(ctd)
>>if you feel so secure in your beliefs, then you shouldn’t need to keep hiding behind the law by mention it and the what real democracies accept.<<
Could you please quote me where I “hid my beliefs behind the law” and “what real democracies accept”? I was referring to law and democracy in connections with what I thought was a fair (and workable) way of treating people with different word world-views (religious or not), not as a justification for my own system of beliefs.

>>you thought that there could actually be Atheists out there who (are) “extreme” about their Atheism<<
Atheists, by definition, reject religion and believers, and some of them indeed go into extremes in showing that (the mirror images of runner, as I mentioned before). I did not deny the existence of such: I only objected to the thesis that Communists did their bad things BECAUSE OF being atheists. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

>>I certainly don’t want to think that an intelligent Christian like yourself would have to resort to a tactic like that (distracting opponents from the original point.<<

Well, in my experience this happens often on these threads, namely that the succession of arguments and counterarguments wander away from the original point, without anybody intentionally wanting to distract. Some of the most interesting (at least to me) exchanges of opinions appeared here in the form of comments to articles by Peter Selick that soon came to have almost nothing to do with the article itself.

>> moderates needing to accept some of the blame for the radicals still stands<<
Do you mean to say - this coming after you refer to Dawkins and Examinator - that also Examinator ought to accept the blame for some radical views of Dawkins? Here I disagree, the same as I disagree that I should accept blame for what e.g. the Young Earth Creationists claim, or that mathematical physicists should accept blame for Hiroshima, manufacturers of kitchen knives for stabbings, etc. So on this point we just have to agree to disagree.

TBC,
Though you did not tell me anything I have not heard before - about “religions”, their special tax concessions, the Vatican, the recent scandals, etc - you told me a lot about yourself. I appreciate that, but I do not see any point in continueing this talking past each other: You keep on repeating your criticism (to use a mild term) of religion, both justified and unjustiefied, whereas I was only advocating a personal as well as political positioin that discriminates neither against those who agree with you nor agianst those who don‘t.

George, what an odd view.

Are you saying that you hold absolutely no opinions either?

That you are so 'tolerant' of everything, nothing annoys you, or inspires you?

Are you a cold dead fish?

Do you meekly accept nonsense, saying 'that is his view, which concerns me not'?

If so, why do you bother with spending your time here, wasting your time even, disputing what others say?

Why do you not simply accept everything, sort of 'Chance the Gardener', fashion?

Or is this what is meant by the phrase 'live and let live'?

George,

<<There were blasphemies, if that is what you mean by no-go zones that protected the status of the Christian religion.>>

Blasphemy is one way of putting it, but although blasphemy is no longer an actual “crime” as such in most Western countries, the ideal still exists today and we see evidence of this everywhere. We are not supposed to criticise someone’s faith simply because it is their faith.

<<...things sacred to Christians are ridiculed in a form unimaginable decades ago...>>

Yes, but it’s still considered rude or impolite to say one iota against another’s faith. I refer back to my example of OLO and the way Dawkins was attacked on Q&A.

<<...but nobody pays much attention to it - so I do not understand what it is that the radicals are hiding behind.>>

In a legal sense... no, they don’t. In a social context, or a general sense, yes, they do.

You’re going back the whole legal bit here which is most unhelpful, as we are not - and have never been - talking about legalities.

<<Well, “repetition is the mother of learning“, and I am not sure at what age can a child understand - without being totally confused - what it means that an assertion is not backed by “objective evidence”, except by a simple explanation that this is what mum and dad believe, though other people don’t.>>

It’s simple... explain to the child that there is nothing to back the beliefs of the parents other than emotions that could very well be explained via other more rational means.

Explain to the child that there is no way to apply any sort of practical knowledge and rationally come to the conclusion that the parents’ belief is justified.

Or here’s a better idea... don’t bother telling the child anything at all. After all, if the belief is sound, then it wouldn’t matter what age the child was told about the belief.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Do you think all those listed for instance in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnosticsconverted solely because they were “unhappy unhealthy and ill-adjusted”?>>

Yes, I do.

Of course, I can’t actually prove that and that’s what you’re relying on because it makes this discussion look like it’s all a matter of opinion.

But I was once a Christian. I knew (and still know) many Christians (including much of my own family), and so far in my observations, 100% of the time, the reason for turning to religious belief is emotional and not rational or objective.

We all have problems in life no matter how big or small, and religion is just one of many ways people find solace in life, whether it be the ultimate forgiveness for something horrible we may have done, or just a feeling of meaning and purpose...

<<I think, the reason they usually give is “search for meaning and purpose in their lives”, as meaningless as this might sound to some.>>

There’s hardly any rational basis in finding “meaning and purpose” in some unprovable religion. But people don’t need rationality when they feel emotionally or spiritually lost.

<<However, I agree that for those who look for such meaning it is simpler to build on the world-view they were educated into (religious or not), if they can.>>

Which goes back to my point: “The sad thing is though, that if the parents don’t get in early enough, the best they can hope for is a tragedy in their child’s life.”

My father is convinced that one day I will see the “truth” [sic]. But I have assured him that unlike him, I realise that just because something makes you feel good, or comforted, that doesn’t mean it’s true.

<<Could you please quote me where I “hid my beliefs behind the law” and “what real democracies accept”>>

Sure thing...

“...there are only children growing up in Christian, Marxist, atheist, etc families, and the right of parents to educate their children in a world-view of their choice, provided they do not contravene the law.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83834)

Continued...

...Continued

“I think in a democratic society you cannot stop people from “perpetuating the notion that their beliefs are a no-go-zone” as you cannot stop others from perpetuating their notion that religious education is indoctrination” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83923)

<<I was referring to law and democracy in connections with what I thought was a fair (and workable) way of treating people with different word world-views (religious or not), not as a justification for my own system of beliefs.>>

Regardless of your intentions, I said nothing about banning or criminalising that which I didn’t agree with, yet you jumped straight to the legalities of what I was talking about without addressing the rationality of the point. One was even presumptuous to the point of being ludicrous...

“How would you want to implement this denial, what laws what you suggest?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83907)

<<...in my experience this happens often on these threads, namely that the succession of arguments and counterarguments wander away from the original point >>

Despite the rock solid reasoning behind my arguments, you are dragging me down into semantics and unnecessarily blurring/obfuscating something that is really quite simple...

Moderate Christians perpetuate the idea that their faith is a no-go-zone, therefore, they share some of the responsibility for the radicals who hide behind this notion.

Whether or not you agree with me doesn’t change the fact.

Continued....