Dear csteele,

Thanks for giving your reasons for answering NO - as I understand it - to my first question: “Do our atheist friends here agree that not only those of the 'secular community' but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize? “

It would take many more than 350 words if I were to react to everything you wrote. Nevertheless let me try to be brief:

The story about Abraham obviously needs interpretation comprehensible only from within the Christian or Jewish religions like the statement that something can be both a particle and a wave is comprehensible only from within physics and the mathematics it builds on. Also, Jesus did not teach against slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism etc: His teaching was about LOVE and the criticism of these systems was left for others when interpreting the “love thy neighbour” principle in particular historical and political situations they lived in and/or were able to analyse. “Proclamations against condoms” whatever you mean by that, apparently hints at a rigid and absurd application of an unfortunate encyclical of the Catholic Church. I cannot see anybody who could successfully proselytize - i.e. convert others to Christianity - on the basis of this narrow interpretation of the anti-promiscuity stance of the Church.

You seem to compare the presence of Christianity, proselytized or not, to that of leeches. You obviously had some bad experience. Imagine the reaction here if I did the same with atheism in its generality, based on my personal experience with “proselytized atheism” (well, our Stalinist teachers called it “scientific atheism”).

So I presume your reply to my second question is also NO.

Dear David f,

Of course, I agree with what you wrote about society and its openness. Note again that my mentioning of open society was solely in reference to the two alternative views about the role of belief or unbelief in God and afterlife in history. The same about proselytizing. Nobody would suggest that ALL, e.g. racist, views should be allowed to proselytize.

Your response to Constance illustrates why you cannot respect world-views that clash with yours. I have known people who called higher mathematics (e.g. cohomology theory) mumbojumbo (or something similar), but most of those who do not understand what features of reality that kind of mathematics tries to represent, simply accept that perhaps others do.

Let me try it this way: As I hinted at in my recent article (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464) in relation to the three worlds of Roger Penrose (to which a tentatively added the fourth, spiritual, one): Most everybody believes that the physical world is irreducible to the other two (or three) worlds, many if not most mathematicians believe that the mathematical world is irreducible to both the mental and physical worlds, and some people also believe that the spiritual (transcendent, supernatural) world is irreducible to the mental, physical and obviously also mathematical worlds. Note that “irreducible” here is not the same as “unrelated”.

This approach bypasses “reality” and “exists”, words for which there is not a generally accepted understanding of (in philosophy). This is certainly not an argument for converting from one belief system to another, only PERHAPS for being respectful of the alternative.

Actually, David,

I have a friend who thinks Zeus is really cool. He is one who does not follow trends.

The Spanish inquisition was not a Vatican initiative, it was instigated by the royals, Ferdinand and Isabella - in fact the Catholic church was very critical of what was happening. They had no sovereignty over a whole country, did they? It only occurred in Spain after all.

The Tamils are plain trouble makers every since they were late arrivals to Sri Lanka. And they've been seeking their own bloody autonomous state ever since. Who do they think they are? And what right do have in doing this?

“Do our atheist friends here agree that not only those of the 'secular community' but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?“

Yes, I agree. Though all parties should also not be surprised at seeming to be mocked religiously – when they are.

Unlike a discussion about mathematics – which for the most part, I'll never understand adequately – discussions about religion seem to become complicated by the definition of abstract nouns...

To assist me with understanding what someone might be proselytising, here is one checklist for God's attributes:

Aseity, eternality, graciousness, holiness, immanence, immutability, impassibility, impeccability, incorporeality, love, mission, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, oneness, providence, righteousness, simplicity, transcendence, trinitarian, veracity, wrathfulness.

For the record, here is mine:

Imaginary.

But if it (or God) is all about Causal Determinism – then I had no choice but to say that.

Davidf,

And why do you think Christianity allows a separation of religion and state? Because it is all about freedom and living in a liberal state. Catholic does mean liberal after all. It's all about balance.

"...why do you think Christianity allows a separation of religion and state?"

I wasn't aware that it did. the price of freedom/secularism has been eternal viligilance. If vigilance wavers, religion encroaches.

Atheists are front line invigilators in opposing religious encroachment.