Pericles,
I reacted to your sweeping statement about "religionists" , not just Sellick, so I extended it further to include all people who feel a need to "insult" those they do not agree with.

I agree that Sellick has had more articles here promoting his world-view than others promoting world-views built on atheism. However, I do not think that the capacity to insult those who are prone to feel insulted depends on the length or frequency of your contributions here. I also maintain that if you want to "sell your product" you have to make clear that you think your "product" is better than that from the competition; it is a matter of debating skill and sense of tolerance to do this without deranging, ridiculing, calling immoral or irrational etc. other world-views or insulting their carriers.

Unfortunately, there is no objective criterion for deciding whether statement A is more insulting to people of world-view X than is statement B to people of world-view Y. Another thing is that as far as I can tell, many of the same people here who feel insulted by some of Sellick's unfortunate formulations, have been arguing that "the right to offend, to insult" was, as part of free speech, one of the basic rights in a free democratic society, (or did they mean this only when Christians or Muslims were being targeted?). I do not subscribe to a "right to insult", but as I said, what is insulting to whom is a rather subjective matter.

My experience here has been that if one argues defensively to explain a world-view compatible with the Christian outlook, without attacking those one disagrees with, one is accused of "mental gymnastics", "intellectual gymnastics", "sophistry", "condescension", etc. (I have been accused of all these things on this OLO). I do not know whether this could be called insulting - I certainly do not see it that way - but it points to difficulties when one wants to argue rationally with people who can easily offend/insult and feel offended/insulted (these two propensities somehow tend to come together).

To be clear, George, I do not take Sells' insults personally.

>>I do not subscribe to a "right to insult", but as I said, what is insulting to whom is a rather subjective matter.<<

But I do feel that using insults as the backbone of an argument is unhelpful in the extreme.

But it seems to be his style.

>>the trolls who inhabit these pages are unbelievable.<<

Each clarification seems to serve only to confuse the issue further, relda.

Perhaps it is time that we asked Sells himself to explain the force of his sentences, as a break from his cohorts rallying around to provide their views on what he might have meant.

"How can they understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"

Who are the "they" here, Sells?

And some expansion on this little gem would also be helpful.

"For paganism, individual human beings had no faces, they were resources, wives were incubators, slaves were non human, soldiers were fodder for battle."

Since the headline to the thread invites us to discuss the definition of "human being", and the audience is clearly divided along the lines of religious belief, some additional precision would be most welcome.

But in 350 words or fewer, please

George,

Across several OLO posts Sells seems to prefer a pre-Enlightenment humanity with regards its relation to the Church. He seems to see individualism as something selfish, rather than a vechicle of expression and a complement to mutualism. Unlike, the history books Sells, I think, does not see Western emanicipation emerging from the eleventh century, when nobles and clergy ruled the laity. Moreover, his world-view seems to elevate the the role of the institution.

As I have said before, Sells lives, or, would choose to live between 325 - 1760, that is, between Nicaea and the Great Divergence respectively.

- Do you see Sells' perspective on "being human" typical of the modern Christian. Or, perhaps my analysis is flawed?

Sells,

Do you not realise that if it were not for the Enlightenment you would be neither a scientist nor a writer? The State and Clergy in days of old kept common people like us ignorant, for their gain and power lust.

As mentioned in other threads in its dominion over Man, the Church acted to be the source of all knowledge not merely religion. Owing to the Enlightenment, Science linked episte to techne, and, humanity developed more in three hundred years than in the previous twelve thousand years.

Today's West renders knowledge to universities and religion to churches, allows for freedoms unknown before the Enlightenment.

Pericles,

I am afraid we keep on talking past each other. All I was concerned was not a defence of Sellick’s way of argumentation but of a one-sidedness in reprimanding those who “use insults as the backbone of an argument“. I repeat if for a third time that I think that what is insulting to whom is a rather subjective matter. I know that the publication of Mohammed’s caricatures was insulting to many Muslims, because I could ask them. I can see that what you quoted from Sellick about (pre-Christian) pagans is unacceptable to a historian, however I cannot ask a pagan who lived in those times, how he would react to that statement, whether he would find it insulting or just wrong.

Please do not ask me to add to your list of statements that you find insulting (although not personally) another list - it would be a very long one - of utterances on this OLO that an oversensitive Christian (or Muslim) might find insulting. For instance, sweeping statements calling education of children into any world-view compatible with the Christian model of reality undoctrination, even child abuse. I shall not continue with concrete examples of contributors here who “use insults as the backbone of an argument“ because I do not want to add to this war of “impersonal insults” that - as I understand you- you accuse Sellick of having started with.

Oliver,
I can see that Sellick‘s interpretation of history is unacceptable to a non-Christian, the same as I find, for instance, your interpretation unacceptable to a Christian - historian or not - for various reasons. However, I do not regard unacceptable statements as insults, and will not get into speculations about who, in what cultural, social or mental situation would be justified to feel insulted by this or that.

Rhian,
You contend that science has shown that the miraculous events in the Biblical record didn’t happen (20/8). Could I ask how science might have done this? How can science deny or confirm any historical event? I understand that repeatability is foundational to the scientific method. Can any event of history be repeated?

Are you sure you’re not confusing science with your naturalist bias?

I agree with you (and everyone else in the world) that the Bible is not a science textbook. No one holds it to be. Science text books are in constant need of revision and update. The Bible has no such shortcoming.

Hey Dan, long time no read.
I'd have to say this is a contentious statement:
"The Bible has no such shortcoming."
Should we still be burning witches? Stoning divorcees to death? Okay, JC may have kicked that one out, but there are quite a few practices described in the Bible which could only charitably be described as 'old fashioned'; without getting into the more contentious issues like ID.
Do you really advocate taking the Bible absolutely literally?