Davidf:

Why do you so spoil for a fight? I said "Christians are enjoined to be salt and light, to give savour and set a desirable example to the world." I didn't say we necessarily live up to what Christ enjoined us to do. But he did exhort us thus. How is my quoting that, arrogant?

I've said elsewhere that of course it's quite possible for an atheist or secular humanist to live a decent ethical life. Some do, some don't. Same thing can be said about professed Christians. Lots of people are cultural Christians, same as lots are cultural Muslims, and so on. It depends on what's inside .... Not the label, or the tribalism of cultural identification.

I've read of an American t-shirt that said "Jesus, save me from your followers". Sad, but undeniably fair comment about some people.

None of this vitiates what Christ actually said and taught. George Bernard Shaw said in his Preface to Androcles and the Lion:

“If it could be proved today that not one of the miracles of Jesus actually occurred, that proof would not invalidate a single one of his didactic utterances; and conversely, if it could be proved that not only did the miracles actually occur, but that he had wrought a thousand other miracles a thousand times more wonderful, not a jot of weight would be added to his doctrine."

More important is how we interact with others. That is where Sellick falls down - he proselytizes about the 'goodness' of faith while at the same time casts judgement over those who don't support his worldview.

For some, human connections might be formed through religious commitment and belief. For others it is not but is no less valid.

To try and explain, as an atheist I see the absence of a belief in the supernatural as something intrinsically pure. As very human. The path for understanding ourselves in a natural way without indoctrination (inteference), dogma or agenda.

What is it about a poem or a sunset that might hold us in awe? It is not relgious belief but the beauty and magnificence of nature which is all around us. The first time I looked into my baby's eyes, the overwhelming unconditional love that could bring you to tears is not supernatural but so very very natural.

Human-ness is not measured by something so far apart from ourselves but from our very depths - from the inside.

Despite what some might accuse, this is not evil nor is it delusional but is at the heart of being human.

It is NOT as some might offer a belief in individualism - or the Human as the Centre. Comments like this are nothing but kneejerk reactions to scepticism. ie. if I condemn the detractor I validate myself.

It is the most natural path for human beings to connect with each other. We are not a perfect species and have not been perfect even under heavy religious influence. Extremist dogma of any nature does more harm collectively than good.

I would not deny the right of any religious person to seek the HUMAN through their God.

It is not a contest to see whose path is the most worthy.

No matter our beliefs it is ultimately the outcome that matters. And our actions that speak for us rather than our words.

relda,
>> There is our “symbolic intelligence,” where all the thoughts we have are in words and mathematics but the biggest part of our brain, however, is for “subsymbolic intelligence,” ... - all it has are images, senses, actions and feelings .... Two “minds” would suggest also two different types of 'knowing'.<<

I find it rather interesting what you are saying here. I understand it as a distinction between symbolic, conceptual “knowing” (especially through mathematics) and direct “knowing” through intuition, mysticism, etc., your “subsymbolic intelligence”.

There are situations where the first way of “knowing“ prevails, like those studied by theoretical physics, and there are situations when the second way prevails, like situations that religion is concerned with, always directly or indirectly involving the “knower”. Nevertheless, intuition is also important in physics, and conceptual, symbolic, constructions in religion.

My personal experience is more with “dwelling“ in the symbolic world of mathematics, so perhaps therefore I would not call “oppressive” the symbolic world of religions, either as represented in some sacred texts or through metaphysical constructions/speculations.

I know there are parts of pure mathematics that are pure speculations, completely irrelevant to the “real”, physical world, though there is always this Wigner‘s “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” (e.g. speculations about the existence of the “non-existent“ square root of minus one led to complex numbers without which we could not have contemporary science and technology).

And there are certainly purely speculative symbols, stories (myths) etc associated with various religions, and while there is no equivalent of Wigner’s maxim, some of us are open to (religious) faith, a kind of supra-scientific knowing that involves the subject, the “knower“, more than any knowledge mediated by science (the Copenhagen interpretation of QM notwithstanding), a kind of “knowing” that today few can follow or even understand.

Reading these many posts, it seems to me Peter has again shown that he is a good “catalyst“: a substance that increases the rate of a “chemical“ reaction without itself undergoing any permanent “chemical“ change.

Dear Glorfindel,

Setting an example means to me that Christians regard themselves in some way better than non-Christians and entitled to set an example. The Crusades, the conversion of Europe by violence, bringing in the Dark Ages as they killed the spirit of enquiry when the Roman Empire became Christian, the Wars of the Reformation, the Inquisition, justifying the despoiling of the Americas because the Treaty of Tordesillas divided the new discoveries between the Spanish and the Portuguese with the injunction to spread their faith, the Holocaust partially inspired by the centuries of Christian hatred and other examples of Christian misbehaviour show that it is ridiculous for Christians to talk about setting an example for others. Clean up your own act including apologies for the evil Christianity has brought on this earth. Christianity should take the example of the more tolerant pagan world and other groups who have behaved more humanely than Christians.

The bloody history of Christianity gives little basis for Christians to set an example.

Dear Glorfindel,

I have a Marxist acquaintance who counters mention of the Marxist crimes by a reference to Marx's great vision. You have responded to my mention of the Christian failings making Christians not suited to set an example by referring to the words of Jesus. What difference do the words of Jesus make if Christians don't follow them?

However, I know the way Jesus advised one to know about a group. Matthew 7:20 By their fruits shall ye know them.

That is exactly what I have done. By their fruits Christians cannot reasonably set an example. It is sheer bloody arrogance for Christians to claim otherwise.

Glorfindal, wasn't it G.B. Shaw who also said: "Yes I think Christianity is a wonderful idea. I just hope someone tries it one day."
At the (admittedly, quite small) country school my children attended, only 2 families didn't make their children attend scripture classes.
A koori family just said bluntly that Christianity was a bunch of hypocritical crap. After attending one class, my children said they didn't want to go again, because the scripture teacher was 'just nasty'. I had to agree with my blackfella mate. In fact, at the time I offered him the same quote.