bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> muttered :

Well if a point is made that makes the reader feel inferior it cannot
be avoided. For example of someone is claiming Chritisnity is a sound
intelligent form of belief and i then post this:.....

The universe revolves around the earth.
Stars are pinpricks in the heavens.
The world is flat (and on pillars)
Bats are a kind of bird.
Rabbits chew their cud.
There is enough water to flood the entire planet
Women were created from a man's rib
Rainbows are a promise from God

[Acknowledgements to 'James, Seattle']

........the reader my then feel lacking somewhat. If we are to avoid
this then better shut down these ng's altogether.

I'm not concerned about whether a point makes someone feel inferior. If
it does, then it's generally up to that person to work out WHY they feel
inferior.

But the point I was actually making is quite well illustrated here. You
seem to be implying that Christians believe all of the above statements.
Now, it may be that Christians in earlier times have believed them.
Certainly in the case of the first three these have indeed been
established models of the universe. But most Christians now know as well
as you do that that's not how things work - and these are *not* required
tenets of the Christian faith. So, a reader knowing that might be
inclined to consider it a little disingenuous to represent these - even
if only by implication - as standard beliefs of Christians; especially if
you're going to use that false premise as a basis for a claim that
Christians are stupid or insane.

Other examples in your list are little more shady. For sure, many people
insist that the Flood occurred and covered the whole Earth. These are
literalists, though, and again, they don't represent the entirety of
Christianity. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that most modern Christians
think of the Flood story (and many other Bible stories, in fact) as
metaphor and mythology.

So your argument from the above is that Christians are stupid or deluded
because they believe the above. But the vast majority of them don't.
So, do you now accept that Christians aren't the idiots you might take
them for? Or do you remain undeterred and start looking for other
reasons why they might be idiots? Are you, in short, proceeding from
premises to a logical conclusion; or are you starting with the conclusion
you want and looking for premises that seem to fit?

I think i have, My main one is that in this nuclear age the next world
war may well be fought by nations who follow differing beliefs wiping
out millions in the name of imaginary deities.

It may well be. I don't claim, and never have claimed, that there aren't
atrocities committed in the name of religion. My position is that it is
not (usually) religion that CAUSES these things. It is almost invariably
the excuse, rather than the cause. It may be that in the Middle East the
line is not so clear - but then, very few things ARE clear in the Middle
East.

I don't think that religion as a concept is the enemy some people make it
out to be. I think that's a simplification, which of course is why it's
favoured by so many - easy options are commonly preferred. Our enemy
isn't belief. It's fanaticism. It's zealotry. It's bigotry; it's
hatred and greed. And so on. Characteristics that are common to humans
in any given grouping, religious or not. The implication amongst those
opposed to religion is that, if one waved some sort of magic wand and
made religion go away, suddenly we'd all get along just fine. I would
consider that at best optimistic and at worst blind faith in something
for which there's no objective evidence: some basic, fundamental morality
in the human species.

I don't think there's any reason to suppose that if religion was removed
we'd suddenly all stop killing each other. I think we'd just have to
look for another excuse.

If you attack 'religion', then, you should take into account the full
range of the word 'religion';

atheists deny all gods. It is just that the Christian one appears
here more than others

Well, that's probably so - and I am in alt.religion.christian so I'm
quite willing to accept that when 'God' is mentioned without
qualification it's probably the Christian God who's being referred to.

We've talked before about what an anti-religionist (and I say that simply
in order to distinguish those who actively oppose religion rather than
simply not believing in it) means when s/he says 'religion'. Where I
have problems is where simplistic arguments are employed (such as the
presumption of stupidity or mental defect, as above); and where arguments
specific to Christianity are used to oppose 'religion' as a whole, when
the word 'religion' actually covers a huge range of concepts, many of
which are completely alien to Christianity or the other Abramic faiths.

the vast array of different kinds of belief
and the different concepts of 'gods', or 'divinity', or 'faith'.
This should be rather than attacking 'religion' based on a
familiarity, and disagreement, with Christianity, what the Bible
says,

Why? that old book is chock full of contradictions

Sure - it may well be. And I'm not here to defend it. Why should I?
It's not my book. Again, my argument is that while biblical
contradictions are fine as challenges for Christianity, they don't
suffice as arguments against *religion*.

what Jesus says,

see above. nothing to prove 'He' is anything other than a fable

Maybe; maybe not. That's beside the point. But you see how you're
picking up on these throwaway references to things Christian? Even
though it's pretty clear from context why I mentioned them, and that it's
quite clear I wasn't personally expressing any sort of belief in them,
you still seem unable to let them pass without jumping on them.

It ' - science saw to that long ago

Indeed it did. And again, you make particularly sure to address this,
even though you're essentially challenging something I haven't said.

That's exactly the sort of thing that makes me question what your issue
really is. Certainly you might reject all gods - and that's fine. But
your actual animonsity seems to be concentrated on Christianity
particularly - and, I'll venture, a rather specific form of Christianity,
at that.

It's more a matter of those who can or will only see in either/or
terms. "With me or against me".

bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> muttered :

Well if a point is made that makes the reader feel inferior it cannot
be avoided. For example of someone is claiming Chritisnity is a sound
intelligent form of belief and i then post this:.....

The universe revolves around the earth.
Stars are pinpricks in the heavens.
The world is flat (and on pillars)
Bats are a kind of bird.
Rabbits chew their cud.
There is enough water to flood the entire planet
Women were created from a man's rib
Rainbows are a promise from God

[Acknowledgements to 'James, Seattle']

........the reader my then feel lacking somewhat. If we are to avoid
this then better shut down these ng's altogether.

I'm not concerned about whether a point makes someone feel inferior.
If it does, then it's generally up to that person to work out WHY they
feel inferior.

But the point I was actually making is quite well illustrated here. You
seem to be implying that Christians believe all of the above statements.
Now, it may be that Christians in earlier times have believed them.
Certainly in the case of the first three these have indeed been
established models of the universe. But most Christians now know as well
as you do that that's not how things work - and these are *not* required
tenets of the Christian faith. So, a reader knowing that might be
inclined to consider it a little disingenuous to represent these - even
if only by implication - as standard beliefs of Christians; especially if
you're going to use that false premise as a basis for a claim that
Christians are stupid or insane.