Are you on team Christian?

[historia]

In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, the noted evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist advocate, talked about how he is a "cultural Christian," and that it would be "truly dreadful" if Islam became dominant in Great Britain and Europe.

He went further to say:

If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I would choose Christianity every single time. I mean, it seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not.

. . .

In so far as Christianity can be seen as a bulwark against Islam, I think it is a very good thing. In Africa, for example, where you have missionaries of both faiths operating, I'm on team Christian's side, as far as that is concerned.

I'm not certain that Muslims actually have missionaries, as such, operating in Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. But it is certainly the case that Muslims and Christians are competing for adherents in Africa, Indonesia, and other countries.

Questions for debate:

(1) Do you agree with Dawkins that Christianity is preferable to Islam?

(2) Do you agree with Dawkins that Christianity is a bulwark against Islam?

(3) If so, do you think that atheists should support Christian missionary activities to limit the spread and influence of Islam?

[TRANSPONDER]

I could not have written it better myself. I have reason to be convinced that the resurrection is not true and therefore the Christian edifice collapses and should not be 'spread' anywhere let alone made the basis for morality, Law and Politics.

For me the other arguments about morality, Christian history and the old Genesis - literaliism debate, much less the irrelevant gaps for god, that do not tell us which god, are beside the point. It is the gospel, and specifically, the resurrection - claim, that is the support for Christianity. If that falls out of the roof, the whole thing comes down.

But of course there has to be darn good reason to suppose the resurrection didn't really happen.

[wkt_1]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

yess

[historia]

I would simply invite you to recall the dark middle ages and shortly after when christianity indeed spread over the world.
Body count of people murdered by christians 100.000.000 IN THE AMERICAS ALONE.

I think most people know that, of the estimated 60-70 million native inhabitants of the Americas who died after European contact, the vast, vast majority did so because of disease, rather than being "murdered" by Christians.

Dawkins lives in UK where muhammaddan hordes in the streets demand shariah law!

Let's keep the bigotry to a minimum, shall we? It's one thing to be critical of Islam and Sharia. It's another to refer to groups of Muslims as "hordes."

At the moment in UK even cultural christianity is preferable to shariah law!

Yes, that's the point of the thread. Not everyone seems to agree, though.

[historia]

I highly doubt that Dawkins would be in favor of this sort of Christianity over and above a version of Islam which attempts to enforce Islam upon all.

I think that's a rather questionable assertion, actually. I would happily grant you that Dawkins wouldn't particularly like either scenario, and no doubt prefers the comfortable Anglicanism of his homeland over American-style Christian nationalism. But, if forced to choose between Christian nationalism and Islamism, I think it's very likely Dawkins would take the former over the latter as the lesser of two evils.

To end, allow me to say, if Christ has not been raised from the dead, then Christianity is a lie, and useless, and should be discarded, no matter how much better one is convinced its effects on society may be . . . . Again, if Christ has not been raised, then Christianity is not at all to be preferred, but rather rejected for the lie that it is.

I can certainly appreciate why you think that, if Christ has not been raised from the dead, then Christianity is based on a "lie." But what's less obvious is why that would then make it "useless," and why that would make it less preferable to Islam, especially if you think that that, too, is based on a "lie." Perhaps you can explain your position further.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to historia in post #0]

I think that's a rather questionable assertion, actually. I would happily grant you that Dawkins wouldn't particularly like either scenario, and no doubt prefers the comfortable Anglicanism of his homeland over American-style Christian nationalism. But, if forced to choose between Christian nationalism and Islamism, I think it's very likely Dawkins would take the former over the latter as the lesser of two evils.

I will absolutely agree that it would have to be questionable, but the only reason it would be questionable, is because we have actually witnessed what Islamism would be like. What we do not know is what Christian nationalism will be like, and therefore, we can only go on what these folks are telling us if they are able to take over by force, which is exactly what they are intending to do. I can tell you that what they are telling us they intend to do, is to force what it is they believe upon the rest of us, and they have already demonstrated that the ends justify any means, and all one has to do to verify this is to take a look at the events of Jan. 6th and the fact that it was Christian nationalists who were behind the events.

My point is, the only reason Dawkins can say he would prefer Christianity over Islam, is because thus far in his lifetime he has not experienced a Christianity which is plainly telling us they want to enforce what it is they believe upon all others, and if he had lived in the time of what is called Christendom, he may well decide that there is not a whole lot of difference between the two. The insane thing is, I have been involved in debates with well-known prominent Christian nationalists who are arguing the same exact thing as Dawkins, by asking all of us, "would we rather continue in this secular democracy, or would we rather live in a society controlled by Christians"? As for myself as a Christian, I tend to agree with Martin Luther who said, "I would rather be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian".

With all the above being said, I will stick by what I have said, and I find it hard to imagine anyone being in disagreement, and that is, if Christ was not raised from the dead, then Christianity is a lie, and should be discarded and it does not matter in the least if it should be preferred over any other religion.

So then, I ask you, if Christ has not been raised, should Christianity be the preferred religion? If Christ has been raised, does any of these other religions even matter? I mean, if we have one who has been raised from the dead, and proclaims to be The King of Kings, and The Lord of Lords, then I would suggest we continue to make the argument of Christ raised from the dead, and if we win this argument there are no other arguments to be made, and if we lose this argument then Christianity should be rejected for the lie that it is, no matter if we all would prefer Christianity to any other religion. I think this is in agreement with the Apostle Paul when he said, "if Christ has not been raised, then we are above all people most to be pitied." In other words, there is no benefit to Christianity at all, if Christ has not been raised.

But what's less obvious is why that would then make it "useless

So? You are really asking me why it would be useless to base one's life upon a lie? Seriously? We have millions, maybe even billions of folks down through the centuries who have based their whole life upon Christ being raised from the dead, and you are saying that if this event did not really take place, then all is okay as long as Christianity had a more positive influence upon society?

and why that would make it less preferable to Islam

I am not in any way saying that Christianity is less preferable to Islam. What I am saying is, Christians are just as sinful as anyone else in the world and have demonstrated this to be the case. Therefore, if there are those who attempt to take over society in order to set up a theocracy based upon their preferred religion, then the only ones who MAY (and I mean MAY) find it more desirable would be those who adhere to that particular religion. This is exactly why our founding fathers here in the U.S. ensured that the government could not in any way establish a preferred religion which means this nation was not in any way founded upon Christianity. Therefore, I would prefer to live in a society which is based upon freedom of religion, or the lack thereof, as opposed to living in a society which is based upon any religion. In other words, I would rather live in a society which is based upon "we the people" as opposed to "we the Christians" or "we the Muslims", and I certainly do not want to live in a society based upon a lie, in which those who adhere to this lie are forcing us all to adhere to this lie.

Allow me to explain it this way. I know for a fact there are Christian nationalists out there who have a lot of power and money, and they are attempting to overthrow our democratic republic as we speak, and I am afraid they just may be able to pull it off. When, and if this occurs, I would love to see how many folks (including Dawkins) who would prefer Christianity to Islam? In fact, I am convinced there will be many Christians who are not going to prefer this.

[historia]

My point is, the only reason Dawkins can say he would prefer Christianity over Islam, is because thus far in his lifetime he has not experienced a Christianity which is plainly telling us they want to enforce what it is they believe upon all others, and if he had lived in the time of what is called Christendom, he may well decide that there is not a whole lot of difference between the two.

. . .

As for myself as a Christian, I tend to agree with Martin Luther who said, "I would rather be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian".

A few thoughts:

First, I don't think we have enough evidence to say, as you have here, that Dawkins hasn't considered what Christianity was like in the past in forming his conclusions.

In the interview, he notes, for example, that, in regards to how women are treated, that "Christianity is not great about that, and has had it's problems." But, in his estimation, "there is an active hostility toward women that is promoted by the holy books of Islam." And so, even taking into account how Christianity has been historically, he still prefers it over Islam -- at least on this score.

Second, and more importantly, I think the overarching point you're trying to make here is that there are different forms of Christianity. We should probably point out that there are different forms of Islam, too. If pressed on this point, Dawkins might well prefer a moderate form of (say, sufi-focused) Islam over some extreme form of Christianity. That point is well taken.

Dawkins is, of course, speaking in generalities: In general, he would take Christianity over Islam, especially because the actual (rather than hypothetical) form of national Christianity that exists for him is the Church of England, not some seven-mountains Dominionism or whatever. National churches in Europe and the Americas are not extreme.

Third, and building off that last point, it is not an historical accident that western Europe developed secular governments.

The very notion of a secular government is a Christian idea, first developed, in part, by Augustine, who coined the term 'secular' as we understand it. This is a rather foreign idea to Islam, where religion, law (sharia), and the state are closely linked. Christianity (particularly western Christianity) is more likely to lead to secular governments and secular laws. So, if you prefer that to a 'theocracy', western Christianity is a good religion to prefer.

So then, I ask you, if Christ has not been raised, should Christianity be the preferred religion?

Yes.

If Christ has been raised, does any of these other religions even matter?

With regard to the truth, perhaps not. But as cultural movements that have a real impact in the world, they certainly matter.

But what's less obvious is why that would then make it "useless"

So? You are really asking me why it would be useless to base one's life upon a lie? Seriously? We have millions, maybe even billions of folks down through the centuries who have based their whole life upon Christ being raised from the dead, and you are saying that if this event did not really take place, then all is okay as long as Christianity had a more positive influence upon society?

I don't recall ever saying, if Christ is not raised, "all is okay."

But whether something is true and whether it has utility are two separate questions. An idea or a practice based on a lie -- e.g., a placebo -- can nevertheless have great effect in the world, and so cannot be said to be "useless."

I am not in any way saying that Christianity is less preferable to Islam.

Even if it isn't true? Let's say both Christianity and Islam are not true. If you had to choose, would you take Anglicanism over Salafi Islam as the national religion of your country?

If 'yes', then I think you catch the point Dawkins is making. If your answer is 'no', however, and you think Christianity should just be completely rejected if it's not true, then you might just be paving the way for another religion, like Islam, to take its place.

What I am saying is, Christians are just as sinful as anyone else in the world and have demonstrated this to be the case. Therefore, if there are those who attempt to take over society in order to set up a theocracy based upon their preferred religion, then the only ones who MAY (and I mean MAY) find it more desirable would be those who adhere to that particular religion.

Sure, but the question under consideration in this thread is not whether you find Christianity, Islam, or any other religion "desirable." The question concerns whether you consider one "preferable" over another.

Allow me to explain it this way. I know for a fact there are Christian nationalists out there who have a lot of power and money, and they are attempting to overthrow our democratic republic as we speak, and I am afraid they just may be able to pull it off. When, and if this occurs, I would love to see how many folks (including Dawkins) who would prefer Christianity to Islam? In fact, I am convinced there will be many Christians who are not going to prefer this.

Prefer it to what? To the Islamic State? I think many would, in fact, prefer it to that. To the Islamic Republic of Iran? Probably to that, too. Would they prefer it to a moderate national church along the lines of the Church of England? Almost certainly not.

[nawlens]

There's plenty of evidence that all three of them existed!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to historia in post #36]

First, I don't think we have enough evidence to say, as you have here, that Dawkins hasn't considered what Christianity was like in the past in forming his conclusions.

The first thing I will point out is that I did not say, "Dawkins hasn't considered what Christianity was like in the past". Rather, I said he has not "experienced" it and there is a tremendous difference between considering, as opposed to experiencing. As you have said, Dawkins does not live in America and so he has not experienced American Christianity, and I am telling you that in just a few short months he will not want to ever experience American Christianity, if the Christian nationalists get their way, and the thing is, I believe they may well have the power to actually get their way. These folks have been at this for some 50 years now, all the while the culture becomes ever more immoral as our Churches empty out, and these folks continue to double down on the culture war. Well, I am here to tell you they have had enough, and they are at the point of the ends justifies any means, and as the election becomes ever closer, they are beginning to say the quiet parts out loud.

It started out a few months ago with republicans endorsing Christian nationalism, when in the past they would have denied being Christian nationalists. As the election gets closer, and they know what lies ahead, they are becoming ever bolder. Here is a quote from Jack Posobiec speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference,

“Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on Jan. 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it.”

The first thing you need to notice is the fact that he is acknowledging exactly what Jan. 6th was about. Next, he is plainly, and openly confessing to get rid of our democratic republic. Why is it that they now want to get rid of it? Well, our form of government was just fine as long as the overwhelming majority of folks were Christian and they could rule and reign, but democracy must go when it does not allow these Christians to get their way. What do these folks want to replace our democracy? You guessed it! That would be their idea of a theocracy.

But it is continuing to get even worse. Kevin Roberts, who is the president of the Heritage Foundation, who came up with what is called, "project 2025" had this to say.

"We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be”

In other words, as long as "the left" lays down and does not attempt to stop us, it will remain bloodless. Are you still thinking Dawkins would prefer Christianity to Islam? What would be the difference? These folks are talking about some sort of "Christian Prince" who will unashamedly enforce Christian law as they see it. I really hope that I am not correct, but I am afraid they may well have the power to do exactly what they intend. These folks are not playing around. They are serious, and they are serious when they tell you that they intend to do away with the form of government we now have.

In the interview, he notes, for example, that, in regards to how women are treated, that "Christianity is not great about that, and has had it's problems."

It sure does have its problems, but this is nothing compared to what these folks have in mind for anyone who gets in their way. Remember, it will remain bloodless as long as the left allows it. What do you imagine is going to happen to the alphabet folks, those who commit adultery, abortionists, etc.?

The very notion of a secular government is a Christian idea, first developed, in part, by Augustine, who coined the term 'secular' as we understand it.

I agree, and as far as the United States is concerned, I would say, it was a Christian society whose standard was the Bible, which gave us the Constitution, and this Christian society whose standard was the Bible prohibited the federal government from establishing any religion at all as the national religion, but rather left this to the individual. This Christian society whose standard was the Bible understood very well how fragile this experiment would be, and what we are seeing is that it is Christians who are the threat now to this experiment. I mean think about it. For the last fifty years, these same Christians have been warning us of all the things which are a threat to our United States. Things such as homosexuality, pornography, drugs, taking God out of schools, abortion, etc. However, what we are seeing is, these Christian nationalists are demonstrating that all these other things were a threat to our United States, because if these sorts of things were allowed to continue then it would be Christians who will end our society as we know it, by any means necessary.

With regard to the truth, perhaps not. But as cultural movements that have a real impact in the world, they certainly matter.

Yes they do, and Christianity has been used to create much good in society, but it has also been used to create atrocity. As an example, most folks believe that Christianity has had a positive impact in America, as well as on their own personal lives. However, I wonder if these folks mind would change if they were one of the slaves in the south? I really do not wonder at all but am certain they would have a change of mind. I mean, just think about the fact that we had humans whose whole life experience was that of a slave, and it was defended in the name of Christianity. What exactly would you be thinking right now if you knew that in just a few lifetimes ago, you had ancestors whose whole life was nothing but slavery.

So, while I will agree that Christianity has had very positive influences on society, and maybe even had a far more positive influence than Islam, there have been many, many folks who have suffered, whose whole life has been ruined in the name of Christianity. I mean, just look at many here on this site. Most all the unbelievers on this site were at one time convinced Christians, who were exposed to some form of high control religion, which has ruined the life of these folks. We as Christians have allowed this type of high control Christianity to flourish here in the U.S. which has ruined the life and eternity of many. This is a reality my friend, which cannot be denied.

I think we can sum up some of the rest of your comments with this,

If 'yes', then I think you catch the point Dawkins is making. If your answer is 'no', however, and you think Christianity should just be completely rejected if it's not true, then you might just be paving the way for another religion, like Islam, to take its place.

What you seem to be saying here is, if I could absolutely demonstrate that Christ was not raised from the dead, then I should keep this information to myself in order to prevent another religion from taking over? Surely this is not what you are saying?

Sure, but the question under consideration in this thread is not whether you find Christianity, Islam, or any other religion "desirable." The question concerns whether you consider one "preferable" over another.

This would be a very subjective question and the results would vary depending on each individuals experience with said religion.

Prefer it to what? To the Islamic State? I think many would, in fact, prefer it to that. To the Islamic Republic of Iran? Probably to that, too. Would they prefer it to a moderate national church along the lines of the Church of England? Almost certainly not.

My friend, I do not believe you are understanding what these Christian nationalists intend to do. They intend to not only take over this country, but also take over the lives of individuals all in the name of Christianity. You need to pay attention because these folks are serious, and if they are successful, I am thinking the only difference between the Islamic state, and the Christian state is going to be the religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course not, when all three of them probably never existed!

Then neither did Christopher Columbus, Julius Caesar, or Gengish Khan.

Additionally we got a good possibility that Paul never existed!

That has been claimed. And half of his letters are reckoned spurious. But I have a tweak that is known, but people seem as distrustful of it as 'negative evidence'. It is the principle of embarrassment, and it has the exemplification of this case - If Jesus was not really a Galilean, why would a made - up figure be said to be a galilean?

The nativities had to be made up to make Jesus born in Judea, as an invented Jesus would have been. Similarly, why invent a Jesus that is not stoned by the sanhedrin but crucidied by the Romans, so the writers jump through hoops to somehow blame it on the Jews.

So I reckon Jesus is real, but is not the Christian character, which is invented by Christian writers.

Same with Paul. U If Paul was invented, he would not be the self - damning character we see in the letters. I have said "You couyld not make him up". I mean it, Paul has to be real, a flawed, self serving but self debunking character.

And if Paul is real, the disciples are real - though i suspect they are nore Jesus family group, doubled in number, than the neat twelve.

And if the disciples were real, I reckon Jesus was real, too.

[Purple Knight]

I don't accept that 1) we have to choose between Christianity and Islam nor 2) that even in such a case we should choose the one with the nastier beliefs because it happens to have the nicer followers.

Muslims don't think everyone is evil or sinful. Even the 72 virgins thing shows they think human beings are capable of legitimately earning Paradise through good works. Christians don't think you can do ANYTHING that overcomes your inherent sinful nature. Even in the case that this were true, it's an awful, evil starting point to foist on people. "You can never be good enough," is practically the definition of emotional abuse.

As an atheist, I'm not picking the religion I would like forced on me, because I can't change what I believe or don't, in my heart.

I am picking the religion I would like to be surrounded by.

And I can't in good conscience pick a religion that I feel abuses their own flock, because they're nicer to me. That's unbearably selfish.

I pick Muslims.