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... ;-) )