George,

But you were not convinced atheists had a ‘belief’ system in that post. You said to pelican, “(you use the term “belief system”, that is OK with me,” That indicates it is OK with you but it is not your opinion. So I ask again, why did you use the term as though you agree with it? That doesn't make any kind of rational sense.

Marx-Leninism is a communist ideology; resulting in a tyranny by Stalin who forced atheism onto the population. He could just as easily have installed the Force from Star-Wars. This says nothing about atheism or the Force.

Yes, there can be subtle differences between ‘belief systems’ and ‘world views’. The belief systems and world view of religions are nearly one and the same and with Islam for example they are inseparable. I say again, atheism doesn't have a belief system and atheism is incorporated into the world view of the atheists.

Without the weight of religious tenets/mores/traditions distorting rational thought, atheist can make decisions, not because of atheism but because such decisions are rationally justified. Atheism itself has little to do with it. If religion didn't exist, there would be no atheism and the same decisions resulting from logical conclusion would be the norm. It doesn't require someone to be an atheist to make coherent choices.

Using personal experience that others might not know of is not good enough when it creates a false picture of a group of people not deserving of such appalling underhanded criticism.

Why use such unedifying ambiguity when it is common knowledge there is already confusion existing in the public mind regarding atheism which is plainly exemplified on this and other forums. Was it, as I have pointed out, just sloppy wording or was there intent to deceive? As with everyone else, I’m only reading words that are less than helpful in discussions about atheism and therefore the question as to why those words and concepts were chosen is a very valid one. You have not answered that adequately.

(Continued next post)

(Continued from last post)

Are you following the not unusual practice amongst religious writers, but not all, in making a case against atheism no matter how much a negligibly tenuous connection there exists with the idea behind such wording but it is still exaggerated in the pejorative sense to falsely show atheism in a bad light? It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that this kind of disingenuous communication is actually, ‘lying for Jesus’. I’ll assume your wording was just sloppy thinking and writing.

And if you think I am being too harsh, then what messages do you think the reader absorbed by your post on these matters? Were there negative or positive ideas about atheism taken on board?

I really am looking forward to your reply.

David

Dear George,

You wrote;

“Thanks for continuing to describe your motivations. I take it that your answer to both of my questions was NO, although the first one asked whether people of religious persuasion should be afraid to proselytize and not whether you wanted them to stop, and the second asked whether you respected their conviction and not whether you loved them for it.”

Actually your first question asked if I 'agree that not only those of the “secular community” but also of other, religious, persuasions should NOT be fearful of seeming to proselytize.' Quite different, and may I say what a very 'capital C' Christian response. 'Do you believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savour? Yes or No answers please, we will have none of your nuances or caveats here lad. Black and white is all we require.'

I submit the time when the Christian Church was underground it was at its most alive and vibrant yet the period when the authority of the Church was absolute saw it at its most stulifying. If you go into most churches in Australia it is the stories of persecutions of Christians in other countries with tales of those who refuse to renounce their faith in the face of intimidation that garner the most empathy and emotion.

The amazing rise of the 'house churches' in present day China is an example. Their clandestine nature surely adds to the allure. Indeed the whole story of the Passion is drenched in fear and the different responses to it from the players. Contrast Christ's actions, so deeply resolute in his faith (well until the end), with Peter's who thrice denied him.

The lad who sticks his hand up in the Biology class to challenge a teaching on evolution sees himself in Christ's image. Fear needing to be conquered is an essential part of package otherwise there is no connection worth speaking of. If you wish the best for your faith perhaps you might embrace it a little.

Cont..

Cont..

Yet a secular society allows for these views to have expression and it is hardly going to impose the restrictions of a communist society and expect to retain the label 'secular'.

I would agree that it is more difficult for a practising Christian to avail themselves of what I see as the vast treasures of the Old Testament than a non-practising one because a hell of a lot of stuff gets in the way, but that doesn't mean you should not try. I count Job as one of the great works of literature. Its evocative description of the developing relationship between a man and his God is top notch stuff. I have discussed it in the past.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2912

So when you write;
“Well, if you call chauvinism my conviction that to understand what the bible is saying to contemporary Christians you have to know something about biblical exegesis, or that to really understand what quantum physics is all about you have to know some mathematics, then be it, call me chauvinist.”

Chauvinist! ;)

I too have no formal religious education but that doesn't preclude me diving in head first. The great thing about the scriptures is the fact they have been able to move, inspire, educate and deliver to generation after generation without the need for pontifications from biblical scholars, or perhaps even despite them. My take on Abraham may well be just one interpretation, but it is mine and therefore unique. I venture the same is true for Job.

There is a game I play with those who too readily dismiss the claim a God created universe. I ask if they totally reject the notion of any outside intervention having occurred. When they say yes I say the following;

“So you believe that if you leave hydrogen atoms alone long enough they will one day wonder where they came from!”

A brief pause then the admission comes that 'Yes I suppose I do'. Therein lies the miracle of creation, a wonder to behold, and you don't need to know much about “quantum physics” to appreciate it.

David (of AFoA),

>>But you were not convinced atheists had a ‘belief’ system<<

I am not sure what it means atheists “have” a belief system. Please read my post again. Maybe you have a problem with the term “belief” which you associate with religious faith only. In my dictionary, belief is “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists; something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction”. This, of course, includes religious as well as other beliefs.

Every thinking being, including atheists, has a belief system - well, often just a collection of beliefs not organised in a system - which he/she bases his/her thinking on. It is concerned with the person’s basic existential outlook and forms the rational backbone of his/her world-view. Such a belief is for instance Bertrand Russels’ “I believe that when I die that I shall rot and nothing of my ego shall survive” in his “What I believe”.

>> Are you following the not unusual practice amongst religious writers, but not all, in making a case against atheism no matter how much a negligibly tenuous connection there exists with the idea behind such wording but it is still exaggerated in the pejorative sense to falsely show atheism in a bad light? <<

I am not aware of having made a case against atheism, or showing it in a bad light, certainly not on this thread, unless you consider intolerance towards other world-views part of atheism.

Dear csteele,

Sorry for the confusion due also to the clumsy formulation of the question. So I understand now that your answer to my first question was NO: you don’t agree that also those of religious persuasions, should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize, meaning you think they should be fearful. I admit, the question

Thanks for the rest of your post. So - if I didn’t misunderstand you again - you believe in a God-Creator, and accept the Scripture as a source of wisdom if properly interpreted. This we have in common and I think this is more important than the other things we might disagree on. As for those, I appreciate your sincerity, though I am not sure how, if at all, you expect me to respond.