflects the diminishment of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church were the leaders of the push for independence. However their Priests don’t breed and have families. A family man is regarded by the Protestant Christians as essential for pastorship. Humanity demands that authority be judged.

St. Peter- the Vatican Unbeliever says this:

"The humanity guaranteed by the United States Constitution, is reflected in the institution of universal jury trial. It was a total breakdown of Christian democracy, in Ireland that allowed so many kids to be molested and assaulted. This happened in a republic remember".

Perhaps St. Peter has not heard about the prisoners of this nation-state, which has no Sovereign to guide it, and the total breakdown of the Magna Carta he holds so dear? No sign of a jury trial for these but maybe that's because they are Muslims, and so 'deserve' whatever the Xtians can throw at them?

Just as Hilary has a tendency to 'mis-spoke', St. Peter the Unbeliever may have a tendency to 'mis-hear'.

And then there is the Furphy below that line, concerning Eire and the Six Counties,that great British colonial outpost, where rampant ignorance courtesy of the Vatican, and a total lack of secular schools until just this year, plus a little oppression from the head of the English Protestant Church St. Peter so adores, ensured Europe retained a peasant class well into the late 20th century.

Freed from the shackles of Roman ignorance by the equally out-of-control forces of pure capitalism, not to mention massive subsidies from England and the EU, and a helping hand from the magic of tax-rorting, this sorry dot-in-the-Atlantic looked, briefly, as if it were entering the modern Western world at last.

Maybe the whole of Ireland could become a prison camp for holding all the Vatican's priests in a 21st century rebirthing of an Irish national purpose?

I'm not sure the revelations of typical priestly behaviour in Ireland has anything to do with it being a republic though, another Furphy of monarchists keen to keep God's messengers in place. It has more to do with monopoly power and the unquestioning nature of 'faith'.

PtB

I asked you and others who share your religion a question, that you haven't had the courtesy to reply.

So I will ask again, but rephrase it a little.

Do you regard all nonChristians as the "walking dead" as Sellick claims we are?

If so, why?

Fractelle...it's far worse than you have imagnined for the 'walking dead'.

Only 100,000 will make it to Heaven, so even amongst Xtians there will be a great deal of sifting-and-sorting, while Sells and St. Peter are selected into the Heavenly boot camp and others, equally pious faith driven souls, will be told to step into the eternal flames along with the rest of the world's sinners.

Rough justice you may say.... but it is already too late. The quota must have been reached by now, just with all those Hillsongsters in Sydney and Brisbane, never mind Family Jensen's flock, or the Pell Pilgrims, or John Howard's favourites, the Brethren.

Naturally, all of St. Mary's of Brisbane will be walking candles... at least light will not be a problem 'down there'.

Ah, the scattergun approach to discussion, PtB.

>>I get a little tired of people saying Hitler was a Christian<<

It may be tiring for you, but it is true.

Trav made a brave attempt to divert attention to this unpalatable (for Christians) fact by referring us to "Table Talk".

It is far from being a reliable record, unfortunately. Martin Bormann was in charge of the documents, and is on record as saying "Any transcript which is not quite apposite will be re-checked by me"

Bormann was virulently anti-Catholic.

It is clear, though, that Hitler disliked the organized church. But he adored Jesus, to the point of insisting that he was not Jewish, but Aryan.

"...it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul... the Galilean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression." Table Talk p.76

Cute.

>>Citizens are owned as slaves by a State, whereas a subject is a freeman under Almighty God.<<

That could work equally well the other way around, you know. "Subjects are owned as slaves by a State, whereas a citizen is a freeman under Almighty God." Which tells us something about its relevance.

>>I am also getting a bit ticked off at the lumping of Continental European Christians, with the English Protestant Christians.The difference was that the English, except for a few episodes where the King was a closet Roman Catholic, had adopted the New Testament as their Constitution, from 1215, and as legislation from 1297 in the Magna Carta <<

PtB, check your facts.

First of all, when Magna Carta was signed, England was Catholic.

And remained so for another 237 years

Furthermore, the "New Testament" was never adopted as England's Constitution. There never has been a written Constitution.

And the New Testament has never been "adopted as legislation" in England.

We have had this discussion on numerous occasions before, and you have never provided any justification for your position.

Not once.

[Do you approve of Sellick referring to all nonChristians as the "living dead"?]

Indeed the bible claims that nonbelievers are spiritually dead. Probably not the most diplomatic way of putting it, in the absence of a thorough and loving explanation of what is meant.

[Are you so arrogant as to support Sellick when he commands nonChristians to:

"join the community whose being is found in Christ and raise your children in that community."]

"Command" is the key word here. "Invite" would be a fairer description of Sells position (and yes, of my own).

[How would you feel if the Dalai Lama made the same claims about you? Would you not be offended?]

Not in the slightest. I'd have no issue with that.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus is worth following and that the Dalai Lama isn’t. It's an exclusive claim I make there, so I'd be a complete hypocrite if I took offense at someone else doing the same.


[I gained from your early post a claim Hitler denounced Catholism in his youth. He was an alter boy.]

[I see little reason why Hilter would’ve been a closet atheist]

I said he denounced the Catholicism OF his youth, not IN his youth.

I'm not sure if you could definitively call him an atheist, but in light of his comments in table talk (see here: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Talk-Adolf-Hitler/dp/1929631057/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243412639&sr=8-1 ) it'd also be completely unfair to call him a Christian. He was obviously a very confused and disturbed man. I might add though, given his later statements it'd have to throw some doubt over whether he was legitimate in his original claims to be a Christian anyway.

[Regarding one's memberships, all secular humanists I know do not below to Stalin's association, yet Christians, harsh Irish Priests, Ivan the Terrible, and the many, many mass murders we know throughout history do belong to The Chistrianity Association. Christians are necessarily affiliated with other Christians, who have committed horrific crimes].

So, what's good for one Christian is good for all Christians, but what's good for one atheist is NOT good for another atheist? Yep. Logical

Have a read of John Dickson's latest article:

http://www.publicchristianity.com/religious_violence.html

Some of his main points:

"The slogan ‘religion-leads-to-violence’ finds plausibility today not through logic or the facts but through simple repetition"

"First, I doubt you will find any Christian today who is not rightly and deeply ashamed of the Inquisition and the Crusades"

"That said, secondly, most retellings of these stories involve gross exaggerations"

"The elephant in the atheist’s room is that there have only been three formally atheistic regimes in world history—Stalin, Mao, Poll Pot—and they weren’t exactly improvements! Stalin’s openly and ideologically atheistic project killed more people each week than the Spanish Inquisition did in a third of a millennium"

"It is naïve or dogmatic not to admit the great good done in Christ’s name throughout history (need I list them?!). Even today most non-Government welfare in this country is delivered through faith-based agencies. Create a list of all the organizations you know and do the maths. And, according to government figures, a disproportionate amount of philanthropic giving and volunteering is offered by those who regularly attend church. This doesn’t make Christians better than secularists but it belies the claim that they are worse."

"Anyone can tell you that when Christians are violent and imperialistic they are not obeying Jesus but defying him who said “love your enemy and do good to those who hate you.” At best, the criticisms launched by Hitchens, Dawkins and Coulter only prove that Christians haven’t been Christian enough. Believers confess that daily, and look to Christ for mercy and guidance."

Those points are all points well made, but the sting in the tail of Dickson's brilliant article was how he turned the tables by switching from defending his own position to probing his targets:

“Finally, there is an awkward question that atheist critics have to face… On what grounds can the atheist speak rationally of the high and equal value of the poor or the weak or the asylum seeker? Put another way, only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism".

Fractelle

Please do not categorise me with Peter the Believer - he is a lone ranger and an easy mark for you and Pericles / Oliver / Blue Cross etc to mock which you do with ease and relish.

You ask whether you are "living dead" via reference to Sells commentary? Sells uses the language of Scripture and its analogous imagery. And it is blunt and to the point. Just as is your secular rationalist position that places me, as a person of faith, to be an intellectually / emotionally impaired person who needs a crutch to manage my existential fears. I know you mean me no harm and you wish me strength to take control of my life and assert my autonomous self to master my own situation whatever it may be. So none of us need to be offended. Language can be strong without being offensive.

So what does such blunt Biblical language have to offer in return. Nothing other than everything. That you have life to the full. The ultimate freedom is the right to know of and accept God's love. The degree of fullness of life flows from the acceptance and then the response. There is nothing passive in this. And fortunately we live in a secular world that defends the freedom of religion for all so there is no restraint on the ability to coming to know of God's love. There is a rich, rich heritage in this running stream of great resource under our western civilisation. And it keeps surfacing.

And this where the Post Secular age is beginning to dawn. Renown German rationalist philosopher Jurgen Habermas talks of it as a declaration of the failing of the secularisation thesis whereby religion will die out thanks to scientific and technological progress, reduced fear from ignorance and control of our existential circumstances. He notes that "the awareness of living in a secular society is no longer bound up with the certainty that cultural and that social modernization can advance only at the cost of the public influence and personal relevance of religion."

Peter the Believer,

The Magna Charta was signed by King John in 1215 but it wasn't enacted, because the Pope quashed it. It was the nobels, not the King with the NT in hand, who wanted change. Before the KJV, an attempt to translate the Bible into English was met with the Christian's burning the author at the stake.

The current Coronation Oath requires the English Monarch to declare he/she does not believe in transubstantiation. Certainly, pre-Tutor monarchs would have believed in what the mother church taught.

Had the Spanish Armada succeeded in 1588, there would have been no 1688 Coronation Oath. Catholism would have ruled and Sells would have believed that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Something the Romans thought was representative of cannibalism.

You are likely correct about the Romans killing a lesser number pf Christians than Hitler. Pursecution in Rome didn't occur under all the emperors.

The Crusaders killed other Christians not only Muslims. The Knights Templar faithful to Church, had their loyalty repaid by being slaudered under the twin edict by the Pope and the French King. The reason there was the same reason the Christians enacted ethnic cleansing agaist the Jews: i.e., to steal property and extinguish debt.

"Sells uses the language of Scripture and its analogous imagery. And it is blunt and to the point."

it's not easy to be both blunt and pointed.

Bushbasher

"Blunt and to the point as usual." ROFL

Box-Gum

While you may not wish to be included with certain other Chrisitians, you have given tacit approval to Sells categorisation of nonChristians. Not very charitable, I posit.

Trav

You should know by now that cherry picking from the bible to prove a point is wasted on people who do not hold the bible to be the font of all truth. Therefore, you also approve of Sells labeling of nonChristians. Nasty pasty.

To all, therefore, please consider the following observation:

"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry."

-- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

We need a new name; one for real Christians and one for those like Sellick.

If I understand you (or Jurgen Habermas) correctly, boxgum, the idea is that "there will always be a place in the human psyche for religion"

>>...the failing of the secularisation thesis whereby religion will die out thanks to scientific and technological progress, reduced fear from ignorance and control of our existential circumstances.<<

I might have missed something along the way, but was there ever a credible thesis that religion would die out? I can understand the logic of such an argument - the more we know, the less we need fear - but surely there's no realistic end-point that can be determined?

We will continue to build stuff like the Large Hadron Collider to add little pieces to the sum total of our knowledge, but it will be many hundreds of years before anything meaningful comes out of it.

So we can agree, just between us, that religion will continue for quite a while yet. We're a very long way from answering that huge swag of questions that need to be answered before we can finally eliminate the ignorance and the need to be fearful.

But the way I see it, the absense of a complete understanding still does not justify filling up the gaps with imaginary beings, in order to make us feel safe and warm.

>>Just as is your secular rationalist position that places me, as a person of faith, to be an intellectually / emotionally impaired person who needs a crutch to manage my existential fears.<<

"Impaired" is too heavily freighted, boxgum. Certainly for the intellectual part, anyway. As for the emotion part, "differently abled" would be as far as I would go.

Someone who can think as clearly as you obviously do must recognize,the purely emotional nature of religious belief.

As such, it is about as predictable and controllable as falling in love.

And as logical.

Trav,

The point I am trying to make is that Christians belong to a despicable organisation. Preaching love and practising war. Double-speak.

Christianity malpractices run deep:

Even in Roman times when a pagan slave felt badly done-by he/she could find sanctuary by standing under a statue of the emperor or in a pagan temple. A magastrate would hear the case and if the slave was deemed poorly treated, the slave would be assigned to public service. On the other hand, mistreated Christian-owned slaves, who appealed to Christian church elders, were returned to their owners, bececause "slaves must obey their masters".

Christians choose the Christian organisation. Deliberate affiliation. Christians by designation belong to Christianity.

Secular humanists did not belong to Maoist, Stalinist parties or Pol Pot's regime. The aforementioned dictators suppressed religion, because opposition parties were not allowed. On the other hand, secular constitutions allow freedom to practice religion): You are free to believe that there is a boy with an elephant's head or that a piece of bread is human.

I see nothing wrong with the secular teachings of Jesus; obey reasonable laws, be good and treat others' as one would like to treated oneself. Great stuff!

Christianity is nothing like the Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandments. Following the Christianity is not following Jesus. Then again, "Ignorance is strength" (Orwell).

Pericles, you are spouting the collective ignorance of the legal profession brainwashed into you poor sods, by a criminal and dishonest seminary run by each and every university in Australia to turn out State Priests. I am talking about the law schools. If you read the story of William Penn, written in 1670, when he defended himself in the Old Bailey, and was followed by Bushels Case, when one of the jurymen appealed the Magistrates fine, and another speech by Lord Chatham, made in 1770, on the English Constitution, you would not be so full of it.

I have explained as well as I can why jury trial is Christian Protestant and trial by a Judge is Roman Catholic, and yes, I concede the English Catholics did enact the Magna Carta in 1297, but Rome never sleeps, and has infected Australia since 1927, when SA went bad, and installed pagan Judges. The capital letter makes a difference. A Judge is Roman Catholic, the judges in s 79 Constitution are protestant Christian, as Australia was mostly until 1970.

If you pay Land Tax in NSW you pay it to a Roman Catholic State. The same as in any other State that levies it. It would have been abolished as it was in 1906, in New South Wales if there were any lawyers worth their salt, since 1956.

The US adopted the Christian Principles of the English Constitution, and if you read The Innocent Man, by John Grisham, you will see that the jury found both guilt and set the sentence in that case. When a Judge sentences a person he is a Roman Catholic Priest, executing vengeance on a sinner. The English fixed it so only a jury could do so, and in Oklahoma USA today they still do.

If you keep reading OLO and are honest with yourself, you will one day realize that you may be wrong on some things. That is only human. When a man is brain dead, then he is a walking dead man. I also spotted a commercial for the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the site

So Oliver, let me get this straight. ALL Christians belong to the same "organisation", but all atheists do not belong to the same "organisation"?

["Christians by designation belong to Christianity"]

.....

but atheists don't belong to atheism!?!?

What utter rubbish. Do you not see that you're just spouting a ridiculous double standard?

You seem to think that Christianity is to be despised because of the "malpractices" of Christians throughout the years.

By the same logic, you must despise your own atheism due to the actions of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. (Unless, of course, you're a "secular humanist" and you hold to a double standard when it comes to rationally analysing religion ;-). )

Fractelle, ah. Thanks for reminding me of why I started ignoring your comments a month or two back.

You've once again provided further evidence for my opinion that you're either incapable or not interested in a decent discussion. Next time you ask me a direct question I won't be drawn into responding, regardless of how discussion-worthy your initial probing might be

Trav,

I see the actions of Mao & Stalin and Ivan the Terrible & Hitler detestable. I am not affiliated with Maoist or Stalinist political philosophies. I am a liberal progressive. I am not a Christian. I am a secular humanist and freethinker.

Both theism and atheism, if strongly held, suggest infallibility. Something best avoided. Yet, I have higher regard to the arguments of the atheists. Being a sceptic, I test all points of view, when ever I can.

Christians were Baptised into their affiliation. Alernatively, the atheists and sceptics, who post to OLO, are not members of extreme politcal parties (I suspect). Christians, who post, belong to an organisation with an desirable history (to put in midly).

Else put, we start a journey from a non-committed point and are attracted to reference groups, some joint Christian organisations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, some join Mao, while others, do not become interwined in religion or politics, joining Rotary instead.

All Christians are associated with the Christian Club. Not all secularists, especially not secular humanists, are associated with political extemists.

All Christians are Christian
All Maoists are Maoists
No true secularist is Christian
A minority of secularists are Maoists

And again:

All A are A, where Christianity is a super-set. There are no non-Christian Christians. Not all secularists are Stalinists. Stalinist and non-Stalinist secularists are two subsets. There are non-Stalinist secularists. Secularism is not a super-set.

Clear?

O.

Using your logic, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of evil works done by Christians throughout the ages have been done by Catholics, and therefore I have nothing to do with it. My medium sized suburban church has never had anything to do with any of the examples you posted in this thread. I do not support Ivan, or slave traders, and neither does my medium sized suburban church. Therefore you should not be lumping me in with those people.

The slave traders were Christians. I am a Christian. If you want to lump me in with them, then......

Stalin was an atheist. You are an atheist.

Fair is fair. You can't have your cake and eat it too- either you lump all atheists AND all Christians together, or you seperate them. You chose to seperate yourself, so you must seperate Christians too.

But, thats more trouble than it's worth- there's more Christian denominations and churches and organisations than you can poke a stick at.

It's far easier and more consistent to simply apply to yourself the same standards you're applying to Christians.

And using that logic, I'm lumping you in with Stalin.

You abhorrent creature! You filthy person! You're an abomination! You belong to the despicable category of atheism!

(Just as I belong to the "despicable" category of Christianity... ;-) )

Pericles - a fine response.

See http://www.resetdoc.org/EN/Habermas-Istanbul.php for an article by Habermas on the post secular society.

As well the Secularization Thesis is well documented : check Google

I am tired and I want to go to bed. So have a read of the above link.

It concludes:

" Two reasons speak in favor of such liberal practice ( the neutral state not precluding the permissibility of religious utterances within the political public sphere as long as... staying out of political and law institutions...) . First, the persons who are neither willing nor able to divide their moral convictions and their vocabulary into profane and religious strands must be permitted to take part in political will formation even if they use religious language. Second, the democratic state must not pre-emptively reduce the polyphonic complexity of the diverse public voices, because it cannot know whether it is not otherwise cutting society off from scarce resources for the generation of meanings and the shaping of identities. In particular with regard to vulnerable social relations, religious traditions possess the power to convincingly articulate moral sensitivities and solidaristic intuitions.

What puts pressure on secularism then is the expectation that the secular citizens in civil society and the political public sphere must be able to encounter their religious fellow citizens at eye’s level as equals. Were secular citizens to encounter their fellow citizens with the reservation that the latter, because of their religious mindset, are not to be taken seriously as modern contemporaries, they would revert to the level of a mere modus vivendi - and would thus quit the very basis of mutual recognition which is constitutive for shared citizenship. Secular citizens are expected not to exclude a fortiori that they may discover even in religious utterances semantic contents and covert personal intuitions that can be translated and introduced into a secular discourse.

So, if all is to go well both sides, each from its own viewpoint, must accept an interpretation of the relation between faith and knowledge that enables them to live together in a self-reflective manner."

cheers and good night..

Sells

Your 'argument' implies that non-Christians are less than fully human. It appears you are trying to construct a 'rational' argument for religious assocation and/or faith commitment. Unfortunately your argument is only going to make sense to those who already share your point of view and offend others.
Given the corny plug for the Church in the last few sentences it is impossible to conclude other than that this was some sort of proselytizing exercise,gone badly wrong. There is no real logic to your argument and the conclusion is patently untrue. At best you have produced a sort of 'reductio ad absurdum'(some humans are not human) forcing us to draw the conclusion that your assumptions were wrong.
Unfortunately your 'conclusion' here(non Christians are less human than Christians) is so despicable that it cannot even be justified as 'metaphorical language'.
You do, however, make the valid point that there is an axis of tension between our identification as individuals and as social creatures. There is ample potential here for internal emotional and psychological conflicts and so too for internal 'spiritual' confusion. These inner tensions, however, do not detract from our full participation in 'being human' but rather form the core of our inner identity and set the general trajectory of our external identities. To suggest that 'identities' may be ordered on degrees of participation in the 'fullness' of humanity is very dangerous thinking indeed.
I would venture to suggest that choosing to participate in a church community on the basis of rational consideration would be participation for the 'wrong reason'. I would rather say that participation in the faith community is an appropriate and faithful response to God's call. The Church, in itself, offers very little by way of justifying participation. It is no better or worse than other human institutions with which one might associate oneself. Having responded to God's call and joined one or ther Church I believe it is each and every members responsibility to ensure that the Church corporately responds faithfully to its calling. This is where I believe we are failing so badly at the moment

Waterboy

I doff's me cap to ya.

Wonderful, cogent post.

I must say that I am quite uncomfortable with some of the language and implications of Sells’ article.

For me, Jesus Christ is the archetype of human perfection. Jesus is within me as this archetypal figure and also with humanity at large as Immanuel. But this is not to say that only those who call themselves Christians can follow the road of wisdom, compassion, creativity and justice. I believe that, although many reject the name, God insists in all human hearts and minds.

The fact that a person deliberately wears the label “atheist”, or “Muslim” or “Buddhist” or “Sikh” does not necessarily diminish them in comparison with those who label themselves “Christian”. The key factor is how deeply and consistently they allow themselves to be guided by the impulse to become spiritually whole – i.e. to strive for what Paul Tillich calls “dynamic unity of body and mind, of vitality and rationality, of the conscious and unconscious, of the emotional and the intellectual”. This goal is what Jesus described as living abundantly.

Perhaps this is what Sells means by being “fully human”. But it surely goes without saying that the degree of attainment in this quest cannot be objectively measured and therefore must not be judged by any other person.

Waterboy.
I certainly do not say or infer that nonbelievers are subhuman. Non believers are just like us, on the road to faith and no one can tell how far any of us have gone on that road, as crabsy has just affirmed. My intention was to take the whole thrust of the New Testament seriously and that is that Christ is the “way the truth and the light” and those who become his disciples are promised eternal life, that is, life that finds its being in the eternity of God. It is the habit of liberals to hedge their bets whenever the hard questions are put. If Jesus is God then it is not good enough to relativise and applaud anyone who is on a spiritual quest. I know it sounds fair minded and “liberal” but unless Christians understand that their Lord demands an exclusive following then they have not got the point. How can we confess Jesus as Lord and then go on to nod to other spiritual leaders? This is not religious bigotry, it is faith and it does not demean others who take other paths. I think we must remain agnostic about the other religious systems, even if they look to us as transparently in the wrong. We must meet them as fellow human beings but we must also insist for ourselves that Christ is the exclusive image of God. That can in no way ferment violence or discrimination against others since even if they present themselves to us as our enemies we are still commanded to love them.
The whole thrust of the NT is the difference between those who become disciples and those who do not. The metaphors abound, lost/found, dead/alive, darkness/light, sin/righteousness, flesh/spirit. The primary metaphor of baptism is to be buried with Christ and raised with him. We all say with the centurion “I believe, help thou my unbelief.” Unbelievers will always be our brothers and sisters for whom the promise of faith is always open.

"it is faith and it does not demean others who take other paths."

maybe so. but why do you think so many here took your words to be demeaning? you accept no responsibility for this?

Sells

At the heart of every proselytising religion is the belief that it is right and everyone else is wrong. This is the foundation of arrogance and intolerance. The language of exclusivity encourages this attitude and I dont think I am 'missing the point' at all.
When we spend a large part of our time immersed in our faith community and the language of that community we tend to accept the conventions of that particular discourse. In effect we cease to criticise ourselves and our language because we are constantly being rewarded for our conformance to the conventions.
The use of that language in forums like this exposes all sorts of problems that exist within the dicourse of the faith community. Like you, I have used the langage of 'fullness of humanity' in sermons and Bible studies where it seems to make sense. In reality it doesn't make sense at all but this only becomes obvious when we position ourselves differently in relation to the Biblical text and to the discourse of our community and hear ourselves with different ears.

To the extent that Church is an exclusive community (club) it is just a waste of time. Perhaps it is better to talk about a 'faithful community' than a 'faith community'. It might be easier to understand that a faithful community is oriented towards the world in an inclusive way (consistent with Gods self-revelation in Jesus) rather than thinking of a faith community which is most easily interpreted as an enclave of like-faithed individuals.

Trav,

I said that theism and atheism play with infallibility. Even Richard Dawkins admits an atheist holds infallible knowledge. Neither, Dawkins nor I are atheists.

Choices made are not between Chistianity and non-Christianity, rather between commitment and non-commitment. I choose not to be long to MAFIA, KKK, Catholic Church or Stalinism. Christians to choose to belong. You choose Jesus not Zeus. There would be religions in Africa, the Island nations and South America that would not be in your consideration set.

Non-Catholics have been pretty savage too. General Monk under Cromwell destroyed Catholic artefacts throughout Scotland. Marx had words to the effect of, "the only difference between the Catholics and the Protestants is how long they roast their victims".

I agree typical parish priests, patsors and ministers, do not act the ways of their Masters.The enlightenment and secular power was clipped their wings.

In the 1920-30s, US orgainised crime would provide Christmas aide packages to the poor. Bad organisations can do good things.

Besides, as I have recently posted, the early Jesus followers were interested in martydom, virginity and the end time. Modern Christians, at best, are practising Paulne and Nicaean creeds, not genuine Christainity.

May be you should not call yourself a Christian or by your domination, just a member of your congregation.

Yes, Jesus is “the way, the truth, the light” – for me. But I am impelled to say that, in some other times, places and cultures, God may well become truly known through different human faces and names and narratives and metaphors. Sells seems to be opposed to this view.

To acknowledge that another person may be drawing closer to God by following another path or another leader does not mean I am wavering from the path of Jesus.

In his last post Sells points to some of the metaphorical polarities from the New Testament as support for his position. I suggest that, in the present context, they are not be helpful in showing the way Jesus would have us regard those on a different route. A person who accepts the label “Muslim”, for instance, is not ipso facto “sinful”, or spiritually “dead”, or even “lost”. It is for that person alone to decide if such adjectives apply.

We need to examine our language rigorously and continually in religious discourse. Shorthand labels like “liberal”, “Muslim”, “Christian” and “atheist” can be barriers to real communication. I concur with Waterboy’s intention when he suggests that we use the term “faithful community” rather than “faith community”, but I’m not sure whether it would seem any more inclusive to those who feel shunned.

Regarding comments by Waterboy.

The Church is not exclusive. All are free to enter its membership via the waters of Baptism. My parish church comprises people from over sixty ethnic origins across multiple levels of social wealth levels.

Regarding the semantics of "faith community" or "faithful community".

I see that there is a valid differentiation between "believers" and "the faithful" in all faiths, including the secular movements.

The former adhere to rule, law, custom, cultural expression, formal position in the name of goodness as defined by the group.

The latter seek to live the faith from a deep trust and love that is goodness personally experienced through a faithful life informed by the great teaching heritage of the Church. ( St. Augustine - "Love God and do what you will.." ) or holy book or manifesto. I have known some very loving Marxists. People who placed the interests of others before their own ambitions.

No one can judge, or should judge, who is who. It is seen and beneficially experienced in their living witness to life as good.

Sells' contributions are if anything challenging to both the faithful of Jesus Christ and those of other belief or non belief. To be challenged does not mean there is ill-will in its delivery. As such I see the protestation expressed in the "sub-human" accusation of Sells by contributors as lacking in goodwill. It is a terrible accusation of him : with goodwill at work in the reader he/she would see it is a claim Sells would not infer, let alone make.

There is plenty of definition of what being " fully human, fully alive" is in the Scriptures as elsewhere. Any of it without love is as empty of clashing gongs as St Paul exclaims. And as Scripture informs the people of the world : God is love and is the source of love and the final destination of love.

"Sells' contributions are if anything challenging to both the faithful of Jesus Christ ..."

if you say so.

"and those of other belief"

if they say so

"or non belief."

no, they're not. they're simply boring or irritating or, quite miraculously, both.

Oliver,

So, Richard Dawkins is not an atheist....and I am not a Christian?

I think it's time I stopped taking your posts seriously.

Boxgum

I am sure you are right that Sells did not intend to say that anyone was less than human. Unfortunately their is often a vast difference between the intended meaning of our words and the received meaning. When Sells says that believers have exclusive access to the 'fullness of humanity' then others will hear that Sells says they are less than 'fully human'. The nazis used language like this to define away the humanity of the Jewish people in order to justify the atrocities committed against them. Words matter!

Since language plays so vital a part in religions we need to be much more aware of the use of language than we have been to date.
Much of the language of Christianity is inaccessible to outsiders unless they make some considerable effort to find out what it is we intended to say. That is poor communication on our part and one of the primary mechanisms for keeping our Church clubs 'exclusive'. If Christian faith and religious observance represent the one 'exclusive' path to salvation then our Churches are effectively blocking that path to many people. I dont, however, believe God is so limited.

What I would say is that faithfullness pertains to our orientation to the world that is either true to God's demand for justice and mercy informed by the commandment to love our neighbour or it is not true to that demand. If our 'motivation to faith' is personal salvation then Jesus says we have 'missed the point'. I dont think He could have made that point any more clearly. God does not require our sacrifices or our songs of praise or our begging prayers. She listens only for the sounds of justice being done and mercy flowing like a great river.

When you see love for neighour at work then you see God, no matter the culture and beliefs at play. All else is folly.

I think Sells was being deliberately provocative.

An old debating technique is to make an extreme claim and let the opposition work to justify the middle ground.

If I claimed that Christians were sub human because they clouded their reason with fantasy, I would would rightly expect a torrent of abuse.

Sells here has once again demonstrated the intolerance of the church for any other view point.

Waterboy

I really appreciate your efforts here. However, I agree with Shadowminister (very rare) that Sells is fully aware of his provocative articles. Sells has considerable intellect and is well versed in theology, he could present articles that are challenging without being offensive. He chooses not to do so. Therefore I have no hesitation with criticising him. His articles do as much to alienate people as JW's or Scientologists or extremist Muslims. As an outside observer (atheist) I watch while each religion proclaims itself to be the one true path. It is a meaningless cacophony to the outsider who can only see the diviseness and prejudice that results from each competing religion. Add to that the direct insults that Sellick regularly hands out to atheists and agnostics - not at all impressive nor likely to win converts.

Boxgum, your posts amount to nothing more than attempts to excuse Sellick - I find this very dishonest.

Therefore I will continue to find awe and wonder at the delicacy of a flower or the immensity of the universe. My church is all that surrounds us, my path leads towards discovery - a very human way to behave.

I detect behind all this anxiety about our claims to truth the old liberal agenda of erasing all distinctions and discernments so that all are seen to be on the same level. The argument is enforced egalitarianism that insists that we are all the same. I referred to this tendency in my article on the trouble with liberalism. What it essentially means is that one cannot make a truth claim without at the same time relativising it. The result is an imposed blandness in which all opinions are seen to be equally valid and any discussion is disallowed. But the biblical writers made such claims all the time. What are we to think when in John's gospel we read that Jesus has overcome the world? I am reminded that the gospel is a two edged sword, egalitarianism blunts that sword so that almost nothing can be said, unless it is bracketed by the subjective "for me". This leads to weak preaching that is doomed to make generalisations about spiritual health, hardly the gospel that is heralded as the end of a world. Liberals need to discover eschatology. It was the loss of eachatology that lead to 19th liberalism and the castration of the church and the current demise of liberal Protestantism.

"Sells here has once again demonstrated the intolerance of the church for any other view point."

no, SM, merely the intolerance of sells. but of course you're right, that he was being deliberately provocative. and of course his follow ups don't take an ounce of responsibility for his mischief.

"The result is an imposed blandness in which all opinions are seen to be equally valid and any discussion is disallowed. "

complete crap. sells, the current point is not about your opinions, it's your deliberately inflammatory choice of language. but while we're at it, your opinions are definitely not equally valid: they're in fact vacuous, special pleading tripe. happy now?

Trav,

Please see:

http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/archives/2006/10/dawkins_belief.html

I think it is time you stop taking what Christians say about Dawkin's seriously. He believes very strongly God does not exist, with the rejoinder - he may wrong.

Would your local Christian cleric say, "I believe very strongly God exists, 'yet I may wrong'"?

The notion of infallibility is known to Catholics in the person of the Pope (ex catherdra) and to Protestants in the belief in inerrant Holy Scripture.

Dawkins admits he is fallible. I think that is to his credit.

Christians all-to-often claim infallibility. When people start thinking they cannot be wrong, we have problems, including those reflected in Christian histographies.

I find much more meaning and useful information in scatology than I do in eschatology. Although the latter seems far more aligned with figurative bovine subcategory of the former.

Sorry, I forgot to add the obligatory "to me".

Oliver, that's a completely irrelevant tangent you just went on.

If Dawkins believes "very strongly that God does not exist" then he is an atheist, regardless of any rejoinders.

Come on mate, start talking some sense

Sells,

The reason that eschatology is not studied, is that it lacks credibility.

The bible's predictions of the end of the world were "soon". The complete failure of the world to end over the ensuring couple of millenia kinda took the urgency out of the issue.

Temperance of speech is required in society firstly so as not to offend, and secondly to be taken seriously. Provocative statements in line with your beliefs such as the famous "women are like uncovered meat" or "the halocast didn't happen", will ensure people relegate you to the lunatic fringe.

Trav,

I suggest that Richard Dawkins has the right to say he is not an atheist. The point he makes was known to philosophy before his so called belief scale. What underlies his comment are the ideas, he is fallible and that propositions should be tentatively held and tested regularly.

Which statement is more credible?

- I am the fallible Dr Dawkins.
- I am the infallible Rev Smith.

If one grants infallibility to our Rev. Smith, on the basis of the theist subject, why not the infallible High Priestess of Apollo?

Is it not best to say Dr Dawkins, Rev Smith and the High Priest are all fallible and should use the rejoinder, "I may be wrong"?

Sells,

You are too fond of using that word “liberals” as a weapon to divide and conquer. “If you’re not with me you’re against me”. This is not the voice of sweet reason.

Secondly the agenda of those who disagree with your approach is not, by and large, to erase distinctions and discernments. My own intention is to insist on a basic point: that the essence of being human is the drive to actualise one’s full potential to become a person in a community of persons. I call this the will of God – the ground of my being. In as much as every human is born with this essential imperative we are all equal in worth. While equal we are not the same: genetics, family, culture and everyday choices determine the path through which the drive is expressed. To say this is not to advocate “enforced egalitarianism”.

If you want people to approach your offer of truth, they need to see it in an upturned palm rather than a closed fist. Opinions are obviously not all valid; they must be sifted and debated and sometimes shown to be wrong – even mine. But in the process we must accept that God’s will operates in all humans, each unique, nudging them in diverse directions with the same potential destination. And they don’t all go to church, and many even call themselves atheists. If we want to suggest some are on a bum steer our language must consistently make it clear that they are worth no more as persons than we.

Another unhelpful choice is the metaphor of the sword. These days the image of the church as a crusading band of killers is not inclined to draw people to a pew. A penetrating mind and a cutting tongue can be used for either good or bad ends, but perhaps a strong ploughshare would encourage more people to give thought to your message.

Sells

You've got me there!

As entertainment, my realised eschatology certainly is pretty mild by comparison with the apocalyptic extravagances of your average evangelical (let alone charismatic) preacher. It does, however, have a certain immediacy and contemporary relevance. Better to be 'bland' and relevant than to waste one's breath preaching theological arcana to audiences who neither understand nor care.

It is worth pointing out that, in a world primed for apocalyptic sentiment, Jesus was actually crucified for His prophetic ministry and not for any apocalyptic proclamation. Prophetic eschatology is directed towards a future to be realised in this world in the form of a just and caring society. Apocalyptic eschatology, on the other hand, is other-worldy and concerned the 'end-time', judgement and personal salvation. I stand unrepentantly on the side of prophetic eschatology.

You accuse liberals of being 'bland' and ineffective on the one hand and on the other you accuse them of 'castrating the church' which hardly seems bland at all. This sounds 'to me' like a desperate and confused attempt to discredit liberalism.

Liberalism is obviously 'potent' enough to elicit powerful and emotional responses from evangelicals and conservatives like yourself. How bland is that?

Well said, Oliver.

Trav, do you believe, then, that Dawkins would remain a convinced atheist if God Himself descended from heaven, said unto the wicked scientist, "I am God from the Bible and I am VERY real", brought suffering to an end upon the Earth, and smote Dawkins with a bolt of lightning?

make no apology for using the word liberal. I know it lacks specificity but there is no other word that fits what I am trying to describe. I first came across it in the Restoration church in England where prominent bishops sat very easily with Christian doctrine as a means of healing the eruptions of the civil war and Cromwell's commonwealth. I can see how theological terms gradually lost their content and how tolerance was elevated over orthodoxy. This eventually led to the 19th C during which, the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, became an empty concept within Protestantism and a mystery to Rome. I am with Barth who was the first great post liberal who restored orthodox theological language and concepts.

But I still see in both the Anglican and the Uniting Churches liberalism at work sapping the life out of Christian theology in an attempt to cosy up to modernity and save the church. I see myself as a reformed liberal that is on the way to being cleansed from it. I think liberalism is the enemy of the church in our time and the sooner we relearn how to think in robust theological terms the better. Liberalism has let so much go that was too hard and too hard to get across to our society that there is little left of interest.

My aim is not to divide and rule but to accurately describe the malaise of the church in our time. It is only when we understand where we are that we can begin to retrieve the theology of the early church and observe how it may be translated into our time.

Waterboy betrayed himself by calling God "She" in response, no doubt to the feminist movement. While this again sounds very understanding it corrupts the basic language about God so that the doctrine of the Trinity no longer makes sense. Examples such as this abound, key dogmas of the church are changed to suit the fashion of the day, that is what liberalism does!

Sancho, that's a completely irrelevant question.

Oliver, it's getting increasingly difficult to discern any logical thought progressions in your posts. Dawkins is an atheist. We have already established that. Whether or not he thinks he is "infallible", whatever that means, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is an atheist or not.

If you're going to keep rabbiting on about this obscure notion of infallibility which you've, for some unknown reason (thus far) introduced into the discussion, you'll need to clearly spell out it's relevance.

trav, oliver, sancho: can't we all just get along and beat up on sellick?

trav, you are of course right, that for all intents and purposes dawkins is an atheist. but dawkins himself makes a distinction between a very strong *belief* that there is no god, as opposed to claiming to *know* it.

dawkins' standard analogy is the teapot orbiting mars. He does not believe that there is a teapot orbiting mars, but he cannot know whether this is true or not. dawkins refers to himself as a teapot atheist.

i actually find the distinction of little use, but this is the relevance of sancho's question. if someone gave dawkins a photo of mars's teapot, or if a guy with a grey beard started throwing lighting bolts, dawkins could and presumably would change his beliefs.

Sells,

Having exposed your extreme orthodox catholic roots, I can see why your posts seem to eschew any modernist thinking post Gallileo.

Your intolerant views while understandable given the archaic mindset from which they orignate, are generally not welcome, any more than that of an islamic fundementalist.

PS. the earth revolves around the sun.

It's entirely relevant, Trav. Oliver stated that Dawkins is open to being proved wrong on atheism, and, unless I misunderstood, you contradicted that.

Were you not, then, saying that Dawkins considers his atheism infallible?

Sells,

Drawing on revisionist Christian theology, eschatological events need not be merely temporal:

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 KJV)

- Faith is in the transcendental future.
- Evidence or non-evidence in the here and now.

Similarly, “Neque tunc ciuitas Christi, quamuis adhuc peregrinaretur in terris et haberet tamen magnorum agmina populorum…" "The city of Christ, which, although as yet a stranger upon earth, had countless hosts of citizens" (Augustine, XXII.VI.66-69, XXII.6.482, trans., Dods).

- God’s Kingdom is both Earthly and Heavenly.

Further,

"The Kingdom is proclaimed by Jesus as imminent in the future, as indeed already dawning but not yet actually present. This imminent future is, however, not to be understood as temporal but as existential; the Kingdom cannot by its very nature come in the course of time, its imminence confronts man with the crisis of decision." (Bultmann). God is transcendent yet "never present as a familiar phenomenon but who is always the coming God". (Perrin)

- Else put, here, above, the Eskhatos/Eschaton is not a fixed temporal event. Christians quest towards a transcendental future, perhaps.

There is a temporal version too. Here, the Eschaton is derived from the Jewish final atonement. In this regard, there have been several dates posited, some relating to Enoch and the fourth Jewish millennium. Herein, the most probable date the world ended was 60 CE!

Liberalism has its roots in the temporal struggle of individuals to free themselves from the yoke of Monarchy and Church control under the Feudal system.

In later centuries, freed from Monarchical and Church domination, we see the raise of the French and American republics. Liberalism predates Cromwell. Liberalism is anti-scriptural to the extent that we need not -like slaves- submit to our masters.

Petr, your posts suggest you feel yourself in the realm of the intellectual eclectos ministering “down to” the ignorant hoi polloi. Liberalism frees the individual away from this rank and tiering and from the need for intermediate interpretation. We need not submit to a Church.

Trav., reply next post.

Bushbasher and Sancho thanks for your clarifications for Trav’s benefit.

"In promising to be with the church to the end of time, Christ, the divine Redeemer, willed this charism of infallibilty for his church. This simply means that Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, through His Holy Spirit, will preserve His church from error in its solemn, definitive teaching of the deposit of faith. This special charism of infallibility is enjoyed by the Roman pontiff, in virtue of his office, when as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful, he proclaims by a definitive act, a doctrine of faith or morals. This infallibility promised to the church is also present in the bishops when, as a body together with the successor of Peter, they exercise their supreme teaching office. To such definitive teaching all Catholics are obliged to adhere with the loyal obedient assent of faith. This assent of the church can never be lacking on account of the activity of the same Holy Spirit, whereby the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith." Catholic Catechism

Trav, you don’t think the above is relevant? The Catholic Church is saying it is inerrant in all matters of faith. That is an incredible claim. Likewise, Protestants hold the Holy Scriptures as infallible. In the wrong hands such extremism is dangerous.

Dawkins is saying even through all he sees and tests tells him that no god exists, he is not infallible, he might be wrong.

My question is relevant because it is truly remarkable for the (illustrative) Rev Smith to claim he/she knows God does exist and he/she cannot be wrong - infallible.

While to the man in the street, Dawkins walks with atheism, he rationally acknowledges fallibility. On the other hand, Christian theologians seem not so up-front about their cognitive vulnerability.

Can a cleric really know God exists?

My question is relevant, because we have a debate between one party who sees limits to his knowledge and another party whose knowledge is held (by them) inerrant.

O.

Sancho
[It's entirely relevant, Trav. Oliver stated that Dawkins is open to being proved wrong on atheism, and, unless I misunderstood, you contradicted that.]

Actually, Oliver said this:

[Neither, Dawkins nor I are atheists.] and [May be you should not call yourself a Christian]

I replied:

"So, Richard Dawkins is not an atheist....and I am not a Christian?

I think it's time I stopped taking your posts seriously."

So when I said Oliver's comment wasn't relevant, I meant it wasn't relevant to anything I was discussing with him. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of claiming that Dawkins isn't an atheist and that I'm not a christian.

Oliver,

[My question is relevant, because we have a debate between one party who sees limits to his knowledge and another party whose knowledge is held (by them) inerrant.]

Thankyou for clarifying. Although this is not relevant to anything I've said, and you've simply introduced it for your benefit, I'll discuss anyway.

Now, this’s simply a red herring.

Firstly, it's absurd to claim that most Christians think they "can't be wrong".

Secondly, it's not relevant to a debate between a Christian and an Atheist, because debates exist primarily for the benefit of the audience. If one side is clearly more correct than the other, the audience will decide that.

Thirdly, it's been shown beyond much reasonable doubt by research on Sam Harris's website, that atheists are more close minded than Christians. It’s atheists who are close minded and dogmatic, regardless of the false pretences they may or may not put on about "being open to being proven wrong" on their ridiculous standards of "evidence".

Fourthly, and most importantly, we need to keep this in perspective. All you're really doing here is playing with semantics on the differences between belief and knowledge, and the ways in which people can claim to hold objective knowledge.

Finally, I repeat that you need to tease out the relevance further. Exactly what point are you even trying to make here, Oliver? If it is relevant, what is it relevant to? And why is it relevant?

trav, i pretty much agree with you that whether dawkins is an atheist or not is pretty much a matter of semantics. and i don't really want to get involved here: it distracts from ridiculing sellick. (though i guess he doesn't actually need much assistance).

but there is a non-semantic angle. my question for you is:

trav, how open are you (or, if you want to venture an opinion, christians in general) to disbelieving a christian god?

i'm not even sure what that means, since i have no real idea what a christian god is meant to be. (no thanks to sellick ...). but you presumably believe in *something*. so my question is, is that belief challengeable? if so, how?

the point is, of course, that scientific beliefs are challengeable, and it is clear how. it doesn't follow that all beliefs need be challengeable in the same way. but clearly non-challengeable beliefs, and not-clearly-challengeable beliefs, have a different status.

i'm not presuming to know your answers to these questions. i'm genuinely curious.

also, if you could point to the evidence, on harris's site or elsewhere, that "atheists are more closed-minded than christans", i'd like to look at it.

Sells ended this article by admonishing us all to 'join a church' in order to 'make a difference'. This would have to be the worst advice Ive seen in any of Sell's writing. The Church is already full of people pushing barrows in all different directions trying to make their own particular difference. If you join the Church in order to 'make a difference' then you are joining for the wrong reason and are bound to be deeply disappointed and hurt by the experience.

Churches demand conformity, are implacably resistant to change and deeply intolerant of diversity. If you think Sells is intolerant then think again, there are worse. When you join a Church you will be 'bullied' in all sorts of subtle ways to conform to the local religious culture: sing mindless choruses, pay lip service to someone's quirky theology, attend silly meetings or whatever. Many of the Churches activities have more to do with imposing cultural conformity and protecting sacred cows than with proclaiming the Gospel.

So here is my advice. Join a Church ONLY when you know that it is your appropriate response to Gods calling and resist it for as long as you can. Choose carefully because you are inevitably going to have to make some compromises and you are really going to have to love the people in that Church to survive. Never forget that the business of the Church is to proclaim a Gospel that threatens the dominant forces of our society. Its a calling, not a social club. If you are looking for a social club then consider the footy club or just go to the local

Trav,

1. “Firstly, it's absurd to claim that most Christians think they ‘can't be wrong’.” (Trav)

"I think he's got it... the rain in Spain..."

That is the point eactly. You are now saying that Christians maybe wrong about the existence of their god. Your local cleric could be wrong. Herein, you side with Dawkins on the issue of fallibility. Pedantically, and Dawkins is being deliberately pedantic. Theism and atheism are two unreasonable sides of the same coin.

2. Debate:

We are engaging in dialogue. Read Socrates or Hegel.

3. Sam Harris. Sam who?

I had never heard of Harris until yesterday. Based on your comment, he is a fallible Christian too. Harris doesn’t know with certainty god exists. He preaches a possibility. That deserves repeating... Harris preaches a possibility.

-again-“ … it's absurd to claim that most Christians think they "can't be wrong". (Trav) Therefore, it is absurd to say that Harris must be right. … Good. We are making progress.

Research. Sampling can be a very exacting science or very slap-dash. Regarding the former, researchers, who factor analyse scales and measure validity and reliability, generally report the values of their tests. Where are the data to justify “beyond reasonable doubt”? What is his

4. There is a big gap between believing that there are only “white swans” and knowing there are only “white swans”. I assume you know of this illustration from Philosophy.

5. I may have teased out a response already: The Pope, your local minister and “Christians” are fallible in their beliefs. Even Sells!

6. You have cut and pasted skilfully. In actuality, I implied based on your desire to distance yourself from Christian history, you were better to define yourself in context with your local congregation, who are not mass murders, unlike the historical Christians.

Sells,

Any comment on the Eschaton? What about the revisionist take (above)? Or is Christianity best to align itself with the Jewish atonement?


O.

waterboy,

Churches allow their members to experience a performance and have orthodox ideas reinforced. The Christian Churches seem to want their believers to see clerics, as agents of God and therefore somehow closer to their God. Stratch Sells and underneath there is a Vicar of Christ.

i don't know what stratching sells means, but it sounds like fun. may i try?

Hello bushbasher,

Not as funny (or embarrassing) as the time I left the "l" public in "public affairs award" on a CV. I was unaware until it was pointed out at the interview. One panelist said he was "jealous".

I modified a borrowed metaphor, "if you scratch a Russian you will find a Tartar", meaning Russians have a Caucasion body and a Mongolian soul:

Herein, Sells, if one scratched beneath the Protestant surface methinks we find a Catholic soul. e.g., infalibility, doctrine & creed, top-down minstering, conventional orthodoxy over liberalism.

I am not a typist on any level.

Trav,

You now understand.

Good.

You are a member of a non-murderous congregation, who do not act like historical Christians. Moreover, Christians are fallible and by extension your ministers merely preach a possibly

You're a laugh Oliver. Sorry, haven't had a chance to reply yet, been too busy. Plus, there's other discussions on OLO that are more interesting.

For now, I suggest you do some more research on Sam Harris. He's an atheist. Here's Vox Day from two weeks ago, referring to a study done by Harris which polled Christians and atheists level of agreement with the statement that "The widespread belief in a personal God suggests that God actually exists":

"Interestingly enough, I have found that for some reason atheist science fetishists don't seem to enjoy me doubting and questioning THEIR faith either. For, as Sam Harris has shown, it is atheists who tend to assert their beliefs far more rigidly and dogmatically than Christians. One wonders if atheists would be similarly inclined to answer this particular question the same way if it concerned anything but God - note that the key term which clearly highlights the atheist tendency towards mindless dogmatism is the word "suggest". The only rationally correct answer is "agree", which can be easily understood by substituting anything from "cancer" to "bull market" for "God"; regardless, contrary to the New Atheist propaganda, the scientific evidence shows that it is Christians who are the more open-minded."

Oh, and you seem to be getting clearer now: You are attempting to show that everyone preaches a "possibility" and that no one can really know the truth, regardless of who they are- be they atheist, Christian or other. Is that the point you're actually trying to make here?

oliver, i was pretty sure i knew what you intended. but i was hoping "stratching" was real: it sounded so appropriate for sellick.

trav:

"For, as Sam Harris has shown, it is atheists who tend to assert their beliefs far more rigidly and dogmatically than Christians."

that is the second time you have said something like this. i request, again, the link to exactly what harris is claiming.

and, though of course you are under no obligation to answer my questions, i'll repeat: is your belief in your christian god challengeable, and if so, how?

[that is the second time you have said something like this. i request, again, the link to exactly what harris is claiming]

Read Vox Day’s blog here: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/05/stanley-fish-discovers-atheists.html

[and, though of course you are under no obligation to answer my questions, i'll repeat: is your belief in your christian god challengeable, and if so, how?]

I wasn’t sure what you meant by this, so I looked up the definition of challengable. First definition I came across was this:

Adj. 1. challengeable - capable of being challenged

So, since I regularly engage in discussions about my worldview on OLO, I would suggest that my worldview is being challenged and so yes, my worldview is challengable.

Oliver,

[You are a member of a non-murderous congregation, who do not act like historical Christians].

You are, I assume, a non violent atheist, who does not act like some historical atheists who killed hundreds of millions of people. I am a member of a non murderous congregation indeed, and I do not act like some historical Christians who killed relatively tiny amounts of people.

[Moreover, Christians are fallible and by extension your ministers merely preach a possibly]

I would suggest that everything is a possibility. We do not know the truth for certain. We could be part of a massive computer simulation by a mad scientist. The external world as we know it might not even exist. It’s pointless debating semantics about what a possibility is. At the end of the day if someone believes something to be true they are well within their rights to claim that it is true. Furthermore, if they believe something to be true which affects other people, they have a responsibility to share it with other people.

[Theism and atheism are two unreasonable sides of the same coin.]

So you view theism as unreasonable, and atheism as unreasonable. What are we left with- agnosticism of the highest order- we cannot know and there’s no point trying? Is that your position

trav, thanks for the link to that blogpost. in brief:

the post links to a survey on sam harris's website. there is no indication of who was selected to be surveyed, or how. in the survey, the following question was asked:

"The widespread belief that a personal God exists suggests that God actually exists"

about 90% of (presumably self-declared) atheists "strongly disagree", and (P S-D) christians are pretty evenly split from strong disagreement to strong agreement.

the post makes the conclusion (which you echo):

"the scientific evidence shows that it is Christians who are the more open-minded."

*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%

trav, if you cannot already appreciate the poverty of this "scientific evidence", i doubt very much that anything i might say here will convince you. i'm sorry, but this "evidence" is simply laughable.

as is the whole post. what is most striking is the hostility to science and scientists, schizophrenically combined with cartoon appeals to science.

trav, i gave you more credit. i now know better. i don't think your beliefs are in fact challengeable, in any meaningful sense of the word. that's fine: all it means is that i simply don't care what you believe.

A most interesting and informative link, thank you Trav.

I read the article that claimed that atheists "assert their beliefs far more rigidly and dogmatically than Christians", and the comments that followed. Quite enlightening.

The question posed was, as bushbasher pointed out, perfectly skewed to get the answer required.

"The widespread belief that a personal God exists suggests that God actually exists"

The idea being that if enough people believe something, it must be true.

On that basis, a survey of four-year-old girls would prove conclusively that fairies exist, I suppose.

But my gratitude stems mainly from finding this absolute gem amongst the comments that followed the piece, from someone calling himself John Quincy Public.

"For my own presuppositions I'm inclined to say that I'm little interested in a popularity contest of opinions as proxy to fact amongst a sample consisting of animals that regularly anthropomorphize, name, and converse with their genitals. To me this seems a shaky foundation for forming opinions or a system of governance. Moistened bints lobbing scimitars would have more rationality in my view."

My hat is doffed to you, Mr Public.

"So you view theism as unreasonable, and atheism as unreasonable. What are we left with- agnosticism of the highest order- we cannot know and there’s no point trying? Is that your position." - Trav

No we test propositions.

Yet, propositions are tenative and should be exposed to testing. I have read the Bible to try an falsify the idea that god does not exist. Christianity doesn't stand out from the produce of the god factories (Wells) of 600 BCE - 600 CE. Besides that which you call Christianity is not the Church of the early believers anyway.

A good research program starts with trying to disprove that which one is trying to prove. If the null hypthesis fails onlt then does one then consider the alternative hypothesis. A really good Christian would try to disprove the existence of god.

Do you understand what philosphers mean about the white swans?

Trav,

"The wide spread belief in a Personal God suggests that God actually exists" - Harris cited Vox Popoli

Strongly disagree is the logical answer. God exists or does not exist regardless of what humans think.

It is ridiculous to suggest that god exists because people believe in God. Because millions of children believe in Santa Clause that does bring a real Santa Clause into existence. Likewise, "The wide spread belief in Zeus the God suggests that Zeus actually exists," does not mean Zeus actually exists.

BB, I had to chuckle to myself when I read this....

[trav, i gave you more credit. i now know better. i don't think your beliefs are in fact challengeable, in any meaningful sense of the word. that's fine: all it means is that i simply don't care what you believe.]

I strongly doubt you cared before, so how can you care any less now!?

Oliver and Pericles, you've both missed Vox Day's point entirely. The proposition was not "The wide spread belief in a Personal God SHOWS that God actually exists" or PROVES that he exists. It said "suggests".

I looked up the white swans thing on wiki, so now I'm aware of it but as I said, just had a quick skim on wiki.

I don't see how the concept of God is actually falsifiable. In the same way that fairies are not. However, there is clearly much more "evidence for" or "factors which suggest" the existence of an eternal, theistic God compared to the existence of fairies.

However, the christian religion itself is clearly falsifiable. Vox Day gives a few suggestions on page 139 of The Irrational Atheist:

- The elimination of the Jewish people would falsify both God’s promise to Abraham and the eschatological events prophesied in the Book of Revelation.
- The discovery of Jesus Christ’s crucified skeleton.
- The linguistic unification of humanity.
- An external recording of the history of the human race provided by aliens, as proposed by science fiction authors Arthur C. Clarke and James P. Hogan.
- The end of war and/or poverty.
- Functional immortality technology.

trav, believe it or not, my questions to you were sincere. i honestly wasn't expecting your answers to be so vacuous.

BB, you're not giving me any credit here. I was being serious.

There is a philosophy called fideism, which some believers subscribe to. I've seen it described as such: "Fideism is the view that religious beliefs are not open to rational evaluation. The fundamental convictions of the christian belief must simply be accepted without question". The author went further by saying this: "The attitude of fideism was neatly summed up in a comment I once heard Jimmy Swaggart make: "Man can't use his mind to know the truth; if he uses his mind he just comes up with something stupid like the theory of evolution". I am not a fideist. It does actually matter to me whether my beliefs are incredibly irrational, or whether it is reasonable to believe them. So in that sense, I do test them out. And I do actually engage with people, including on websites such as this. Plenty of people don't do that.

I would align more closely with the idea of critical rationalism, which is described as follows: "Religious belief systems can and must be rationally criticised and evaluated, although conclusive proof of such a system is impossible"....."There is a person relative conception of proof that can be employed within a critical rationalist framework. There are arguments that, given one's own perspective, can provide good reason to believe that God exists or to believe that God does not exist". I don't believe they necessarily have to be "arguments" though. As in, I believe people can hold perfectly reasonable belief in God if there are reasons which make sense to them and their life's experience.

Above quotes from Victor Reppert's C.S Lewis's Dangerous Idea.

Trav,

A widespead belief neither "suggests" or "proves" or "shows" existence. One could substitute any major (thus widespead) god's name A-Z, Apollo to Zeus into the question, with Jesus' name somewhere in the middle.

Actually the researcher could ask all three verbs to fully test the scope of the latent variable(s). Many wouldn't because the research also needs to retain parsimony in the questionnaire.

Given the scale of history, most people would have been animists, not belivers in a high god; therefore, does it follow that spirits live in rocks, because most people believed it so?

Likewise, in the Classical Middle East, more people believed in the Roman pantheon, until after the fourth century. Therefeore, did those Roman gods once exist, because the Romans believed so, and then, they ceased to exit when Christianity became entrenched?

There is a universal language called, "mathematics" and it is regarded as such by psycholinguistics.

How do you know that Jesus' skeleton has not already been discovered? Say in 200 CE? The event lost to history.

Had we not discovered fire, would it follow Prometheus does not exist?

BB,

I think you have adopted a very amicable tone here.

trav, you're right, i'm not giving you any credit. why should i?

i asked you sincere questions, your answer was empty, the blogpost you linked to was self-evidently ridiculous, and you dismissed my questions as insincere. so where would you like to go?

you say your religious beliefs are open to rational evaluation. you might be right. in fact, the feeling that this was true was why i did initially give you credit, and why i asked you questions. however, i just don't see any real evidence of it.

writing back and forth with me or oliver or whoever doesn't prove that your beliefs are challengeable. it may be simply that you want to defend your beliefs, come hell or high water. fair enough. but if your defences lack reason and good faith, i'm simply not interested in them.

Oliver, you're still confusing the definitions of "suggest", "prove" and "show". Go grab a dictionary and look them up.

BB...

[I asked you sincere questions, your answer was empty, the blogpost you linked to was self-evidently ridiculous,]

What was ridiculous about it? So far, on here, Oliver and Pericles have both entirely missed the guy's whole point by missing the distinction between "suggests" and "proves". If you really think that blog post was ridiculous, you either need to read it again, or do the same as Oliver- actually look up the definitions. Do that, and you'll see Vox Day's point is very valid, based on the questions and the answers given by people of the two worldviews.

[and you dismissed my questions as insincere.]

Where'd I do this?

[writing back and forth with me or oliver or whoever doesn't prove that your beliefs are challengeable. it may be simply that you want to defend your beliefs, come hell or high water]

Absolutely right. I agree entirely. I can see how that "might" be the case. You are wrong, but of course I don't necessarily expect you to believe that.

[fair enough. but if your defences lack reason and good faith, i'm simply not interested in them.]

Again, absolutely fair enough. I wouldn't expect otherwise.

Quite clearly, you are right Trav.

>>So far, on here, Oliver and Pericles have both entirely missed the guy's whole point by missing the distinction between "suggests" and "proves"<<

So please explain in simple terms, why the existence of God is suggested by the belief of individuals.

Is the existence of fairies similarly suggested by the beliefs of four-year-old girls? If not, why not?

Is the existence of Brahma suggested by the beliefs of millions of Hindus? If not, why not.

But most importantly, in what way does the "suggestion" of a God imply its reality. If it doesn't, then what was the purpose of your introducing the concept?

While you're here, you might also like to clear up another point you make.

>>Vox Day's point is very valid, based on the questions and the answers given by people of the two worldviews.<<

Which questions and answers do you have in mind here?

It is certainly clear where Vox Day's head is at:

"It's true that science works. But then, there's no shortage of empirical and scientific evidence that religion works too, and in some cases, even better."

Having made such an assertion, it is normal to follow it up immediately with evidence, along the lines of, "for example..."

When none appears, we are tempted to assume that there is, in fact, none available.

Would you care to fill in the gaps, Trav, join the dots for us perhaps...?

Olive as for the possibility that the bones have already been discovered we will probably never know but one possibility is described at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386857-details/I've+found+the+coffin+of+Jesus,+says+film+director/article.do

The names were common, that find is no proof but more substantial than much that is held up as proof of the resurection.

R0bert

Trav,

I see subtle difference between:

1. "The wide spread belief in a Personal God suggests (posits the proposition)that God actually exists."

However, if a proposition is intended, the statement should be written as:

"The wide spread belief in a Personal God suggests; that God actually exists." Notice the semi-colon. Otherwise, "suggest" can be taken to mean "cause".

and

2. "The wide spread belief in a Personal God proves (demonstrates as fact)that God actually exists." The statement in problematic in two ways:

- First, if one person makes a false claim and that false claim is repeated by a million others: It is still a false claim. Karl Popper put this case regarding Jungian psychology and aspects of Marxian theory. Repetition does negate falsity.

- Second, the notion that belief is widespread is irrelevant in philosophy. A widespread belief can be wrong. No authority is lent to, "widespead". To do so, is "argument from authority," which is an "illogical fallacy".

- One should strongly disagree an ilogical fallacy. Problematic construction of the statement. The second statement would suggest belief is causal.

"- The elimination of the Jewish people would falsify both God’s promise to Abraham and the eschatological events prophesied in the Book of Revelation.
- The discovery of Jesus Christ’s crucified skeleton.
- The linguistic unification of humanity.
- An external recording of the history of the human race provided by aliens, as proposed by science fiction authors Arthur C. Clarke and James P. Hogan.
- The end of war and/or poverty.
- Functional immortality technology."

None the above would prove the existence of god. The Bible is irrelevant because it assumes, a priori, whom god is. The existence of god could be outside Christianity. Sells makes this mistake all the time.

"Functional immortality" is interesting, because it would suggest overcoming the second law of thermodynamics. But would mastering physics prove the existence of god? The others are straw men.

Trav, You haven't reciprociated by answering the questions, I have posed. BB, Pericles and I, await.

Error (above):

Repetition does NOT negate falsity.

RObert,

Thanks. That discovery is very intersting.

One can note a sceptic rightfully gives a one to one-and-half out ten rating. Christians on the other hand would give the Bible a very high rating, I suspect. Surprising, given the claim regarding the tomb is merely about particular person, and the claim regrding Scripture is about a paticular god.

Pericles,

[So please explain in simple terms, why the existence of God is suggested by the belief of individuals.]

I’ll quote the man whose blog has created such a stir amongst some easily offended folk here on this forum:

“Widespread belief is simply data that merits further examination, and with no evidence to the contrary the correct thing to do is to accept the suggestion pending further information. If I'm inside and ten people come in and tell me it's snowing out, only a deeply irrational - or paranoid - individual would assume that either a) this information is worthless, or b) this information indicates that it is not snowing.

Now, it's always possible that people are lying, misinformed, or simply mistaken. Nor should widespread belief be taken for proof. But widespread belief in A is a reasonable suggestion that A is the case and certainly a more reasonable suggestion than the idea that such belief indicates not-A or that such belief is inherently of zero informative value.”

(Vox Day)

In other words, the fact that belief in God IS widespread means that people are saying SOMETHING about the issue.

[Is the existence of fairies similarly suggested by the beliefs of four-year-old girls? If not, why not?]

Four year old girls are a small subset of the population. “Widespread” would therefore not have the same meaning. Not a comparable example.

[Is the existence of Brahma suggested by the beliefs of millions of Hindus? If not, why not.]

No. Millions is, again, not widespread in the same context as the original statement.

[But most importantly, in what way does the "suggestion" of a God imply its reality. If it doesn't, then what was the purpose of your introducing the concept?]

Originally, I brought this up as one point in a response to Oliver to show that atheists are close minded. You can trace the origins above this post.

[Which questions and answers do you have in mind here?]
The question we’re discussing. The same question Vox was commenting on.

[When none appears, we are tempted to assume that there is, in fact, none available.]

Making that assumption would be unnecessarily jumping to conclusions….. atheism of the gaps, perhaps.

Oly,

[First, if one person makes a false claim and that false claim is repeated by a million others: It is still a false claim]

Correct. However, this has limited relevance to the example. People don’t believe because they “repeat” something, they believe it because they experience it for themselves. This is completely different to your example of people “believing” in a psychological or sociological theory.

- [Second, the notion that belief is widespread is irrelevant in philosophy. A widespread belief can be wrong. No authority is lent to, "widespead". To do so, is "argument from authority," which is an "illogical fallacy".]

That depends what you mean by “authority”.

We are not discussing whether “belief in a personal God” is logical in philosophy, we are discussing whether the existence of widespread belief suggests that God may exist.

If it doesn’t suggest that a personal God exists, what does it do? Suggest the opposite? Or not suggest anything? If it doesn’t suggest anything or if it suggests the opposite, how and why is this so?

[None the above would prove the existence of god.]

Nor were they intended to. They were intended to show that Christianity is falsifiable.

[The Bible is irrelevant because it assumes, a priori, whom god is.]

How does it assume this?

[ The existence of god could be outside Christianity]

It could be. What’s your point?

[Trav, You haven't reciprociated by answering the questions, I have posed. BB, Pericles and I, await.]

Which questions? I just answered Pericles post- were you referring to that

I was hoping for your own view, Trav. I'd already read - and rejected - Vox Day's.

>>I’ll quote the man whose blog has created such a stir amongst some easily offended folk here on this forum<<

(Incidentally, I personally am never offended by illogic, merely amused.)

"If I'm inside and ten people come in and tell me it's snowing out, only a deeply irrational - or paranoid - individual would assume that either a) this information is worthless etc."

Sounds somewhat plausible, except that he then suggests:

"widespread belief in A is a reasonable suggestion that A is the case"

Ten people constitute a "widespread belief"? Don't think so.

You come to the same conclusion yourself, Trav.

>>Four year old girls are a small subset of the population. “Widespread” would therefore not have the same meaning. Not a comparable example.<<

But it is. Precisely comparable. His entire platform is based on the views of ten people - which is most definitely a "small subset of the population".

Your man also makes the point that:

"Now, it's always possible that people are lying, misinformed, or simply mistaken."

That is a critically important issue.

What if those ten people had a particular motive to make you believe that it was snowing outside, even though it was warm and sunny?

How valid is their input in these circumstances, and does it still provide a true indication of the state of the weather?

You - and Sells, and many others - have a strong motive for wanting to believe in your religion. It is so strong that many of you cannot actually contemplate being without that belief, it would simply be too painful for you.

So the motivations of the people who constitute your body of views that "suggest" the existence of a God will necessarily taint the result.

Incidentally, if you would like to reflect for a moment on this little comment of yours:

>>Millions is, again, not widespread in the same context as the original statement.<<

Compared with ten people coming indoors? That deserves a gold star for chutzpah.

“People don’t believe because they “repeat” something, they believe it because they experience it for themselves. This is completely different to your example of people ‘believing’ in a psychological or sociological theory.”

People indwell in the performance they experience and that commitment is reinforced by like-minded others. Muslims tend to Arabs. Christians in the West tend to follow the basic Christian teachings of the Eleventh Century, yet after that century’s Great Schism people in Russian follow alternative Christian interpretations. Brits tend to be Anglican and the French & Germans Catholic. Why? Before the before advanced religions (before Sumer), people followed animist traditions. People in Japan, especially before the1950s, saw their Emperor as semi-divine. Why? The Ancient Egyptians, believed in Amon-Ra, the Ancient Greeks, Zeus and the Romans, Diana. People tend to follow the beliefs of their own society. Had the Spanish Armada (1588) succeeded, chances are people would have repeated the teachings of the Catholic Church, in England, for centuries thereafter. Perhaps, up until the present. Our Queen might be taking a Coronation Oath that she believes in the Holy Catholic Church and Transubstantiation.

Behaps there is a universal survival instinct (etic) which manifests intelfs in different religions (emic). Emics being culturally reinfornced.

“We are not discussing whether “belief in a personal God” is logical in philosophy, we are discussing whether the existence of widespread belief suggests that God may exist.”

The two are enjoined. To qualify belief by the use of the word “widespread” adds nothing. It is fallacy.

Busy, Must leave it here.

[What if those ten people had a particular motive to make you believe that it was snowing outside, even though it was warm and sunny?]

Thats part of the "pending further enquiry" Day was talking about. Based on the statement, you'd believe them.

[You - and Sells, and many others - have a strong motive for wanting to believe in your religion.]

1. That's rubbish.

2. Even if I granted it as true, many atheists are like minded in the opposite direction, as has been proven uncategorically by many atheists themselves in their writings. There's also a case to be made for cognitive dissonance in explaining atheist beliefs. Explaning away belief using psychoanalysis can work both ways. Either way, it doesnt get us anywhere. Its simply a useless red herring, really.

[Compared with ten people coming indoors? That deserves a gold star for chutzpah.]

The point was the majority, not the number. If ten people walked in the same door, you'd have a pretty good indication from them, of what the weathers like outside.

Actually Trav, the more accurate analogy would be: you asked to ten people who had been locked in that room (with no windows) with you for years what the weather was like outside and they all said that it was snowing, then that suggests that 'pending further investigation' it was snowing outside. Now that sounds silly doesn't it? Since the people who believe in God actually have no way of knowing he actually exists (ie they have never been "outside"), then widespread belief is suggestive of nothing other than the fact that humans tend to believe things, many of them without evidence.

Also, you have no motive for wanting to believe your religion? You mean you looked at all alternatives and found that the religion you follow was the only rational and logical choice over all others without emotional motives factoring in? Really?

It gets even better when you go to the next room and find 15 people who insist that it's hail which is falling and another room where they insist it's fine but windy outside.

Time to have a look outside for yourself and see what's happening.

R0bert

You're beginning to twist yourself into some rather unnatural shapes here, Trav.

First up, you have to admit that the arrival of ten people who all tell you it's snowing, has not altered in any way shape or form the actual weather outside. So to use their statements as evidence for the existence of snow is illogical.

But closer to your analogy, my understanding of their motives will absolutely determine whether I believe them or not. If I know that their fear of skin cancer motivates them to stay indoors, I would not hesitate to disbelieve them.

Similarly, since I know that Christians are highly motivated to believe in their religion, you cannot use their willingness to hold those beliefs, as evidence of the materiality of those beliefs. It only suggests their personal investment in the existence of a God, and in no way suggests that one might actually exist.

You might like to expand on this a little:

>>There's also a case to be made for cognitive dissonance in explaining atheist beliefs<<

Cognitive dissonance, says Wikipedia, is "an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously."

Which two ideas did you have in mind, and what discomfort are you making a case for?

>>The point was the majority, not the number<<

Once again, you are trying to have it both ways, aren't you? Do you remember this?

>>Four year old girls are a small subset of the population<<

But the vast majority of them believe in fairies.

So is it the majority, or is it the number?

>>Millions [of Hindus, suggesting the existence of Brahma] is, again, not widespread in the same context as the original statement.<<

But if I plonked you down in dwelling in a place of my choosing in India, I could be pretty certain that 100% of the people walking into your room would be Hindu. So - as with your "it's snowing" analogy - you would necessarily be comfortable, would you not, with the suggestion that Brahma exists.

Admit it, Vox Day got it badly wrong.

Just walk away from it.

The way I read the statement, means that any mention of Brahma/Allah/Yahweh is meaningless because the question doesnt specify "which" God.

I note that in the comments section, Vox Day agrees that widespread belief in Allah "suggests" that Allah exists, meaning he has, like you, taken the statement to be applied specifically to specific Gods. But as I said, I don't read it like that. I read it in that "some kind of" personal God exists.

That really makes your Brahma statement meaningless to me, because it's irrelevant, the way I understand the statement. I should've clarified this earlier.

However, if you, like Vox are to read it as specifically referring to a particular God, you'd have to get into how "widespread" you mean it. I would then argue that belief in Allah and Yahweh is widespread, whereas the belief in Brahma is almost exclusively in India, and in much fewer numbers overall, meaning you can't apply "widespread" to that scenario.

Either way, the point remains that, pending further enquiry, without any other factors present, based on the statement alone, the rational response is still agree or strongly agree. Considering that more Christians had that answer than atheists, meaning Christians are more rational and open minded than atheists on the question of God's existence, countering one of Oly's earlier points.

So let me see if I understand you correctly, Trav.

You actually disagree with Vox Day.

>>...he has, like you, taken the statement to be applied specifically to specific Gods. But as I said, I don't read it like that.<<

So do tell. What was the point in referring us to him in the first place, if he isn't going to support your theory? Most odd.

>>However, if you, like Vox are to read it as specifically referring to a particular God, you'd have to get into how "widespread" you mean it.<<

That's a nonsense argument, the last refuge of a totally lost cause, and you know it.

This is not an "either particular/or general" discussion.

Both are wrong.

>>Either way, the point remains that, pending further enquiry, without any other factors present, based on the statement alone, the rational response is still agree or strongly agree.<<

Wrong again. You are simply re-stating an incorrect assumption, that because somebody believes something exists, it must "suggest" its actual existence.

>>Christians are more rational and open minded than atheists on the question of God's existence<<

Well, duh.

Four year-old girls are by the same measurement more rational and open-minded than adults on the question of the existence of fairies.

Trav,

One might say:

a. "The wide spread belief in a Personal God 'posits the proposition' (suggests); that God actually exists."

or

b. "The wide spread belief (in Ireland) of Personal Fairies posits the proposition (suggests); that Fairies actually exists."

The above suggesting a wide number of people "posit" that God exists and Fairies exist respectively. Meaning the word "belief" is directed at 'belief in the proposition' that God/Fairies exist. That is, the posit that is believed, is widespread.

- One can believe (agree) that many people hold a proposition God/Fairies exist, as a hypothetical construct. If the survey designer's intend was that latter the question might be better put:

- "The proposition that God exists,exists, because there is a widespread belief in God."

Trav, How would you answer the following question?

"The wide spread belief in Personal Fairies suggests that Fairies actually exists."

- Strongly Agree
- Agree
- Neither agree or Disagree
- Disagree
- Agree

Your reply will provide insight on your interpretation of the wording of the question.

Oly

" There's also a case to be made for cognitive dissonance in explaining atheist beliefs."- Trav

Cognitive dissonance exists where an expectation has not been realized. There needs to be an expectation in the first place: e.g.,

- You buy a Mercedes on the expectation that it wont breakdown as often as the Holden you traded-in. The Merc in fact does break-down often. The failure to meet expectation means there a gap between what you thought and what actually happned. You experience cognitive dissonance.

You, at first, believe in a Loving God, then you contemplate the cruelty of the insect world. The reality doesn't match the expectation.

Regarding the Loving God case, it would not follow one would necessarily drop belief in God, one might need to re-define God(s). For example, the Greek God, Pan, could be evil. One could blame cruelty to insects on Pan, Satan or an abstract, such as, Sin. These responses being defence mechanisms to sustain the original belief system.

Trav, Why is the insect world so cruel? Whose plan does the insect world follow?

O.

[So do tell. What was the point in referring us to him in the first place, if he isn't going to support your theory? Most odd.]

We agree on the major, disagree on the minor. I explained this already.

[Wrong again. You are simply re-stating an incorrect assumption, that because somebody believes something exists, it must "suggest" its actual existence].

Its very reasonable.

People are saying something.

What does it suggest?

You've given me no good reasons to believe that it suggests that God does NOT exist, or that it suggests NOTHING.

You havent even defended your "assumption". Mine is far more reasonable.

["The wide spread belief in Personal Fairies suggests that Fairies actually exists."]

If belief in fairies was widespread amongst the entire adult population of the world (which its not), then yes indeed, it would "suggest" that fairies exist. But it would not prove or show that they exist. It would merely provide the suggestion

Regarding Cognitive Dissonance, there's an interesting article on it by Mike Adams: http://townhall.com/Columnists/MikeAdams/2007/10/29/understanding_atheism

I'm still confused as to where you're coming from Trav. As I suspect you are too.

>>We [that is, Trav and Vox Day] agree on the major, disagree on the minor. I explained this already<<

I would have thought that a straight disavowal of your position would be a major, rather than minor issue between you. But hey, maybe you're really good friends.

>>People are saying something. What does it suggest? You've given me no good reasons to believe that it suggests that God does NOT exist, or that it suggests NOTHING. You havent even defended your "assumption". Mine is far more reasonable. <<

The thing is, I have not made any assumptions. You have. It is therefore up to you to defend them, not me. And I cannot give credence to a view that simply talking about something suggests its existence.

A position, incidentally, that you immediately abandon when it comes to discussing fairies.

>>If belief in fairies was widespread amongst the entire adult population of the world (which its not), then yes indeed, it would "suggest" that fairies exist.<<

That does not coexist comfortably with your earlier statements. One moment it is the number, then it is the majority, now it is a specific subset of the population. If that is the case, what about the Hindus? Vox Day accepts that this must suggest the existence of Brahma, just as the Muslims' thoughts suggest Allah.

And from a philosophical point of view, would not the fact that you and I are happily discussing fairies indicate something to you?

Your link to Mike Adams and his thoughts on Cognitive Dissonance were interesting.

His entire reference to the topic was on its impact on Christians.

"the declaration 'I am a Christian' can sometimes clash with the awareness that 'Christians are supposed to tithe' or 'Christians are supposed to love their enemies.'”

I can understand that. It isn't easy being green.

Cognitive Dissonance would also play a major part in the average Christian's attitude towards Islam, I would suggest.

Pericles,

The primary meaning of the word “suggest” is “to call an idea to present itself”: What most people would assume. One secondary meaning is, “propose (theory, plan, ‘that’) for acceptance or rejection” (OED). In the latter case, we can have, “There is a wide spread belief (held), which suggests that God actually exists": In the first case, we have the existence of Personal God “presenting itself” on the belief. Alternatively, what actually exists is, “the wide spread belief in a Personal God”. The suggestion is the belief exists. It’s a bit like that young women, old hag illusion. One doesn’t easily see the ambiguity at first.

The respondents seem to assume that question is about the existence of God. [I would] Trav is saying that question is about "the belief in the existence of God”, not the existence of God and assumes others have read the question as he has.

Trav,

Adams dilutes the meaning of Cognitive Dissonance. Cognitive dissonance isn't so-much, you like being a Christian but don’t like tithing: Rather, you first believe that if you do tithe you will receive satisfaction. Subsequently, you do tithe, but receive no satisfaction. [I studied three-plus years of psychology in my undergraduate days. Religion was mentioned only in passing]

Incidentally, according to the dead seas scrolls, tithing included working/living as an indigent, not merely giving away money. Presumably, to show humility:

Yet, I don’t see too many bishops living in the park and eating from baggage bins one day a week. Here, the bishops decision to not follow that practise because is the bishops don’t want to. That isn’t cognitive dissonance, either. On the other hand, if Cardinal Pell slept one day-a-week under a park-bench and was satisfied with his act of humility, cognitive dissonance would not exist, for this act.

Trav, how would you answer following question?

“The widespread belief there is no Christian God suggests that a Christian God does not exist.”

- Agree/Disagree?

Also,

- Why is the insect world so cruel? Whose plan does the insect world follow? Would an extant god allow this cruelty?

oh for god's sake. who on earth cares? if a bunch of people tell me it's snowing and i don't believe them, i open the door. if a bunch of people tell me that god exists and i don't believe them, then ... a bunch of people repeat that a bunch of people believe that god exists. how bloody pathetic!

A little yarn to have fun with.

An atheist was walking through the woods.

'What majestic trees!
'What powerful rivers!
'What beautiful animals! He wondered and pondered.

As he walked he sensed a presence nearby. He turned to look. There a 2.5 metre grizzly bear set to charge. The man broke way in a sprint. He looked over his shoulder to see the bear in pursuit close by. He tripped & fell. The bear stood over him with his left paw out to hold him & his right paw raised to strike him.

The atheist exclaimed! 'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

A bright light shone and a voice came through; 'You deny my existence and ridicule my faithful. You live as if I do not exist and promote life as accident, without purpose. I love you but am I to break the natural laws which I set in place for order? What am I to do?'

The atheist looked directly into the light, 'I am no hypocrite but maybe you could make the BEAR a good-doing Christian'? 'Very well' said the voice.

The light extinguished and the sounds resumed. The Bear brought together both paws, bowed his head & spoke: 'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen.'

Now for the reality.

For the bear to kill the person would have been an action in complete conformity of a bear being good - true to its nature.

A human "saying a prayer" or a curse at his/her imminent end acts in accordance with the falleness of the human - being fully aware of his ultimate end in losing his life that he has lived as if it was his own. Man as an autonomous life form who has attained the ability, as a producer, to render and snuff out life to satisfy his curiosity, pride and convenience.

Sell's human of faith in Christ, who lives life in wholeness as creature and gift, would more closely resemble the bear. True to his ultimate purpose

boxgum, your joke is genuinely funny. your sermon is genuinely ridiculous.

"Sell's human of faith in Christ, who lives life in wholeness as creature and gift" - BG ... and whose life was human quite unlike the other gods of antiquity, and in so doing allows humans to identify with the god. - O

Jesus is spun ready to appeal to Humanity's penchant towards anthromorphism. Likewise, if Yokie was held God incarnate as a Bear, then Boo-Boo woud be suitably impressed.

Trav,

The questions please. Short answers are okay.