Hi Doug,

>Peter,
>
>>>Peter,
>>>
>>>>>Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>>You are correct sir! <s>
>>>>>
>>>>>Making an assertion is not the same as talking at (berating?) someone.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am making an assertion I believe to be true. If it isn't please show me. I don't mind being wrong at all.
>>>>
>>>>Doug, it's okay then. For one moment I thought that you had certain persons here in mind... <s>
>>>>
>>>>I think your assertionS indeed ask for some reactions.
>>>>
>>>>First, I get suspicious when you write 'forced secularism'. It sounds asif you think secularism is an evil thing.
>>>
>>>Well, on a philosophical and spiritual level I actually do think it is evil. From what I have seen in cultures that embrace this thinking I see an emptiness unlike I have seen elsewhere. That however does not give me the right to mistreat anyone though.
>>
>>I found two definitions of secularism. I was referring to the second one. You too?
>>1) Religious skepticism or indifference.
>>2) The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
>
>Hmm.. Well, I would probably agree that #2 is the one I'd have troubles with. Here's the 'rub' for me Peter.. I understand and accept that others will have different positions, including secular humanism, than I may have. I would no more want to try and force someone to convert to Christianity as I would to have tnem convert to secularism, Hinduism, Islam, ect. I want the same rights as anyone else but in the USA Christians are just about the only group that can be made fun of, discriminated against pushed out of the public square and where it can be gotten away with. Not in all case but increasingly so.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Second, some atheists spend so much effort over something they don't believe in, because they have this view of (fundamental) religion as dangerous and harmful to the world. They are worried!
>>>
>>>What in the world are they afraid of and what are they worried about? Anyone who would want to force someone to believe as they do (and as has been done in the name of Christ - sadly) is NOT representing Christianity faithfully. Not at all.
>>
>>Are you saying here that atheists need not be afraid and worried? I agree that, in the West, most christian movements have been peaceful and have respected secularism (2nd definition) this last century. But the situation seems to have changed lately. Militant movements gain power and I think that an atheist reaction is the logical consequence.
>
>Well, to the degree that someone would lose their constitutional rights (being a literalist here <g>) I would agree. And, to be 100% honest, a lot of today's Christians are really, well, stupid, in the way they behave themselves. Same for a lot of others. Stupidity isn't bound to any artificial barriers. <g>
>
>>In the 20th century de-churching (I hope you understand what I try to communicate here; it is a literal translation of the Dutch word 'ontkerkelijking') has been huge. The opinion of atheists was that factors like science, education and television would be enough and that religion would become a minor factor in society, largely limited to the personal life space. But we are now in the 21th century and it looks like there is a revival of religion, esp. of fanatic, militant religion. Personally, I think it is a final, desperate attempt of those in power in the religious institutions to regain momentum. They have a lot to loose if de-churching continues.
>>Nevertheless, it IS important (from an atheists point of view) to react NOW, while it is not yet too late. And although the reaction is in essence targeted toward militant movements, it is done by trying to convince as many people as possible that there is not such an entity as a God. Perhaps this is a flaw in the atheists' strategy. Perhaps they should focus on a strategy that deals solely with the militants. And perhaps the peaceful movements too should target their focus onto the militant movements, and start criticizing them. And perhaps we should cooperate in this 'battle'.
>
>Well, depsnds, I suppose on your definition of 'fanatic' or 'militant'. I'd be interested in how you define the concepts.

Fanatic: radical, dogmatist, extreme, sectarian, obsessed
Militant: aggressive, offensive, domineering, forceful, coercive, violent

>I do NOT have any problem with, for example, some folks setting up a public musical event and inviting people to attend and giving an invitation to accept Christ. But, if there was any duplicity I'd disapprove.
>
>I don't see it as desperation in the larger sense though I am quite sure some are indeed desperate. There are events going on in the world today that would lead many to believe we are at the end of man's governance of man. Whole entire new discussion here. <g> I do believe that Jesus will return and sooner than many might think. I've been studying this for 30+ years and I can guarantee you there is soeme interesting evidence and events that are happening here. Even the war in Iraq has its reasons I would think.

I must admit that I sometimes have phantasies, like a huge message in the skies all over the world, accompanied by a gigantic voice. And that all people in the world then finally unite, knowing how wrong they were until then. But, to be honest, it are phantasies that are typical for children of a certain age, and these days they are discarded by me after a couple of seconds.
I wonder how you imagine the return of Jesus, and when and how that would influence the world.


>As far as this being a 'battle', in one sense I would agree, but promarily in the spiritual realm. There is no need for Christians to violate anyone's conscience or for athiests to do the same.

Doug, you consequently write 'athiests'. How can I take your views on atheists serious if you can't even spell the word correctly?

>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Third, some atheists (antitheists, so to speak) are like the Christian missionary, but on the other pole. If Christians want the right to try to convert people, then atheists also claim that right.
>>>
>>>*chuckle* Go for it. <g> I LIKE a good, honest healthy debate! As long as everyone follows the rules.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fourth reaction, I agree if you state that there should be no force (to convert or to silence) applied by atheists. But I think you have made wrong observations if you think that certain atheists try exactly that.
>
>I do not. That is also not to say that all athiests DO want to silence 'unbelievers' either.
>
>>>
>>>Well, I would beg to differ.. China, USSR, Cuba, France to a lessor degree and elsewhere around this globe HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people were slaughtered because they would not give up their faith in God. No offense but the facts are that in th elast 100 years more Christians have been martyred for their faith than all other centuries combined.
>>
>>THOSE certain atheists have indeed tried to force atheism and made many many victims. It were the militants amongst the atheists and they have also suppressed peaceful religious movements. Think of the way the people of Tibet were treated by the Chinese communists. The only militant type of atheism that I approve of, is the type that targets at the militant theists.
>
>Well, my point is that the very logical consequences of athiestic though will eventually lead to the dimunition of humanity. I know that may sound harsh but it is the logical result. Look, if you teach people that everything is based upon the survival of the fittest what is wrong for the powerful to 'squish' the less fortunate?

That sounds harsh and it is harsh indeed. And your logic is not mine. First, 'survival of the fittest' is a theory only, not necessarily the core of the standards and values of atheists and humanists. Second, altruistic, fair and cooperative behavior is not a bad idea in the context of the 'survival of the fittest' theory. Humans live in herds because it is advantageous. Actually, cities, companies, governments, and so on, they are the result of our insight that we can have a better life (that is, survive better) if we cooperate and be fair to each other. Truly no belief in any God is required.


>My point is that our thinking influences our behavior.
>
>>
>>
>>>Now, has 'the church' done much better over the centuries? NO, not at all. Neither has Islam. Or some others.
>>>
>>>Look at the title of this thread. <g> When we were going to high school it wa sok to have a Bible club or Bible studies on the lawn at lunch. Now, no way. You should study up a little on Sanger & Dewey.
>>
>>I live in Holland. No such high school activities were/are happening here in public school. I haven't missed them.
>
>Like the blind hasn't missed color? <bg>
>
>Best,
>
>DD
>
>PS - Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

Now I don't know how to reply. :)