Video About Problems With Atheism

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And you are a perfect example of a theist who, given (hypothetically) undeniable proof that God doesn't exist, would immediately turn to raping, pillaging and killing. While I, and others like me would be the ones to step up and try to stop you.

And this is what you are admitting about the seat of your "virtue." Basically... you're admitting that you have NONE - except when you believe God demands it of you. I, on the other hand, experience my virtue as a part of me, my virtue and I are inseparable.

Agreed.

I don't call obedience moral behavior, and certainly not when done thinking that one is being observed and will be punished for disobedience and rewarded for doing what a humanist does for no acknowledgement or reward.

In my years living in the rural heartland of America, I would often encounter a turtle crossing the county road, would pull over, and carry it the rest of the way across the road. Too many of the locals liked to aim for them, and I hated seeing their destroyed carcasses smeared over the road, so I took a moment to protect them.

One day, I became overwhelmed by the sudden realization that I was being a god for this poor creature. This act was grounded in a sense of connection to earth and the lives on it, an act that was unseen and that would never be known to anyone else. At that moment, I made that small corner of the universe my responsibility for no better reason that that I felt compassion for this creature and understood my connectivity to it and that if the situation had been reversed, I would have hoped that it would have done the same for me were it in its power. No god or other man was involved.

It caused a shiver to run down my spine that I have never forgotten. Had I had been a Christian, I would have assumed that I was being watched, and hoped to be credited for my choice like a dog running an agility course and expecting a treat to be thrown to it for jumping through a hoop.

You might like this:

"Atheist are routinely asked how people will know not to rape and murder without religion telling them not to do it, especially a religion that backs up the orders with threats of hell. Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you're trying to argue from a position of moral superiority." - Amanda Marcotte

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From this I see that you still don't understanding atheism, nor humanism.

How can they? If you've spent your entire life believing that you are expected to follow an external moral source, you can't develop an internal moral compass. We see that regularly here from those that wonder what stops us from berserking. Such people are telling us that they have no concept of how people like you and I think and feel - what we want, what matters to us, and what motivates us.

It reminds me of my childhood. I remember asking my father why men got married, since from my perspective, it just mean having to support wives. I had no concept of mature love or sexual attraction, without which, the choice seemed irrational and counterproductive.

Dad told me that I wasn't prepared yet to understand. Later, I did. This is analogous. Without that internal moral compass that rewards right behavior as one understands it, and leaves one with a sense of guilt for defying it, how could the theists know what stops secular humanists from slitting one another's throats.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

anything goes as long as you have enough power or don't get caught.

And there it is.

 

[Augustus]

But not women. Or slaves.

The Greek worldview was one of a natural inequality:

Whether as magistrate, priest or warrior, the citizen’s actions were deemed to incorporate a powerful rationality. His actions were proper responses to the claims of the city and its gods. Decisions by the assembly of citizens allowed for no independent review. The idea of individual rights was absent. Social subordinates were, after all, not deemed to be fully rational. No doubt women, merchants and slaves had important social functions, but their minds did not rise to the public sphere and its concerns. Instead, gossip, mercenary calculation and uncomplaining obedience were their respective lots.

We are encountering a conception of ‘reason’ very different from that of the modern world, for it ‘carried’ within it hierarchical assumptions about both the social and the physical world.
Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism - L Siendetop

It took the rational ethics of humanism to correct those errors of Christianity.

Most of the things you credit to humanism significantly predate humanism.

What is 'rational' depends on your worldview. For the ancient Greeks it was rational to believe in the fundamental inequality of people.




Paul overturns the assumption of natural inequality by creating an inner link between the divine will and human agency. He conceives the idea that the two can, at least potentially, be fused within each person, thereby justifying the assumption of the moral equality of humans...

Now, the identity of individuals is no longer exhausted by the social roles they happen to occupy. A gap opens up between individuals and the roles they occupy. That gap marks the advent of the new freedom, freedom of conscience. But it also introduces moral obligations that follow from recognizing that all humans are children of God.

This rudimentary equality, along with a new, progressive, approach to history; universalism; humility as a virtue; etc. were a fundamental change in the way people looked at the world. The vehicle by which such ideas were spread was Christianity, and while in theory they could have come from another source, we only have one history to go by and there is no logical reason to believe they must necessarily occur as they are based on myth rather than objective fact.

Over time such views evolved and adapted and took on other influences, but the still remained as the foundation on which what you call 'rational ethics' were built. In most societies throughout history they would be considered decidedly irrational after all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In general though, Humanists like to think their ethics came from Reason or Greek Philosophy or Eastern Philosophy or 'anything but Christianity', but they do have an unmistakable Christian heritage.

I say it's the other way around: Humanism informs Christianity.

Look at how many horrible idea Christianity has brought us that are now just disregarded thanks to rational ethics. How about "Blessed are the meek"? The meek are invertebrates. The polite, humble, and considerate can be virtuous, but the meek are doormats. Reason will tell you that that is bad advice.

Be strong. Be courageous. Be a man of principal. Meek is how a king likes his subjects, a slaver likes his slaves, and a selfish husband likes his wife.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The argument is an old one in that atheists do not believe in an afterlife and final judgment. Thus, anything goes as long as you have enough power or don't get caught.

And another.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think the video has any argument against atheism (of any kind) at all.

I've heard several of Jordan Peterson's lectures (he used to be featured fairly regularly on Big Ideas, back when it was still on the air). His objections to atheism and defenses of theism or religion always struck me as almost entirely irrelevant to the questions at hand: always going on about "the sacred" or "the transcendent" as if feelings of sacredness are somehow off-limits to atheists, or as if invoking a god somehow has something to do with transcendence in general. It's like he made a whole bunch of bad jumps to conclusions about the nature of theism and atheism and then used this as his starting point for discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One is with Karl Marx of which I have said atheism leads to communism many times.

Funny, since most of the really successful examples of communism have been religiously based.

 

[minorwork]

Humans live in much larger societies though. You need some kind of transcendent concepts (religion, nationalism, Humanity, etc.) to create some sense of kinship.

While societies don't necessarily need god-based myths, they do need their myths of some form.

Pheremones. The language of ants, which for the most part war with any other colony, enslave other ant colonies, farm fungus, and animals as well as have a "gypsy" lifestyle of constant movement in the Driver ants, how is this done without concepts of loyalty that inspire war and unity of tribe? Their environmental niche is different than ours not simpler. Some would make humans exclusively above animals and ants, but this is bigotry which tends in humans to take on racist, nationalistic, gender specific characterizations that are observed in ants as well. Attribute humans behaviors to transcendent concepts, then ants too, have a transcendent inspired behavior which by reason of the big difference in ant and human environmental niches, prevents us from understanding their rationality for behavior which we excuse by saying they act instinctually, but somehow humans are immunized against anything in our behavior attributing to instinct and instead hold transcendent concepts responsible. Be brave, call it instinct. We're not above animals. We ARE animals.

 

[Augustus]

but somehow humans are immunized against anything in our behavior attributing to instinct and instead hold transcendent concepts responsible. Be brave, call it instinct. We're not above animals. We ARE animals.

Animals that evolved to live in a very different environment to the one in which we currently reside.

The reason we live in this environment is because we were able to bind together increasingly large numbers of people who are not genetically related using abstract, transcendent, concepts to create an imaginary sense of kinship.

Fair enough our instincts are social, but they are also to be wary of/hostile to outsiders. We aren't bound to millions of people we have never met purely by instinct, we are bound by complex systems of myths that create our sense of identity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You and I have already had this discussion on another thread, and I think we exhausted the subject there. I am summarizing my position here - why I reject the claim that humanism is a byproduct of Christianity, and claiming instead that humanism is radically different from Christianity, and that it is humanism that is shaping Christianity now, not the other way around. It's a bit long, but I think I need to include dozens of examples to make my case.

‘The interiority of Christian belief – its insistence that the quality of personal intentions is more important than any fixed social rules – was a reflection of this. Rule following – the Hebraic “law” – was downgraded in favour of action governed by conscience. In that way, the Christian conception of God provided the foundation for what became an unprecedented form of human society.’ Christian moral beliefs emerge as the ultimate source of the social revolution that has made the West what it is...

That doesn't ring true, and evidence contradicts it.

The claim there is that Christian ethics evolved from a deontological ethical orientation (moral behavior is defined by obedience to a rule) to a virtue ethics (moral behavior is determined by the character and intent of the person acting) under the influence of the "Christian conception of God"

All one needs do is look at the same sex marriage issue to recognize that Christian ethics are still deontological. It is the humanist who says that he can see no reason why loving same sex couples that want the same protections and social status as married heterosexual couples shouldn't have them.

The Christian says that homosexuality violates God's law, and that makes it immoral. That's deontological ethics, in particular, the divine command theory of ethics that states that right and wrong is determined by God's commands and actions. If God does or commands it, it is good, right, moral and ethical to obey (submit), and the opposite if God forbids it. That's the most fundamental aspect of Christian ethics today as in biblical days.

If some Christians have different values - if they find no harm in same sex couples marrying - then they are reflecting a humanist influence. Humanism has shaped the expression of Christianity and helped inform the values of most individual Christians, not the other way around.

If a Christian supports the idea of church-state separation, he's embodying a humanist ideal. The church is still working assiduously to penetrate that wall where it can, and most Christians are anticipating an afterlife presided over by a god. There won't be much church-state separation there.

Or democracy. God doesn't hold elections or count hands. If a Christian supports a democratic form of government, he got that idea from humanist ethics, not his Bible.

If a Christian embraces reason over faith, he's embodying a humanist value. You simply won't find much praise of reason in the Bible, but faith is considered a cardinal virtue.

If a Christian says he accepts evolutionary theory, he got that idea from people who rejected the Christian creation story, not Christianity.

So who is influencing whom?


*********


Here are two mistakes commonly made in this debate:

[1] If a Christian does it, it must be due to his Christianity. I hope that I have just put that idea to bed. Because a Christian does it doesn't make it a result of Christianity.

[2] Because an idea or ideology takes hold in a predominantly Christian culture, it must be the fruit of Christianity, which paved the way for it. That is obviously not necessarily the case. Humanism is a reaction to Christian values - an alternative to them, not their offspring

The rise of science is a good example. As you and others have noted, it happened in the Christian West. Most if not all early scientists were devout Christians. Neither of these facts makes Christianity the source of the scientific revolution. Newton wasn't doing Christianity when he developed calculus, the laws of motion and of universal gravitation, optics. He was helping to pioneer a new way of thinking about and investigating reality

You and others have credited Christianity with the idea that nature might be comprehensible and obey regular laws that can be discovered, but that was an idea held by ancient Greek philosophers. That is the source of that idea in the Western intellectual tradition, not Christianity. Where do you find scriptural support for that idea?

My problem with this whole thesis of humanism arising from Christianity is that I don't recognize humanism - its metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics - when I look at the analogous aspects of Christianity.

The metaphysics of Christianity include a god, angels, an afterlife, a soul, miracles,answered prayer, heaven and hell. My metaphysics looks nothing like that.

The epistemology of Christianity is that faith is a virtue greater than reason, and that truth comes from the Bible.

We just discussed the conflicting ethical systems - divine command theory and deontological ethics versus rational ethics (the naturalistic application of reason to compassion with a not to utilitarianism and pragmatism).

Humanists and the church are struggling against one another in the news. Their values are antithetical. I simply don't recognize my belief system when I look at the Christian analog, and so I reject the notion that one was the child of the other.

You can tell me that my language derives from languages like Latin and German, and I can see that that is true by recognizing some of the words in those mother tongues.

From Latin: "pater, filius, spiritus sanctus." I can see English words there: paternal, filal, spiritual, and sanctified. I can see that one derives from the other.

From German: "Im nächsten jahr fahren wir zum ozean" - Next year, we are going to the ocean (note that nächsten is pronounced "nexten" and jahr "yarr"). I see my language again.

************

If you had been able to demonstrate that type of connection between Christianity and humanism - that kind of family resemblance - then you'd have had a good case.

But you can't. I simply don't recognize my values and other beliefs when I look at Christianity the way I recognize my language when I look at Latin and German. I see them being in conflict almost everywhere.

And where they are not in conflict, it's the Christians that have come over to the humanist conceptualization as I believe that I amply demonstrated above.

Where is the biblical support for the idea that we should have guaranteed rights such as freedom of worship and freedom of speech? The Bible commands us to worship a particular god, and forbids us to blaspheme it.

Where in Christianity do we find the idea that we have a right to the pursuit of happiness according to the individual conscience? The Bible commands us to live a religious life - one that wouldn't interfere with my pursuit happiness. I don't want to go to church, or pray, or tithe, or worship.

In Christianity, you go to hell for pursuing happiness as you see it. The church talks about free will a lot, but we can hear the undertones of warning about exercising it. One of the cardinal virtues of Christianity is submission, not the pursuit of happiness. How often is the exercise of free will in the pursuit of happiness, which might include premarital sex, for example, called an attempt to do whatever one wants, escape accountability, and make oneself a god?

I believe that I just demonstrated how alien the two ideologies are to one another and many fundamental ways in which they are antithetical. That doesn't go away by noting that a humanism has a notion of humanity, equality, or a universal belief system as does Christianity. Never mind that the universal belief systems are struggling against one another, and that the ideas about humanity are also in conflict. That's simply not a connection - a family resemblance.

As noted, they are struggling against one another for cultural hegemony. Humanism is a reaction to and rejection of Christianity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

However, even as a Christian I agree with you, in the USA with a 70% plus or minus fifteen points God believing population we have the highest violent crime rate among the first world nations. If Believing in God actually influenced behavior the USA murder rate would be lower than it is

Good for you for being willing to post that. Generally, I'm used to seeing that that is the result of removing prayer from school.

We also should note the difference between stated values and embodied values. It's fine to say that Jesus or the Bible teaches us such and such - such as to love one another or the Golden Rule - but I'd say that what is taught is what Christians are learning. I am reminded of this:

"You were hungry and thirsty, so I eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and food banks. You were a stranger, so I vilified you and demanded that you be deported. You were naked, so I called you an evil liberal who hates conservative family values. You were sick, so I repealed your only hope for health care. You were in prison, so I tortured you." - Matthw 25: 42-43 in The Conservative Bible

And who is standing in opposition to these values? People like me - a liberal humanist. In my opinion, we embody the values mentioned above more faithfully. The one who really does love his neighbor is the one willing to pay the taxes necessary to see that his neighbor and family don't go under for lack of health care, or his kids can't afford college. American Christians find it far too easy to accept conservative political values. You probably know that 81% of white evangelicals voted for the Republican candidate notwithstanding any number of ethical breaches they saw in him.

The video might have been about alleged problems with atheism, but the argument doesn't hold water, especially if you have to bring in unsavory ideas from atheists like Dostoevsky, Nietzche, and Rand to make your case, which are largely antithetical to humanist values.

Yes, those people expressed ideas that in my opinion are wrong-headed, but they never gained traction with humanists. How many of the atheists here are espousing ethical nihilism (anything goes) or the virtue of selfishness?

But isn't the speaker in the video suggesting that such a problem exists?

 

[Augustus]

I say it's the other way around: Humanism informs Christianity.
Look at how many horrible idea Christianity has brought us that are now just disregarded thanks to rational ethics.

Over time both have influenced each other. Neither exists in a vacuum and values are dynamic and negotiated. Humanism influenced nothing before it existed though and the numerous features it shares with with Christianity that are uncommon in most historical societies certainly didn't appear in Humanism first.

All forms of ethics decide what they consider important and then seek to achieve these ends, but the axioms for your 'rational ethics' are culturally conditioned values. Because they become so ingrained into culture and people's thought patterns, people often forget that most cultures throughout history have not shared many of these values and the only reason you hold them is because of the time and the place where you were born.

How about "Blessed are the meek"? The meek are invertebrates. The polite, humble, and considerate can be virtuous, but the meek are doormats. Reason will tell you that that is bad advice.

Be strong. Be courageous. Be a man of principal. Meek is how a king likes his subjects, a slaver likes his slaves, and a selfish husband likes his wife.

The sermon on the mount just makes me think of this

Anyway, meek probably meant something more like gentle, and given that Jesus and many early Christians were killed for opposing authority they seem to meet your person of principle criterion rather than being 'invertebrates'. Valuing humility and non-violence seems to be something that Humanists agree with, rather than militarism and honour based society that was common at the time.

Of course lots of bad ideas have been spread by Christianity though, it would be miraculous had a 200 year old diverse tradition had not spread both good and bad ideas at times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do we need to worry about atheism taught in universities as a default platform for ethics and morality?

Atheism, which offers no moral theory or precepts, takes even less time to teach than creationism.

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am truly saddened when anyone rejects Christ out of hand

What's being rejected is a claim that cannot be supported, not a person or god. You'd have to establish the existence of Christ before we can talk about rejecting Him.

That approach to reality - rational skepticism, or the idea that no idea should be believed without sufficient cause, where sufficient cause is a compelling argument supported by all relevant evidence- has been one of the greatest ideas that man has come up with. It's fruits are uncountable.

Why abandon it now and start believing by faith? How can faith be a path to truth if an idea and its mutually exclusive polar opposite can each be supported to the same degree by faith? Can they both be right? Without an appeal t reason and the physical world, we lost, which is why there are so many religions with so many denominations each making the same claim to the truth, but just one periodic table.

there is hope that you will become a new 'being'

I did that about 35 years ago when I left Christianity. It was not just a good move, it was essential. I found the religion no longer relevant to my life, and its doctrine unbelievable. It would have been spiritual death to remain there - a crime of the highest degree: Sinning against the self (deliberate self-deception). An authentic existence would not have been possible had I tried to cling onto that life given that state of mind.

 

[james bond]

Funny, since most of the really successful examples of communism have been religiously based.

Want to discuss Karl Marx versus which religions where communism is religiously based? Just the mind-body problem (or immaterial vs material) lean towards atheism leads to communism. We have Canada which is a constitutional monarchy run by a parliament that is leftist and socialist leaning, as well as UK and other European countries. We'll have to see if the trend continues going socialist. The US has seen a rise in extreme leftists and anarchists who I have no doubt are communist-minded.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

lots of bad ideas have been spread by Christianity

I made a list a while back:

Horrible Ideas Taught To Christians By Their Church

[1] Christian misanthropy (man is an inherently sick and defective thing that does mostly harm http://i.imgur.com/fn3pN9J.jpg The Atheist Pig : Photo

[2] Christian antiscientism (don't believe or trust scientists)

[3] Christian anti-intellectualism (the wise are fools) http://i.imgur.com/zjV1rgy.png "The Bible Makes You Smart. College Makes You Dumb" www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/02/16/christian-hate-pastor-steven-anderson-the-bible-makes-you-smart-college-makes-you-dumb/

"While the public school system continues to degenerate into a drug-stupid, sex-oriented, illiterate morass of misfit, Marxist clones, the home school movement is producing intelligent, clear-thinking, confident citizens ready to stand in the middle of cascading corruption and declare their allegiance to God and family." http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2015/06/quoting-quiverful l-part-1-failure-to-launch-homeschoolers/

[4] Christian misogyny (the war on reproductive freedom)

[5] Christian atheophobia (unbelievers are morally unfit and infested with demons) The challenges facing atheists in the U.S.

[6] Christian homophobia (gay people are an abomination to the god, and so should be persecuted)

[7] Christian infantilizing (self-actualization is arrogant pride, magical thinking is appropriate, submission and obedience are virtues magic thinking into adulthood, the idea of being constantly babysat by a judgmental, mindreading god)

[8] Christian sexual prudery and guilt (extramarital sex and gay sex are abominable, nudity is shameful ) "Well maybe people tell her she can't keep her legs together because she can't keep her legs together. Sluts bring it on themselves. If they don't want the shame, don't play the game." http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TEGNA8I5JT63/post885889

[9] Christian psychological terrorism (threats of eternal torture beginning in childhood)
http://i.qkme.me/3pt0hw.jpg

[10] Christian alienation from human society ("the world" is a bad place, look away)

[11] Christian contempt for the natural world(matter is inferior, the natural world, which is going to be destroyed in a fiery apocalypse, is inferior to the supernatural)

[12] Christian easy self-forgiveness (cheap and available on demand) "Mike Huckabee called Duggar's molesting of five girls "regrettable," adding that nobody's perfect and that Duggar should be forgiven since he confessed his sins." www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/23/christian-youtuber-sam-rader-says-god-has-forgiven-him-for-his-ashley-madison-account/

Another Christian YouTuber Says God Forgave Him for His Online Affair?

[13] Christian anhedonia/antihedonism (pleasure is bad) "Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep."(Luke 6:25) Christ also promoted a sorrowful attitude by promising salvation to those filled with gloom in this world:"Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh."(Luke 6:21) Galatians 5:21 says those engaging in "revellings" shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Ephesians 5:3-4 proscribes "jesting." Titus 2:2 says men should be "sober" and "grave." James 4:9 admonishes Christians:"Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laugher be turned to mourning and your joy to heaviness. Based on such biblical teachings, Puritans and other Christians often viewed laughter, happiness, and pleasure as suspect and undesirable. Making matters worse, they frequently tried to impose their doleful philosophy on others."

[14] Christian slave ethics (be meek, submit, "turn that other cheek - I'm not done")

[15] Christian exceptionalism (the sense of self-goodness and other-badness that assumes that when A Christian says Merry Christmas, it's an act of good cheer, but when a non-Christian says Happy Holidays, he's a demon waging war on Christmas .)

[16] The revenge and punishment model (the disobedient deserve to suffer even if to no benefit, as in hell or prison)

[17] Christian self-victimhood (the most persecuted majority ever)

[18] Christian xenophobia and tribalism [Deut 18:9-14: "When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations."]

[19] Contempt for animals, who are depicted as soulless meat bags put here to be exploited Ecclesiastes 3:19 “for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile.”

[20] Christian bodily self-loathing - the concept that the soul is a prisoner in an inferior vessel contemptuously called "the flesh," which it struggles to resist until it can be free of it. "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" - Romans 7:24

[21] Christian ingratitude (when somebody does you a favor, you thank your god for sending them) http://i.imgur.com/xeMH9oP.jpg and Outburst flood - Wikipedia

Smoke Detectors Saved the Life of a 109-Year-Old Woman… So, Of Course, She Gave Credit To God

[22] Christian love (defined in terms of blood sacrifice, damnation/torture, scapegoating)

[23] Christian mercy (its model is a god that damns without hope of parole)

[24] People are the property of a god that is free to torture or kill us as it sees fit

[25] Suffering is good, purifying (Mother Teresa: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.").

[26] Christian eschatology (anti-environmental, pro-war, Zionism)

[27] Christian submissiveness (to gods, priests, rulers,and governments, divine command theory)

[28] Christian Gratuitous retribution - inflicting suffering that serves no constructive purpose; "They weren't peaceful in the way they tortured and murdered their victims, their death shouldn't be peaceful, either." http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TEGNA8I5JT63/post885082

[29] Christi anti-American anti-secularism - continual attacks at church-state separation, the lynchpin of secular government's protection from theocracy

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The US has seen a rise in extreme leftists and anarchists who I have no doubt are communist-minded.

It's the rightists you need to keep an eye on. They're robbing you blind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Want to discuss Karl Marx versus which religions where communism is religiously based?

No I don't. Not at all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then I guess it falls to you to show why anyone would have to perceive humanism as the offspring of Christianity. It is a claim that comes out of thin air, far as I am concerned, and just as unjustified as that suggests.

The demographic success of Christianity in certain times and places does not entitle it to claim authorship of everything of any worth that arises in those times and places, you know.

Nicely said.