Polycarp,

The more you write the more wrongs you commit.

First we had the false dichotomy of 'Islam/violent: Christianity/peaceful'.

Then you gave us your patently ludicrous outsight on the Irish troubles: more 'political' than 'religious'.

Now you're trying a new outrageous dichotomy between 'human' and 'Christian'. (Every Christian I've ever met was human. How about you?)

You've got more twists and turns than the Great Ocean Road.

Why don't you admit, for once, that like the rest of us you sometimes get things horribly wrong? It might feel good sometimes to admit that your dot-point view of world history is woefully inadequate and that the Bible is a strictly limited resource in helping us interpret world events since it was written.

Examinator,

I feel shame actually for the "civillization" we felt it our duty to introduce all over Melanesia - but I do agree that, having done so, there is nothing much to choose between either of the two alternatives on offer here: Christianity or Atheism.

I wonder how many people even know that the Trobriands were once known as The Islands of Love? We made them ashamed of this and of their own culture through missionary activity, but just as ashamed when we only offered them exploitation of their sexuality as an alternative.

I don't think there is much to choose, as I said, but I do think that, if we are talking about concern for actual physical well-being then the humble diddiman has a better track record than the missionary.

That said, I guess one could, off the cuff, provide a host of anecdotal evidence of individuals whose behaviour completely negates that conclusion.

Sure, I think it's interesting to exchange beliefs and allow discussion but I don't think anyone's conviction of their own "rightness" should make everyone else wrong.

People,

It is a false dichotomy to use the term Atheism and Christianity in comparison, as the former is only a reference to those who get by without a god and the latter is a ‘belief system’. Another issue is that Christianity is only one of the religions on the planet.

For those who want to deny this, the obvious response is to state what the ‘belief system’ of Atheism is? I’m interested to know.

As an Atheist, I can point out the misgivings of religions because I am non partisan on the matter. But to call the pointing out of the foibles of religion a ‘belief system’ is very nonsensical.

David

Romany,
Amen sister amen.
I remember two incidents in the 60's that emphasize your point clearly.

The first resulted in 'cargo wars' where several people died it stemmed from the bible quote. "I go to prepare a mansion for you in the home of my father" (or something like that). As you know pidgin as many of the 800 languages in PNG are literal and have neither superlatives nor abstractions. Given that white families lived in 13-14 Square houses and the servant family quarters were a one room brick, concrete floor/tin roof shed attached to the laundry down the back yard. Their pay, $1+ a month, a bag of rice and a case of bully beef! So you can image the confusion/ resentment this caused when translated. There were armed tribesmen demanding their mansions now.

The other was when a Communist went around espousing equality and that there was no need for 'their spirits' (religious/cultural controls) as this was holding them back from achieving their true selves. I don't object to the equality but the denying their 'spirits' took the lid off their traditional control over the youthful hotheads. Again several innocents died.

Clearly the nugin people’s choice was then as now a belief in a wealthier God or no belief in Gods therefore no culture. What many 'civilized' people don't understand that the ‘spirit world belief’ did more than comfort it laid down everything from sustainable environmental living, genetic diversity in mates, a code of behaviour, individuals’ identity and their place in world order…all in one.
To these people and those who need religion atheism with its denial of the existence of supernatural forces (beings) as an alternative is a belief without the comfort of boundaries etc.
This is echoed by Polycarp and others (wrongly) assert that without a belief in God (religion) an individual has no rules morality etc. Clearly this is logical nonsense but to indigenous peoples it is all one package. Nugins without a concept of abstracts this is more acute.

examinator,

We seemed to have moved on.

You rightly point out the plight of civilisations that have not been exposed over a long period to higher ethical thought and how that is an unfair equation in relation to societies with advanced knowledge achieved over centuries. This more sophisticated knowledge has also come at a huge cost.

And I think you are saying, with which I agree, that if left alone and not supplied with just one part of advanced Western culture (Religion), indigenous people would have been relatively better off.

Western nations have wreaked a terrible toll on the New World because of greed supported by the zealous desire to ‘save souls’ at any cost. Which of one those imperatives were more important is hard to ascertain but in any combination, it was recipe for total disaster. Maybe greed alone might not have produced the same results. We will neve know.

It can be argued that religion was a necessary part of social evolution as and explanation of nature before science took root. It can also be argued, successfully, that religious rationalization should no longer retain a privileged position in that explanation.

My contention on this is that religion, when it becomes powerful, unlike science, has a tendency to repress new knowledge. This big difference possibly kept civilisation from advancing for longer than necessary. The examples of present day backward looking religions (All are to various degrees) confirms this beyond doubt as does the rapid rise of justice and equality where the teeth of oppression have been slowly extracted from them. The same is the case with all fanatical ideologically driven systems.

Some maintain that it is other religions causing all the troubles afflicting humanity but when confronted with the reality of their own, a wall of apologetics or silence is the response. All religions react in this manner.

David

David AFA
Out of respect I am responding.
No sale!

My position hasn't 'moved on' in your context. The principal at stake is still the same. I maintain that your application of Atheism is the both (in effect) a belief (a state of consciousness) and your approach has the agenda of gaining converts hence your difficulty with boundary between private and public. To hold your views logic dictates you must believe you views are superior to those who believe in the supernatural) ergo is aggressive.

I was responding and extending a mutual understanding with ROMANY in that the problem with Middle class White (educated) perspective is that they fail to understand the full import of indigenous world views (beliefs). These views are so intrinsic to them that any change has the effect of leaving them in atheism or unfulfillable Christian promises (confusion) at the village level.

Your comment on holding back science/civilized development supports my argument that your view reflects your cultural and philosophic blind spots.

On what basis is the white perspective superior? Their civilization has been stable for 60k years. If the purpose of a civilization is to for a balance (oneness) with their environment and produce happiness (contentment) for its members. Logic dictates theirs delivers and has done so for 60K+ years …can we say the same?
Nugin science is not static as you imply it is added to constantly their methodology and purpose are different.
Since white man arrived their life style diseases diabetes, obesity etc have increased exponentially as has their population, pollution and exploitation. (Hardly what a 3rd world country or the world needs).

In essence I was saying that your perspective of No (as opposed to anti) God is very conditional (relative) and highly qualified even in or 1st world culture.

Like I said agree to disagree.