Nice try, mhaze.

<<I say proven/disproven, you say discredited.>>

“Disproven” is better, and is what I usually say. Why, it was my word of choice in my response to o sung wu:

“As I was saying to mhaze, that depends on which god you're talking about. The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent Abrahamic god can be disproved…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251963)

I never try to reframe arguments. This is just another one of your dishonest smears. You tried it on at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241990 and it flopped there, too. It's a common tactic of yours, isn't it? Try to make it look like your opponent regularly engages in some sort of dishonest activity. You tried it on with my pointing out of fallacies, until it became abundantly clear that you were getting nowhere with it.

<<... how do you discredit something that doesn't exist? And/or how do you discredit an omniscient being?>>

By explaining how it can't exist. Do I need to explain to you why an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent good cannot exist in a world where so much evil and suffering exists?

<<A whiff of paranoia there, AJ?>>

No, I was just wondering which, if any, of your accusations were directed at me, since none of them applied to me, so that I could expose them for the BS that it was. After all, there were far too many accusations there to apply to just one or two people. Looks like I was right, though, and - like the slanderous, mendacious coward that you are - you are opting to keep the objects of your accusations vague.

<<I noticed the same thing t'other day when I wrote a general post that you assumed was directed specifically at you.>>

Oh please, mhaze. Tell me to whom, and with regards to what exactly, was that comment directed.

<<... look back through the posts here which are liberally sprinkled with words like "idiot", superstition", "nonsense", requests for "objective evidence" etc.>>

Firstly, requesting objective evidence for a god is not unreasonable when one is being told that they should find this god.

Continued…

...Continued

Secondly, this hardly justifies your very specific accusations. Some of which contained assumptions about what others believe.

<<As I said, there are some (many?) who'll treat unproven theories (eg AGW, DarkMatter/Energy, Big Bang and a host of other best-guesses) as though they are established fact ...>>

There is at least evidence for those other things you mention. There is no evidence for deities. Your analogy is flawed.

<<My point was that we need Christians to continue to be Christian and to act in a Christian manner …>>

What constitutes a “Christian manner” is constantly evolving, and, as Toni pointed out, this is not always desirable.

<<What the churches think about stem cells is an entirely separate issue ...>>

... and what Christians think of stem cell research, the two are not mutually exclusive.

<<... the church isn't the same as Christianity.>>

Technically, no. One is a belief system, the other is an institution. However, the Church reflects the beliefs of the individuals within it, even if there is sometimes a little lag.

<<And you should never forget that those doing the dragging were also Christian …>>

More so in the past, when lower levels of education and a lack of knowledge with regards to the biological sciences compelled people to opt for supernatural explanations for origins.

<<And you should never forget that the Enlightenment happened in, and only in, Christian societies.>>

Indeed it did. So what?

<<I was talking about … [t]he civilisation we inherited from the mixing of Greek empiricism, rationalism and science, Roman rule of law, work ethic and individuality and Christian values.>>

Yes, I understand that. I have a good understanding of how Christian principles enabled principles in law. They teach you it in law school.

However, the rest of your posts consist of a lot of assumptions, conjecture, and supposition (far too much to address here), to which I would refer you back to the quote I provided you with. Your fears and assumptions fail to consider all factors.

mhaze wrote: “In this regard I was talking about individuals such as NNS, not the various organisations that claim to speak for Christians and the Christian God.” In the above mhaze has made a critical distinction. We can call religion the organised actions of a group or a body representing that group. We can call religiosity the feelings and acts of an individual identifying with such a group. Religion can cause humans to unite to massacre or to build a hospital or school. Religiosity can give one the quiet courage to deal with danger or the arrogance to try to push one’s belief on others. O sung wu wrote of the religiosity of his colleague and its giving him strength to deal with matters. “I recall years later we had to do a building entry (police), in order to arrest a known fugitive who we'd suspected of being armed. My No, 2 on 'the key' (copper speak) always without fail, crossed himself like a Catholic, moments before he 'swung' the key. The whole squad had frequently seen him do this, but were not of a mind to ask him (privacy and his 'short fuse') because it was considered deeply personal. Some time later, after 'stand-down' from another job, and over a beer I decided to enquire why he did it. He astounded me with his quiet, even gentle answer, he simply stated, he believed in God. Even though I was his sergeant, I wasn't going to encourage him to elaborate any further with his answer, otherwise I might find myself flat on my face sucking up concrete, or worse. The 36 months I did with the squad, this S/C continued to persevere with this practice. And why not? I don't believe in any of his Christian beliefs, but that's me - Let's live and let live I say.” I can only admire the religiosity of o sung wu’s colleague and o sung wu’s attitude of “- Let's live and let live”. Continued

Continued

However, that is not the same as what Not_Now.Soon has done. He has assumed that what is good for him is good for other people. He does not believe in “Let's live and let live”. He wants to push his belief system on others. There is too much of this in our world. Not_Now.Soon also had the arrogance to assume I did not buy his belief system because I did not know about it. One cannot live in a largely Christian world without being subject to the attention of Christian missionaries of which Not_Now.Soon appears to be one. I have not met one who does not assume that the subject of their unwelcome attention does not know about Christianity. It is impossible to live in a largely Christian and be unaware of the mind-numbing nature of the religion.

I see history as very different from the way mhaze sees it. I see Christianity as the greatest man made disaster visited on our society. In the classical world there were a number of pagan faiths which in general were tolerant of each other and did not demand exclusivity. There were the great philosophies of Stoicism, Epicureanism and Cynicism. Stoicism encouraged one not to allow an unpleasant external reality to affect one’s inner composure. Epicureanism advocated seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. It saw pleasure in moderating one’s desires, seeking friendship and enjoying the working of one’s intellect. Cynicism saw doubt as more worthwhile than faith as it is the beginning of knowledge.

Then disaster struck. With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire the Dark Ages rapidly followed. Christianity with its opposition to questioning and its support of the divine right of the ruler was an ideal religion for serving the powers-that-be. Renaissance reconnected with the pre-Christian world and along with Enlightenment encouraged humanity to free itself from the grasp of Christian tyranny.

Continued

continued

One of the works I have read on Christianity is MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity”.

Two quotations from that work:


“For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found
space to serve its own theological and social purposes.” P. 4



“I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species.” P. 11

Thanks for that, david f. Well put.

--

mhaze,

Could you specify to which Christian values you refer, and how exactly they were necessary? I mean something unique to Christianity, not just a universal principle hijacked by Christianity, like the golden rule. The last time I asked, you never specified which values you were referring to.

I know of several pertaining to principles of law where Enlightenment figures appealed to ideals found in Christianity (e.g. Locke on property), possibly just to lend their ideas some authority in more superstitious times (a possibility you've overlooked).

I want to see if you actually have anything specific in mind, or are just repeating exaggerated claims repeated ad nauseum in conservative and nationalist circles.