One thing I love about theologists, is their ability to use their religion to justify genocide, war, ethnic cleansing, slavery, torture among other things, as morally commanded by their true living gods and then claim non-believers need to come to their true living gods or die. As some Hawaiian said, when the missionaries came we had the land and they had the book. Today, we have the book and they have the land.

Peter, I completely agree with the general thrust of your article, but not with the sentence "The fact is that the modern world is based firmly on Christian understandings of what it means to be human".

I am sure we would agree on the Christian understanding of what it means to be human. But the modern world's understanding is (to put it a little crudely) that the human is the one true god, there being no known higher being. Though, of course, many do not go along with it, it must be regarded as the "official" view of the powers of this world. And I do agree that there is some vestige of Christian understanding in there somewhere, but pretty much buried under all the rubble.

Hmm, I presume there are still some Native Hawaiians, or did the Christians kill them all or just enslave them?

Perhaps they would have been better under the Vikings or the Maori, or perhap the Imperial Japenese or as an Emirate?

At least they probably have a birth certificate, unlike Obama?

Relda

We will have to agree to disagree.

I concur with Pericles that:

"However, I think you really meant to echo Sells, in his effort to arrogate the entire spectrum of non-linear thought to his religion."

You are an erudite and articulate writer, but digging through your posts to a clear meaning, leaves one empty-handed. There is no critique of Sellick's claim of non-Christians lacking humanity, which I would expect from any reasonable human being. Therefore, I reiterate your tacit approval of his heavy handed and offensive arguments.

This is why I claimed "hypocrisy".

You have demonstrated the 'doublethink' that is essential for religious belief. I prefer honest words to pretty writing.

Peace to you.

An ideal test for some of the assumptions might be to pop along to the multiple activities held over Science Week.

http://www.scienceweek.gov.au/Pages/index.aspx

Of note is the complete, unambiguous and unavoidable lack of any claim *against* religion, or even *about* religion, much less Christianity. Indeed, if any position is presented it is that one is encouraged to make up ones own mind, with respect to available evidence, beliefs, existing knowledge and so on. I might point out that religion is the opposite. "No, here is the *only* way to approach situation X."

If we accept Peters thesis then the wondrous and fascinating exhibitions that continue to improve thanks to knowledge and applied science [as in say - computer graphics], wouldn't exist. Simply, the same story told for 1600 years.

True, theists get annoyed when astronomers present informative and beautiful 3D movies on our galaxy, without saying "God made...". Yes, I've heard the USA case arguing that this knowledge equates to internalising overwhelming "insignificance". Realising we are "insignificant", scientists thus have no reason to not kill all and everything. Such an argument was presented via "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Interview here;

http://atheistage.org/?p=1154

Quietly at tax payer expense, Access Ministries continue to teach Christianity in public schools, outraging parents who consciously avoid religious instruction. Sadly, "instruction" now includes telling the kids mum or dad is lying or [and I quote] "Mrs. X says Jesus loves me more than you do". "Jesus watches me on the toilet".

Access Ministries - write it down when you hear of their "Values Education". Please beware it's biblical fundamentalism.

Museums are satanic because they are not anti-science, homophobic, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, etc. I refer specifically to evolution, and more broadly to critical thought surrounding democracy. Eg; admitting Melbourne had a red light district in Little Lonsdale St. and prostitution was once associated with poverty, whilst not invoking "god or satan, good or evil" and this silliness of calling Australia a "Christian nation".

Is there an anti-religious equivalent at Science Week, and the malignant anthropomorphism of "science"? No. So, why has "Christianity" seen fit to attack neutral human beings?

One of the corner stones of Sells argument is that because humans experience beauty and love, and because these things are not rational, that humanity has a spiritual side as well as a rational side.

This is an emotionally persuasive argument, however, not rational.

The existence of beauty and love does not imply that there is any inherent spirituality or deeper meaning.

Otters mate for life, and raise families, but cannot be considered "human".

I can enjoy music, art and sunsets without having to ascribe a higher meaning to the feelings they evoke.

I can only assume that the deep belief Sells has leads him to believe that these feelings of joy and beauty can only come from a deeper power, however, his assumptions and lack of rational analysis leads him to lay claim of behalf of Christianity to a portion of humanity that is complex but not devine.

Sells we need a stronger argument than "it must be"