I've learned over the few years I've had on this Earth that some conversations are really not worth having. Bel did come through on the book list though!

In times like these I reflect on the wise words of fellow human being Seylee when he wrote "NBMNBMB" If you're not moved to tears and can see the folly of your arguments, I'm not sure what would do it.

And I'm sure you'd have retorts for every single point that I could make. And I'm sure I would disagree with every one of those retorts. BTW, you ever make that book list up for me?

Happy birthday to BOTH Nietzsche and Foucault. Something freaky about October 15...

Ego, if you start a thread and construct an argument about why we "should resent religion" more than we already do, I promise to read it carefully.

What he fails to consider if that a lot of us probably did, at one time, appreciate religion. That a lot of us have thought about these issues for YEARS on end. Bel is not telling us anything we havent heard before, though he's very convinced that he is.

Bel is one of those, "I don't believe, but I believe in belief" type of atheists, if he even is an atheist. The point is, nothing he's saying or doing is new - let's not pretend like it is. Ironically enough, Bel is stuck is his way of thinking as much as any of us are "stuck" in our ways. His way is that us atheists are often too harsh and should take more time to appreciate religion. His whole thing about "not knowing" what he believes is a facade, I presume.

Nothing Bel does or says is anything new. He quotes old school Christian apologists and rehashes old, tired arguments that we've seen on this forum time and time again. I think Bel is a somewhat educated person, but that doesn't necessarily translate to stronger ideas or thoughts on a certain subject.

Ever think that maybe we should resent religion? That religion is a huge part of what is wrong with this world? Maybe you're stuck in your ways as much as the people who you claim are stuck in theirs.

gigo

Groups like this die and decay away when they become echo chambers, they become dull duds not worthy of any time or commitment. We should commend rare but insightful posters critical of prevailing wisdom, challenge our assumptions and beliefs. We don't need to agree with them, but they at least say things worth listening too.

I don't get why Belaqua get's so much flack, He's one of the few people here who generally thinks outside of the box, impervious to the sort of the group think common to internet groups. He views on religions, lack the sort of resentment and contempt many intern atheists view religion through. Even if you don't agree with his view, they should still be valued, because of they allow of us to think of things differently, than the box we're most comfortable with.

Mhmmmm

Supercilious false modesty of the greasy proselytizer coming up

@Belaqua Since you seem to know so much more about Christianity than the rest of us, I really want to know, what exactly should we study to be as educated as you are? Can you send me a book list?

Commercial break:

According to Holland, what's not Christian about preChristian ideals and beliefs? And what exactly is Christian about the Crusades? I see secularism as a response to centuries of religious rule but it need not have been Christian. Secular Christianity necessarily must be Christian, I suppose, but not secularism in general.

So as always, I think we shouldn't accept any book as absolutely true, but take from them what is provocative or different, so we can contemplate it. For example, this book claims that seeing the world in extreme black and white terms, assuming that we are the ones who are awoken to truth, and passing judgment on those who hold different beliefs, is primarily a Christian habit. Which makes my critics here very Christian in their approach.

@Grandizer, Yes, your opinion matters! I'm not saying the book is infallible, only that its' something worth discussing. He does acknowledge that the elements of Christianity derived from earlier sources, of course. Everything comes from somewhere. He would argue, though, that the dominance of Christianity for so long affects us more than we know. Including your use of the word "secular," a distinction which he claims pre-Christian people wouldn't have made.