George,

“…there are atheist world-views or belief systems (they have something in common but are not all identical), the same as there are e.g. Christian belief systems…”

No, George. Atheism doesn't have common world-views and it definitely doesn't have belief systems. Atheists can only encompass atheism as a part of a world-view. How can there even be beliefs in waiting for the evidence to be supplied for the existence of a god or gods. Because, that is what atheism is.

You have used these two terms as support for each other. Can you elaborate and as well, explain why you did that? The below definitions from Wiki might help you.

A world view is (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view)

"A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.”

A belief system is (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system)

“A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise)”

“(well, our Stalinist teachers called it “scientific atheism”)”

Whoever “our Stalinist teachers” might be they are unimportant in regard to atheism freely chosen in a democracy. Why would you make such a 'Stalinist' reference when it is totally out of context for contemporary atheism? Can you elaborate thanks?

David

WmTrevor,
>>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 <<

I appreciate your mentioning “all parties”, apparently including those of an atheist persuasion, although one usually mocks a world-view subscribed to by a considerable number (not necessarily a majority) of contemporary scientists and other scholars if one does not understand what it is about, and is not wise enough to admit it.

True, human beings may abound
Who growl at things beyond their ken,
Mocking the beautiful and good,
And all they haven't understood
(Johan Wolfgang Goethe, Faust)

WmTrevor,
>>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 <<

I appreciate your mentioning “all parties”, apparently including those of an atheist persuasion, although one usually mocks a world-view subscribed to by a considerable number (not necessarily a majority) of contemporary scientists and other scholars if one does not understand what it is about, and is not wise or honest enough to admit it.

True, human beings may abound
Who growl at things beyond their ken,
Mocking the beautiful and good,
And all they haven't understood
(Johan Wolfgang Goethe, Faust)

Enjoyed the Faust, George…

Thanks for noticing, 'all parties' does include "those of an atheist persuasion" – even including some of my closest friends who claim to be of the atheist persuasion even though they don't believe in the existence of the right god.

Dear George,

Thank you for your considered reply.

I'm sorry my post seemed light on definitives. I construct far too many on an iphone and as a consequence they often suffer from a lack of both clarity and revision. Anyway it was an earthy response, probably not quite in the vein of the high thought going into some of the very good posts being contributed here.

So the fault of you so totally misinterpreting my point lies entirely with me, well perhaps a little defensiveness from yourself contributed a touch (“You seem to compare the presence of Christianity, proselytized or not, to that of leeches.”) but from your posts I see you are a thoughtful person taking the time to understand and reply to people's contributions so I am shouldering the blame on this one.

Therefore I will attempt to be as definitive as possible.

Do I “agree that not only those of the “secular community” but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?”. No. But do I want either side to stop? Not on your life!

I have stood up in church full of a couple of hundred fundamentalist Christians and challenged their stance on homosexuality. Was I more than a little toey? You betcha. Having spent a brief time in my teenage years as one of them I know the thrill of proselytizing to an unreceptive audience. It adds so much to the experience. Its kind of like the reason people pay to go on roller coasters. The buzz is a drug. If you need to know why creationism is so persistent just watch a lone 'Born Again' stick his hand up in a Biology class in a secular school and challenge the notion of evolution. Only the blind can not see how much of a life affirming experience that can be.

These are the juices of life and should be denied to none.

Cont..

Cont..

On a different thread I spoke of one of my favourite maxims from dear Ogden - “Life begins at the end of your comfort zone”. The leeches certainly put us hikers at the edge of our comfort zones but it made the day far more memorable than a hundred uneventful saunders at the local park. These were not Christians I was alluding to per say but ideas or notions that challenge, bring discomfort or even repel. Each of us have our lists but who wants to live in a world where all are excluded? It is like three people in a cell where one gets the others to agree not to discuss religion, another nominates talk of sex as forbidden, and the last politics.

So when you ask “Can we also “want our fellow citizens (including atheists) to respect our deeply held conviction that the belief in God (usually, but not always, accompanied by a belief in “afterlife”) lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth”? Again the answer is no but I love the fact you have it.

What I object to though is the notion that moral truths derived from the scriptures are only available to those who believe. So when you write; “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” I respectfully submit you display a form of religious chauvanism that really challenges any call for respect.

This is a post I wrote to davidf quite a few years ago about an interpretation of the story of Abraham.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2994#70786

While the post its self is not of any great import the notion that you would seek to firewall such an important part of the Western canon from moral discussion and reflection by us secularists is unwelcome.

Anyway you might find this Huffington Post piece relevant to your thread.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jaweed-kaleem/louie-giglio-replacement-evangelicals-inauguration-benediction_b_2451435.html