This is an excellent point that Brian brings up. The principle that he is referring to is what I would sum up in the following statement:

What this principle isolates is every instance where a faith claim is accompanied by a threat of force to compel acceptance. Take for example the Christian doctrine of God and salvation: Man is commanded to accept a supernatural entity as a superior being. If he refuses, or transgresses in any degree, he is told that he will be cast into a lake of fire to burn and suffer forever. This is an example of faith backed up by the threat of force if there ever were one! The typical Christian (perhaps not DavidTietz) says: "Obey God, OR go to hell!"

All faith-based claims have no alternative but eventually to resort to some kind of threat to compel acceptance and obedience. This is because faith-based claims are not based on reason, which does not require any threats or guilt trips to compel acceptance. A claim that is supported by reason (i.e., by evidence) is self-sufficient; either one accept the veracity of the claim as demonstrated by rational means, and gains from it, or he rejects it (usually as a consequence to his rejection of reason as the standard of knowledge, in many cases) and reality itself will reap its consequences on his refusal to follow reason.

Man does not require mythic threats of what happens beyond the grave to seek truth and achieve values. The religionist, who has already rejected reason and rational morality, has no choice but to utter threats in order to compel obedience and conformity to his mythic flights of whim and fancy.

History, both in the past and in the present, as Brian correctly suggests, provides ample evidence of this fact.

You be the judge.

Tindrbox

_________________________________